Comments Submitted Online or by Email

Home

Draft Hamakua CDP Comments Submitted Online or by Email During the March 15 — June 15 2o16 Review of the Draft Hamakua CDP 3) Our request to make the "de facto Rural" uses (created prior to statehood) for the 3 Laupahoehoe homestead lands, permanent by changing the zoning from Agriculture to Rural zoning for these homesteads. We would like to meet with you, when convenient, to discuss items 1 and 3 as you suggested in your email. In addition to the June 1 comments about keeping our property designated as Low Density Urban, I would like to note that urban uses extend to the church on Kihalani Homestead Road which is a commercial use (see parcel outlined in red below; TMK 3-5-004-082). The church is the logical buffer between Low Density Urban (or Rural based on the zoning we are requesting) and Agricultural. With regard to the County's use of the terms "Important Agriculture Lands" and "IAL", Planning stated at the 5-25-16 meeting that no COH procedures for selecting parcels for submission to the State Land Use Commission have been established. In the meantime Planning stated that "County IAL" only means current county zoning. Regardless, policies and issues about IAL are part of both the GP and the CDP. The IAL materials in the GP and CDP are not limited to "County IAL... i.e. zoning only" as discussed at the 5-25-16 meeting: but refer to State statutes and policies as well. Examples include 4.3.2 of the draft CDP "existing policy"; 4.3.3 Land Use Policy 4.3.3 "development and construction in Important Agricultural Land shall be limited to agriculture; and in the CDP rationale 4.3 that says "the [LUPAG"] designates agricultural lands in the Hamakua Planning Area to be preserved for agriculture and open space". This is State IAL wording. Also, these County IAL policies are worded as current, binding policy (in the case of the GP already binding; and in the case of the CDP, binding when approved by the Planning Commission and the County Council). For instance, Policy 4.3.3 would become law and be binding on landowners upon approval of the CDP regardless of the fact that there is no County process under way to identify IAL designation to the LUC. As I understand, at this time the State and LUC pre-empt County law on the subject of IAL. The County cannot legislate about the same IAL policies in State law without the LUC's and State's permission. Also there is no State statute listing IAL land uses; and the LUC has not confirmed any of the county lands IAL under the County Mandatory Designation program. This situation puts landowners in a confusing situation. Should a landowner conclude that State IAL is already in force by virtue of the 2005 GP and may be further in force when the CDP is approved? Would a landowner who disagrees with a County IAL thus be subject to some kind of statute of limitation? Is the County ready to issue a binding opinion about whether a particular parcel qualifies for list as State IAL now? Or are the County IAL provisions intended to become binding only when the State completes its IAL process (even if the GP and CDP do not specifically say so)? So my suggestion is that: Draft Hamakua CDP hamakua@hawaiicounty.gov www.hamakuacdp.info