Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0980.005 2014-2016 Murashige, Laura From: Albert Nakaji <waltz@hawaiiantel.net> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 11:36 AM To: Council Testimony Subject: Testimony relating to Resolution 592-16 Attachments: DRAFT.doc Attached herewith is my statement relation to Resolution 592-16 Albert A. Nakaji 27-319 Kaieie Road Papaikou, HI 96781 c G7 nOic forntri No; Ref. To: PCS Ref. Date AUG 1 6 2816 1 STATEMENT OF ALBERT A. NAKAJI RELATING TO RESOLUTION 592-16: A RESOLUTION TO POSTPONE COUNCIL ACTION ON REZONING APPLICATIONS IN THE HAMAKUA DISTRICT, WAIPI'O THROUGH KAIWIKI, UNTIL THE HAMAKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE, OR UNTIL JUNE 30, 2017, WHICHEVER SHALL OCCUR FIRST The intent and purpose of the resolution is to provide that the Hamakua Development Plan serve its intended purpose of guiding development in that district. Considerable effort and time has been put into the creation of the Hamakua CDP and, while it has yet to be finalized, the main "guts" and substance of it appears to have been already completed. With a caveat, I am in support of the Resolution 592-16, as I believe development within the district should conform to what has been recognized and expressed with the community. The caveat to my support is in recognition of applications already submitted and processed by the Planning Department, East Hawaii Planning Commission, and awaiting action by the Hawaii County Council. Such applications were made in good faith, without prior knowledge or any existing or forthcoming prohibitions within the process, and to impose a new condition into the planning process changes the rules of the game in mid stream. It is unfair to those applicants, and contrary to the notion that permitting should be predictable and reasonable. Certainly, rezoning applications are not prohibited from undergoing scrutiny and review by the Planning Department and Planning Commissions, and because the time limit stated in this resolution is less than a year, those applications that come in after adoption of this resolution will be much less affected than those ready for Council action. On the other hand, any applications that are within a short time for submission to the Council for consideration will be set back for a year, and it may result in a total process period of two years (assuming Planning Department review and Planning Commission action takes a year). In my view, the essence of the Hamakua CPD is not unreasonable nor irresponsible. Too, it is not particularly egregious to reasonable and responsible development. Rather, it articulates the preferred nature of rural development in a manner that is consistent with the desired character of the area. Certainly, it is not consistent with "rape and pillage" types of development, nor is the Hawaii County General Plan. Consequently, even those rezoning applications that are submitted before the adoption of the Hamakua CDP are subject to certain controls of the General Plan. The Hamakua CDP does provides further clarification and definition to the kinds of proposals that are deemed desirable and otherwise, that the General Plan does not. Thus it is a more precise planning document that should be utilized to the greatest extent. In summary, I am in support of Resolution 592-16, with the provision that applications that will be ready for Council action within the next month or so be exempted. The Resolution supports and promotes the intent and purpose of the Hamakua CDP and is a reasonable course of action for the Council to take.