HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0370.005 2002-2004 Miv or hu '
4~ L~ 'y
Harry Kim ~ Dixie Kaetsu
Mayor ~ ~-rr Managing Director
is
~ .!.J
r r:\~
hr~ o~.~'~' ' 03 DEC 1 m Peer L. Hendricks
9 PI I ~ gfg,ty Managing Director
QCourttp of ~abnai`i (+coin, ; i
2S Aupuni Street, Room 215 Hilq Hawaii 96720-4252 • (808) 961-82'HQ~~~>3~A8)9fj~-6~$3~I~r~~~ll
KONA: 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Sui[e 103 • Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740
(808)329-5226 Fax (808)326-5663
December 17, 2003
James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Council Members
Hawaii County Council
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
RE: Veto of Bill 159, Draft 2
Dear Chairman Arakaki and Council Members,
I have reviewed the attached bill and after conferring with Planning Director, Chris Yuen and
staff, I have decided to veto bill 159, Draft 2.
The original version of Bill 159, as approved by the Planning Commission, included a
condition of approval of the State Land Use Boundary amendment. The condition stated that:
A. The approximately 8-acre portion of the property in the State Land Use Agricultural
district shall not be reclassified into the Urban district for 5 years, unless the state land use
law is amended to change the rule that amendments of more than 15 acres must be
approved by the Land Use Commission. The applicant shall include a restrictive covenant
in the deed which states that.
The final version of Bill 159 omits this condition. This condition comports with the spirit of
law as codified in the Hawaii Revised Statutes. Section 205-3.1(a) of the HRS provides that
amendments involving land areas greater than fifteen acres shall be processed by the land use
commission pursuant to Section 205-4, HRS. Only amendments involving land areas of
fifteen acres or less, except in conservation districts, shall be determined by the county
pursuant to HRS Section 205-3.1(c). Since this particular reclassification of fifteen acres is
part of a larger parcel of 23 acres, it seems reasonable to include a limitation upon the
reclassification of the remainder parcel to avoid the appearance of parceling to avoid the
requirements of state law. While the bill as passed may comport with the "letter" of the law, I
believe that it is important that we also comply with the "spirit" of the law. I urge the Council
to rethink their position on this bill and include the original condition "A" as passed by the .
Planning C mmission.
~ "
arry Ktm- Comm. No. 3 7~•S
MAYOR Ref. To: