HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0211.024 2004-2006 Robello, Alfred
From: J. C. Tyler III [jct3kona~hawaii.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 9:56 AM
To: County Council Tx
Subject: Bill 80 (6/14/05 Planning Committee)
Aloha Co-Chairs Hoffman 8 Pilago and Members of the Planning Committee:
I have reviewed the subject bill, including a proposed draft 2, and
have some observations for your consideration:
I. Lands classified and/or zoned for agriculture should be used
primarily for such, as the Constitution and State statutes mandate.
II. The County should not place further restrictions on the size of a
farm dwelling. A person's home is their castle, whether it be 800 or
8,000 square feet. The size of the dwelling is not necessarily
indicative of its farm use. Furthermore, there is no correlation of the
dwelling size with the overall size of the property or the portion
actually in agriculture. Finally, what is the purpose for this? After
all, if someone is doing bonafide ag on the property, why should the
County be concerned about the specific size of the house (assuming, of
course, it otherwise meets the code), especially since, the larger it
is, the higher the assessment, and the higher the tax revenue?
III. Gated subdivisions are not conductive to community building.
However, whether a roadway may have a gated or limited access seems to
be a direct function of who owns, maintains and assumes liability for
the roadway itself. If it is the County, then there should be no gate
or other limited access, unless, for some reason, public safety
dictates it. If it is privately held, then it seems to be at the
discretion of the owners, unless, again, public safety dictates
otherwise. The County seems unable to properly maintain its existing
roadway inventory, especially those roads which the State turned over
to it many years ago. Besides the public safety issues mentioned, why
would the county want to take over the liability for more roads, in
particular, those whose owners elect to handle maintenance and assume
liability for themselves? What is magic about "more than four lots"
which should dictate unrestricted access? If public access to the
shoreline/mountain areas is the problem, then those should be
specifically addressed in accordance with the law. If existing law is
insufficient to protect these rights, then amend those laws would seem
to be in order.
IV. The proposal to prohibit subdivision of ag lands "without proof
that sufficient water will be available to support agricultural
operations" has merit, but how will it be correlated with the specific
type of operation? Will the rule making afford this opportunity?
V. In general, draft 2 is an improvement over draft 1. However, under
Section 2: Section 23-23(b)(2), what about just "golf courses" or
"lodges" without lots for other residential use? Perhaps some further
clarification is needed.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my thoughts and for your
careful consideration of them.
Curtis Ciatlf-tl~. ~ . Z7
J. Curtis Tyler III Ref. To:Pfb ~i _
Raf Da+e .IIIN~QS
t
Robello, Alfred
From: J. C. Tyler III [jct3kona@hawaii.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 9:15 AM
To: County Council Tx
Subject: Bill 80 (6/14/05 Planning Committee) ~1;; r'~ ~ ,
f_~.d ~~:d I l
Aloha Co-Chairs Hoffman & Pilago and members of the Planning Committee: ~
+:C
I have reviewed the subject bill, including a proposed draft 2, and
have some observations for your consideration:
I. Lands classified and/or zoned for agriculture should be used
primarily for such, as the Constitution and State statutes mandate.
II. The County should not place further restrictions on the size of a
farm dwelling. A person's home is their castle, whether it be 800 or
8,000 square feet. The size of the dwelling is not necessarily
indicative of its farm use. Furthermore, there is no correlation of the
dwelling size with the overall size of the property or the portion
actually in agriculture.
III. Gated subdivisions are not conductive to community building.
However, whether a roadway may have a gated or limited access seems to
be a direct function of who owns, maintains and assumes liability for
the roadway itself. If it is the County, then there should be no gate
or other limited access, unless, for some reason, public safety
dictates it. If it is privately held, then it seems to be at the
discretion of the owners, again, unless public safety dictates
otherwise.
II. In general, draft 2 is an improvement over draft 1. However, there
are some provisions in both which concern me. Under Section 2: Section
23-23(b):
(2) what about just "golf courses" or "lodges" without lots for other
residential use. Also my understanding is that State law (HRS 205)
currently precludes any residential use except a farm dwelling used in
conjunction with the production of agriculture on the premises.
1