My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0560.032 2002-2004
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2002-2004
>
COM 0560.032 2002-2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2008 9:04:00 PM
Creation date
5/10/2008 1:00:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2002-2004
Communication
0560
Point
032
Author
John & Pamela Lipscomb
Communications - Referred To
PC
Comments
Presented: PC - 10/18/04
Document Relationships
BIL 248 Draft 03 2002-2004
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2002-2004
COM 0560.000 2002-2004
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2002-2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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).
View images
View plain text
10/18/2004 <br /> <br /> To: HA\1JAII COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBERS <br /> Re: UNIVERSITY TERRACE -PROJECT DISTRICT ZONING <br /> My family and I ask you to reject BVestern Life Assurance's request that it be granted <br /> Project District zoning for its University Terrace development. <br /> The developer already has zoning that allows for considerable development and can <br /> come to the Council for changes if it feels, for example, that it would like a few more <br /> acres of commercial space, or additional acres for smaller single-family residential use. <br /> ~1Je are not against responsible development in which the interests of both the developer <br /> and the community are adequately recognized. The University Terrace development, <br /> however, fails several important tests in this regard: <br /> 1. The Common Sense Test: multi-story apartment buildings, 35 acres of commercial <br /> development, hundreds of single and multi-family residential units, and "transient <br /> housing" (hotel?) placed squarely in the middle of an already established neighborhood <br /> that has limited resources and infrastructure. Permitting the negative impacts that a <br /> development of this size, scale and duration will have on drainage, traffic, schools, <br /> established businesses and medical facilities, and the neighboring residential areas quality <br /> of life and property values defies common sense. <br /> 2. The Good Neighbor Test: a "good neighbor" would be concerned about whether his <br /> plans might have a negative impact on his neighbors and the larger community. Again, <br /> given the size, scale and duration of this development, would a "good neighbor" ask for <br /> Project District zoning which effectively gives it permission to do whatever it wants, <br /> wherever it wants, whenever it wants? Or is the Project District zoning simply a way for <br /> the developer to maximize the return on its investment regardless of the long-term <br /> consequences to its neighbors and the broader community? <br /> 3. The Leal Test: Sections 25-6-41 and 25-6-45 of Division 4 (Project Districts) of the <br /> Hawaii County Code reinforce the idea that Project District zoning is really intended for <br /> pioneer developments, such as resorts, in little, or undeveloped areas. For example, <br /> Section 25-6-41 says that Project District zoning may be established only if the proposed <br /> district: "Will not result in a substantial adverse impact upon the surrounding area, <br /> community, or region". And Section 25-6-45 says that the Council may impose <br /> conditions on the use of the property subject to the Project District, provided the Council <br /> finds that the conditions are: "Necessary to prevent circumstances which may be adverse <br /> ~~m~a t <br /> Rif. T®a <br /> Ref. v ~ <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.