HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 060 11/04/2003 2002-2004REPORT OP ~I'HF,
COMMI"CfP.EON PLANNING
DATE: November 4, 2003
PLACE: Councilroom
TIME: 220 p.m.
RE: Comm. No. 370/Bill No. 159
Chair and Members
I lawaii County Council
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Communication No. 370 and Bill No. 159, transmitted
by Mayor Harry Kim, dated October 3, 2003, regarding a State Land Use Boundary Amendment request by
Puna Sugar, LLC, at Keaau, Puna Hawaii, TMK: I-6-3: POR 99 (14.901-acres) reports as follows:
Bill No. 159 seeks to change the State Land Use District Boundaries Map, H-66. by changing the District
Classitication of approximately 14.901-acres ofa 23.626-acre parcel of land from Agricultural to Urban.
Communication No. 370 reports the Hawaii County Planning Commission, as required by the Hawaii
County Charter, Chapter 4, Section 6-43(C), considered the above request and accompanying Bill No. 160
on September 22, 2003. The Commission concurred with the Planning Director's favorable
recommendation on this matter. Communication No. 370, in synopsis, reports the Planning Director's
findings as the following:
l~he approval of the reclassification from the State Land Use Agricultural to the Urban District Ibr
approximately 14.901-acres will not be violative of Section 205 ?, Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised
Statutes.
The approval of the State Land Usc Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to the Urban District
complements the State Land Use District Regulations and is supportive of the State of Hawaii Plan
and the General Plan haled on the following:
I~he reclassitication action will not be inconsistent with the Hawaii Land Use Commission
Rules. as the subject property conlbrms to expressed standards as it is surrounded by existing
Urban designated lands.
The reclassification action will not be inconsistent with the Hawaii State Plan as the action
complements the goals_ objectives and/or policies articulated in the plan by providing future
employment opportunities and improved living standards and stimulating the development and
expansion of economic activities.
~I'hc reclassitication action will not be inconsistent with the County General Plan as the request
conforms to the Economic and band Use goals and policies of the Plan and also conforms to the
General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation C,uide (LUPAG) Map which designates the area as
Industrial.
hhe State of Hawaii ALISH Map classilics the subject property as Prime Agricultural bands and
Unclassified. The Land Use Study Bureau's Overall Master Productivity Rating for the soils in
the area is "C" or "Fair". While the potential for agricultwal uses may exist, the soil conditions
within the site and surrounding area would preclude such. It is also not currently being used for
active agricultural purposes. Therefore. the reclassification of this 14.901-acre area from the
Agricultural to the Urban designation kill not he detrimental to the reduction of this area from
Communication 370
Bill 159
Page 2
the agricultural land inventory in the County of Hawaii.
Also reported in Communication No. 370 is the concern of the State Land Use Commission that the State
band Use Laws may he circumvented by allowing the 14.901-acre portion of the parcel to he redesignated in
the Urban district with the possibility ofthc remaining R.725 acre portion to be redesignated Urban in the
future. "I'o address this concern as part of his recommendation for approval of this request, the Planning
Director included the proviso identilicd as conditirni "A" in Bill 159, which prohibits the remaining 8-acre
portion of the property in the State Land Use Agricultural District from being reclassified into the Urban
District for a period of 5 years.
At today~s meeting_ Planning Director Chris Yucn and Sidney Fuke, representative for Puna Sugar, LLC.
provided this committee with background information about the origins and purpose of Bill No. 159.
Members of this Committee expressed some concern in relation to the applicant's attempt to avoid the State
Land Use Commission. Other Committee members voiced a desire to expand home rule decision-making in
planning matters.
Your Committee concurs with the Planning Commission and the Planning Director's favorable
recommendation for approval of the State Land Boundary Amendment.
Your Conunittee on Planning is in accord with the intent and purpose of Bill No. 159 and recommends it
pass first reading.
nYIfS NOP.S n & IS ISX
n Rn Knlil X
CIIUN(i X
IiI,Al2IONUl'I' X
IIOISCIIUII X
In('O13tiON X
IZI(YNUI.Uti X
SAIARIIi X
"fl ILi1N(i X
rvl.r:a x
Rcspcclfulh,ubmitlcd
1
~i
LENINGRAD ELARIONOFF,cttntHrotnn
PC IZP.PORI NO. 60
nlxll>rr"D: NOV 1 9 2003