Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 009 03/02/2009 2008-2010 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: March 2, 2009 Re: Comm. 95/Bill No. 18 PLACE: Councilroom Ben Franklin Bldg, 2"d Floor 333 Kilauea Avenue Hilo, Hawaii TIME: 2:40 p.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Bill No. 18, reports as follows: Bill No. 18, transmitted via Communication No. 95 from Mayor William P. Kenoi, dated December 23, 2008, presents a Request to Amend the State Land Use Boundaries for the County of Hawaii from Agricultural to Urban by Sonomura Rentals, Inc., covered by Tax Map Key: 2-2-0484:010 and 120. Committee consideration on the matter was postponed from the February 18, 2009 meeting. Bill 18 seeks to amend the State Land Use boundaries maps for the County of Hawaii, changing the district classification from the Agricultural to the Urban District at Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, covered by Tax Map Key 2-2-048:010 and 120. Communication No. 95 reports that the Hawaii County Planning Commission, as required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, considered the above request on December 5, 2008. The Commission concurred with the Planning Director's reasons for recommending favorable consideration of the request. Communication No. 95 transmits the following findings and recommendations: 1. The subject property is located along the west side of Awa Street, approximately 1,300 feet North of the Awa Street-Makalika Street intersection, Panaewa Farm Lots, Waidkea, South Hilo, Hawaii. The current State Land Use designation for the subject property is Agriculture. 2. The reclassification action conforms to the goals, objectives and/or policies articulated in the Hawaii State Plan by encouraging urban growth primarily to existing urban areas where adequate public facilities are available. 3. The property is situated within close proximity to shopping centers, protective services, essential utilities and services and conforms to the Land Use Commission Rules which encourages such developments. PC Report No. 9 Comm. 95 Page 2 of 3 4. Access to the project area will be from Kaokoa Way, a private roadway off Awa Street, with a 20-foot pavement and a 50-foot right of-way. 5. County water is available to the site. The proposed lots will utilize individual wastewater treatment systems meeting with the approval of the Department of Health. All essential utilities are available to the site. County fire stations, police and emergency medical services are available to the site. 6. The Planning Director recommended favorably on this request based on the following: • The proposed reclassification request will conform to the goals, policies and standards of the General Plan Economic and Land Use Elements. • The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map designates this area as Low Density Urban. • The State Land Use designation for the property is Agriculture and the proposed change of classification would complement the existing uses already in the area. • The change of classification request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes relating to Coastal Zone Management as the subject property is not an oceanfront parcel, and will not affect or be affected by shoreline processes. • There are no valued cultural, historical or natural resources that exist on the property and no evidence of any traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights being practiced on the site. It is not anticipated the proposed request will have any adverse impact on cultural or historical resources in the area. Members of the surrounding community appeared before the Committee to testify about this matter. Of the eight people who testified before the Committee, only one spoke in favor of the reclassification. Jerel Yamamoto, a local attorney, stated that he and his parents lived on that land for over 30 years. He stated that he supported this application, so that he in turn would be able to re-classify the family parcel and sub-divide into two parcels. Seven members of the community spoke in opposition to the project. All stated that the area is agricultural and that it should stay that way. They reminded the Committee that agriculture and residential areas don't mix well. The Committee members were reminded that the farmers in close proximity to the project would bear increased liability due to the nature of agriculture, but they were not indemnified. The community members informed the Committee about traffic problems that would be exacerbated, and the lack of proper infrastructure to support the project. All community members present, even those who did not testify, were clearly opposed to the project. PC Report No. 9 Comm. 95 Page 3 of 3 The applicant was represented by Brian Nishimura, Planner. He stated that the area in which the project was sited was zoned Low-Density Urban in the General Plan. He said that he understood the community's desire to preserve the area as agriculture, but that the area was in evolution, and conditions were not the same as they were 50 years ago. He informed the Committee that the area was once zoned Ag-20, and has steadily been down-zoned throughout the years. Mr. Nishimura stated that it was never the intent of the applicant to create ag lots, hence the half- acre designation. Your Committee members spoke strongly in support of the community members who appeared before them, regardless of the community members' position on the project. The Committee members praised the community for taking the time and initiative to come before the Committee to share their feelings. Council Member Guy Enriques stated that the applicant has the right to try to reclassify and/or re-zone the property at any time. Mr. Enriques further stated that he felt that despite that right, now was not the right time for a development in this area. Committee members agreed with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Enriques. Your Committee disagrees with the Planning Commission and the Planning Director's favorable recommendation for approval of the Reclassification request. Your Committee on Planning is not in accord with the purpose and intent of Bill No. 18 and forwards it to Council with a negative recommendation. awm AYES NOES A&E Ex Respectfully submitted, ENRIQUES X FORD X COMMITTEE ON PLANNING GREENWELL X IKEDA HOFFMANN X KEDA X NAEOLE X DONALD IKEDA, CHAIR ONISHI X YAGONG X PC REPORT NO. 9 YOSHIMOTO X ADOPTED: MAR 1 8 7009