COM 0211.005 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 1 of 4 Murashige, Laura J I B i ~ ~ i From Charles Flaherty [oneheart@aoha.net] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 10:13 AM r' To: oneheart@aloha.net `;,(j~l,,,, Subject: Bill 80 testimony Aloha members of the County Council, I am writing in support of Bill 80 with a request for amendment. Bill 80 in its current form is a bold move in the right direction. Any law which provides better clarification and guidance as to existing law is pono. However, Bill 80 does not help residents or County employees from better understanding of what constitutes "agricultural activities". As a result, the County continues to issue building permits for non-farm dwellings in the State Agricultural Land Use District, a practice that undermines the intent of Bill 80, that is, control of inappropriate speculation within the Ag District. While Bill 80 shores up the dam, there are so many small holes in it that it will still soon wash away. These holes must be plugged. Bill 80 does not require the County Planning Department to proactively determine whether an applicant for a building permit in the Ag District will be farming and/or whether agricultural activities will be the primary use of the property (Third Circuit Court's test). Yes, the Planning Department does request that all permit applicants sign a "First Farm Dwelling Notice', but this is on a strictly volunteer basis. An applicant can refuse to sign the "Notice". Rather than considering this an act of bad faith, the County administration still issues a building permit to the applicant. If the applicant subsequent builds anon-farm dwelling in the State Ag District, the County administration has already publicly stated it has no intention of enforcing HRS 205 to force compliance, despite that the County could assess up to $5,000 every six months until the subject property comes into compliance. The County administration has stated it does not enforce HRS because, again, what constitutes "agricultural activities"? In the Hokuli'a ruling the Third Circuit Court found that allowing the construction of luxury homes on property on which agricultural is not a primary purpose is a violation of HRS 205. Attorney General Opinion 75-8 further clarified HRS 205 for all Counties by stating the law requires the Counties to make a predetermination as to whether agricultural activities will be occurring on a property in the State Ag District. Unscrupulous individuals and privates businesses are using the uncertainty surrounding agricultural activities and the County's admitted lack of enforcement to destroy the State Ag District. Therefore, I would hope the Council will amend Bill 80 to include language that: 1) defines "agricultural activities", 2) insures that the County Planning and Building Departments approve building permits for proven, bona fide farm dwellings only within the State Ag District, 3) requires substantive proof from applicants for building permits within the State Ag District, proof substantial enough to allow the County to subsequently enforce HRS 205 with ease, 4) requires strict zoning enforcement by the County,Planning Department, 5) requires penalties and fees to be assessed for violations and allows penalties and fees to fund Ag zoning enforcement within the Planning Department. 2 Comm. No. Ref. TO: P_ twae~~y~i Ref. Late Nt'ft j, 9 Z~D~ 4/18/2005