My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016.9.2 DOC1 HCDP Summary of Community Input
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Community Development Plans (CDP)
>
Hamakua Community Development Plan
>
Steering Committee
>
Review of Community Input
>
2016.9.2 DOC1 HCDP Summary of Community Input
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/7/2016 1:38:00 PM
Creation date
9/7/2016 1:36:55 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
■ Another way of thinking - instead of Ag vs. <br />Development. [No Change] <br />■ Needing a 1,000 foot buffer zone for beekeepers <br />is also very dubious. Where did this number <br />come from and what is it based on? Do you <br />actually have any data that supports this <br />distance? [Revision: see proposed policy about <br />zoning amendments for agricultural uses. Also <br />note: this commenter seems to have <br />misunderstood a discussion at the Ag Focused <br />Discussion meeting and assumed the CDP sets a <br />buffer zone for beekeeping. However, the 1,000 <br />ft. minimum distance refers to the current <br />County zoning code, not a CDP policy] <br />■ Clearly there are issues between neighbors ' <br />when it comes to honey bee hives. Here's an <br />example. I'll try to find another example from <br />Kauai that was particularly ludicrous and share <br />it with you. We know enough about honey bee <br />behavior to craft sensible regulations. No doubt <br />there need to be buffers, design restrictions, and <br />limits on the numbers of hives permitted where <br />there are denser populations, but the NL <br />regulations should be based on scientific <br />knowledge and not fear. [Revision: see proposed <br />policy about zoning amendments for agricultural <br />uses] 1W <br />■ That people/ developers are made to be <br />compliant with land regulations and building <br />codes in a way that forces them to be compliant <br />(jail if necessary) and not just paltry fines that <br />the developers of multi-million dollar houses <br />find easy to pay but then ignore! Specifically we <br />are referring to the "$24 million dollar" home <br />built by Scott Watson Developers in Ninole. This <br />was built by on a cliff, having 500 seat tennis <br />stadium & helicopter pad. They received fines, <br />but this did not stop the building. [No Change: <br />outside scope of CDP to mandate penalties <br />and/or incarceration for permit violations. ] <br />■ Agrovillages/hoods. [Revision: see revisions to <br />Policy 13 & 14) <br />Clusters closer to towns not out in middle of an <br />Ag area. [Revision: see revisions to Policy 13 & <br />14) <br />eral Aina Comments: <br />■ Building resilience for climate change - <br />reforestation, watershed planning, sustainable <br />agriculture. [No change: see Section 4] <br />■ Environmental fines should be applied - stiff, no <br />recourse. [No Change: outside scope of CDP] <br />■ Climate change considerations included in CDP? <br />Some actions point to need for research - look to <br />partner with UH. Erosion near the singing bridge <br />is a concern - tied to the mowing along roadway. <br />HAMAKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (CDP) I Section 4: Protect and Enhance Natural and <br />Cultural Resources <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.