Laserfiche WebLink
LUPAG Category of "RURAL" would be more <br />appropriate, at least for some of the property, as <br />over one half is in Agricultural use. <br />I/we request that your team review our <br />concerns and revise the Draft CDP accordingly <br />[Continued conversation with commenter:] <br />[The] suggestion/ idea that it might be more <br />appropriate for our parcel to be designated <br />Open along the shoreline and Agricultural on the <br />mauka side, where the six acres of macadamia <br />nut trees are located, is reasonable. That <br />designation then would coincide with what is <br />reality and what has been the land's usage for <br />many years: with no plans/reason to change it. <br />We would view the Agriculture -Open <br />designation favorably and concur with its use in <br />the CDP Proposal document. [SC Deliberatio <br />See proposed revisions that LUPAG Open <br />designations remain consistent with 2005 <br />General Plan] 00411rik <br />This is a CDP comment in addition to the <br />comments dated June 1, previously submitted <br />The following comments are related to: <br />1) Our request to retain our property's LUPAG <br />designation as Low Density Urban; NL <br />2) The IAL LUPAG designation proposed for our <br />property; and <br />3) Our request to make the "de facto Rural" uses <br />(created prior to statehood) for the 3 <br />Laupahoehoe homestead lands, permanent by <br />changing the zoning from Agriculture to Rural <br />zoning for these homesteads. <br />In addition to the June 1 comments about <br />keeping our property designated as Low Density <br />Urban, I would like to note that urban uses <br />extend to the church on Kihalani Homestead <br />Road which is a commercial use (see parcel <br />outlined in red below; TMK 3-5-004-082). <br />The church is the logical buffer between Low <br />Density Urban (or Rural based on the zoning we <br />are requesting) and Agricultural. <br />With regard to the County's use of the terms <br />"Important Agriculture Lands" and "IAL", <br />Planning stated at the 5-25-16 meeting that no <br />COH procedures for selecting parcels for <br />submission to the State Land Use Commission <br />have been established. In the meantime <br />Planning stated that "County IAL" only means <br />current county zoning. <br />Regardless, policies and issues about IAL are part <br />of both the GP and the CDP. The IAL materials in <br />the GP and CDP are not limited to "County <br />IAL... i.e. zoning only" as discussed at the 5-25-16 <br />meeting: but refer to State statutes and policies <br />as well. Examples include 4.3.2 of the draft CDP <br />"existing policy"; 4.3.3 Land Use Policy 4.3.3 <br />"development and construction in Important <br />Agricultural Land shall be limited to agriculture; <br />and in the CDP rationale 4.3 that says "the <br />[LUPAG"] designates agricultural lands in the <br />Hamakua Planning Area to be preserved for <br />agriculture and open space". This is State IAL <br />wording. <br />Also, these County IAL policies are worded as <br />current, binding policy (in the case of the GP <br />already binding; and in the case of the CDP, <br />binding when approved by the Planning <br />Commission and the County Council). For <br />instance, Policy 4.3.3 would become law and be <br />binding on landowners upon approval of the CDP <br />regardless of the fact that there is no County <br />process under way to identify IAL designation to <br />the LUC. As I understand, at this time the State <br />and LUC pre-empt County law on the subject of <br />IAL. The County cannot legislate about the same <br />HAMAKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (CDP) I Section 3: Preferred Land Use & Settlement <br />Patterns <br />