|
Now, let me just say this so that we can all be aware of what the Planning Department is trying to
<br />do. The Planning Department is not sending up a new bill right now, okay? It was posed with the
<br />question whether or not we should, you know, look at this bill, change it, and send up a new bill.
<br />But we looked at the past and realized that once it gets up to Council, a lot of times they go
<br />through numerous drafts because of changes that occur through public testimony, that it’s better to
<br />try to bring up some alternative language that they can consider and possibly draft up a new
<br />ordinance in relation to all these issues that are being brought up through testimony that we’ve
<br />received through the Commission. I mean, even since we’ve received this and done our
<br />background, we’ve got other issues we’d like to deal with. Lot size is a question that came up;
<br />should we create a minimum lot size, maybe five acres or ten acres? But right now, the way the
<br />Code is, it allows it in certain districts that are small that allow half-acre lots. RA zoning district
<br />allow for half acre. Our current code for ag tourism allows ag tourism on rural zone lots. So
<br />again, that’s a consideration that may minimize some of these issues. I mean, the reason why we
<br />considered that is because a lot of these subdivisions are one-acre, two-acre, three acres in size. If
<br />these agricultural tourism operations are operating there, most likely they are having a significant
<br />impact on the surrounding property owners. So we were thinking maybe five acres might be a
<br />good minimum to consider. Some people may say but that’s unfair, we are zoned Agriculture, we
<br />should be allowed to do that. But again, that’s the reason for the ordinance is to be able to try to
<br />vet this out and create minimum impacts. Anyway, I hope I’ve addressed your questions.
<br />
<br />NOBRIGA: I have a question.
<br />
<br />DARROW: Sure.
<br />
<br />NOBRIGA: Is this on?
<br />
<br />DARROW: I think it’s on.
<br />
<br />NOBRIGA: Do you have any idea, any guesstimate, of how many of these operations are in
<br />progress now?
<br />
<br />DARROW: I, I don’t, I mean, we’ve tried to figure out how many there are, we just have no clue.
<br />We’ve been working with Hawai‘i Agricultural Tourism Agency, HATA, and they informed us
<br />they had, I believe she said 200 members, but I think that’s island-wide, I mean state-wide. As far
<br />as on the island, we are just not sure. I mean a lot of these may not be, they may be doing tourism
<br />and they may be on an agricultural zoned lots but not ag tourism. You know what I mean?
<br />Because, again, they probably, a lot of these guys are just zoning violations; there is no agriculture
<br />on the property. And so that’s the dilemma we are running into is trying to figure out how many
<br />there are, where they are, and the process that would kind of bring them in, you know, because
<br />right now our process isn’t working.
<br />
<br />CHURCH: So the, you know, and I’m not trying to give you a hard time, you guys are doing the
<br />best you can, I understand. But the goal is not, is simply to know, to be able to identify all of
<br />them, I mean, that’s the goal, and not necessarily shut them down or anything, but to know that
<br />they are there, and that they conform to the requirements under the law, which then makes the
<br />entire situation work better. This law doesn’t do this; this ordinance change doesn’t do it. It has
<br />14
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />
<br />
|