Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0163.000 1996-1998 +tV OF MI w.- Wu . ~ OF N~' COLII~j`I'Y COLIJ~CIL COUNT`r ~~~_RK County of Hawaii COUNTY OF HAWAII February 14 1997 Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 To: Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Chair Committee on Planning From: Cheryl Sumida (~y Legislative Auditor Assistant Re: The Zoning Condition Relating to Fair Share Contribution To the best of my recollection, this fair share contribution condition in zoning bills was first implemented in 1992 during the Council's consideration of the zoning request for Kohala Joint Venture which reclassified approximately 1,288 acres of land from A-20a to RS-2Q CV-1Q RM-4 and Open zoned districts. This condition was extracted and expanded from another condition (Condition Q) which required the applicant to work with the Depaztments of Health, Transportation, Police, Fire, Parks, Public Works, Education and Planning to provide its pro rata share for emergency medical, health, roads, police, fire, parks, solid waste and school facilities. During the deliberation of this zoning request, the applicant expressed concerns to Condition Q which left total discretion and determination of the "pro rata share" to the depaztments. The Council, the applicant and the community would not know what would be required by the applicant to address impacts of the project. The Council agreed that codification of the assessments, including crediting against applicable improvements, would make it cleaz to those affected. The fair shaze contribution methodology was based on the County's 1990 Impact Fee Technical Report, dated August 1990, which provided a breakdown for pazks, solid waste, police, fire, and roads. The Council has recognized that the fair share calculations may need to be updated to current trends. Language was also included which required that the fair share contribution become due and payable in the event that the applicant conveyed ownership, leasehold, or controlling development interest in the land prior to subdivision or plan approval. This language was later deleted from other zoning bills because it may be considered as unconstitutional and could be legally challenged. This fair shaze condition was required only on larger residential and resort developments including agricultural developments zoned for one acre lot sizes. The justification of the Council at the time was that, in most cases, one acre lots were considered more urban in character than agricultural and it would be more difficult to establish a bona fide agricultural activity. Two acre Comm Dia~. FYIe I(o. /{CG t>:~t. fE6 1 8 1997, Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Chair February 14, 1997 Page 2 lots and larger were considered more reasonable for agricultural activity and in keeping with the goals, policies and standards of the County's General Plan. Commercial developments were also exempted from this condition because the Council felt that commercial developments provided economic stability and the impacts for services would be considerably less. The previous Council felt that all developments, large or small, should be treated equally and this condition should be consistently applied to all residential development, including agricultural lots of one acre or less. With exception, recent zoning requests in the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision which have proposed subdivision of agricultural parcels of 3, 5, and 10 acres in size, have this fair share condition which was included at the request of the applicant. This was mainly due to the state's requirement for improvements at the intersection of the Hawaii Belt Road and the Kaloko Drive. There have been other agricultural rezonings which have this fair share condition as requested by the applicant. The applicants felt that it was more realistic and feasible to pay a fair share assessment rather than providing for the actual improvements which would be of no benefit to the public and cost prohibitive.