Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0039.002 1996-1998 r .1 YY of N aJ~.~ ~••~,~1 4:i _ ~\~~r~•~ Y~ 1rE O+F+M'~' '97 JflPd 7 A(~ 8 29 COLI1~[`rY COLI1~jCIL County of Hawaii C~(JNT( ~~r';=~1~ January 7, 1997 Hawaii County Buildin~OUNTY OF~ ~~-{gWgl~ 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 To: J. Curtis Tyler, III Council Member From: Cheryl Sumida, Legislative Auditor Assistant Re: Response to C.J. Villa's requests to amend General Plan amendments My comments, in response to Mr. Villa's request to amend the General Plan LUPAG map to redesignate the entire land divisions of Onouli and Keopuka, makai of the Mamalahoa Highway, from "Open Area" and "Extensive Agriculture" to "Conservation", are as follows: I . [f the Council desires to amend the General Plan LUPAG map per Mr. Villa's request, atwo-thirds vote of the entire Council's membership is required to initiate such an amendment. During the boundary review proceedings that the State Office of State Planning conducted pursuant to Section 205-18, HRS, which included the reclassification of certain lands to the Conservation District, it was felt at the time that such State actions violate the Lucas ruling. The majority's opinion of the Supreme Court stated that compensation was warranted when: "...regulations that leave the owner of land without economically beneficial or productive options for its use - typically, as here, by requiring land to be left substantially in its natural state -carry with them a heightened risk that private property is being pressed into some form of public service under the guise of mitigating serious public harm." 2. The lands affected belong to owners of properties who may not wish to have their lands redesignated to the Conservation District which is regulated by the State. If such land owners took title to their property with the knowledge that their enjoyment and use of their property are decreased, it may be challenged as a regulatory taking. 3. More information should be provided by Mr. Villa, such as a map of the ahupuaa and the affected properties and owners. , D coma. ],Io._--~ H'lI® xa. PLG dot Presented PL 7 1997 Ref. Date ~ J. Curtis Tyler, III January 7, 1997 Page 2 In response to Mr. Villa's request to amend the General Plan, Section 4, "Goals, Policies and Standards", Section M(8), "Land Use, Public Lands" by adding that "Any public right-of- way protected as a State public trail by Chapter 264 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, shall be further protected by a 200-foot wide buffer zone for the entire length of the trail. The land use designation for the trail and the buffer zone shall be Conservation". My comments are as follows: 1. The same comment relating to a regulatory taking of land by either the State or the County, whichever is applicable, is also echoed. Unless the trail was created by or dedicated to the County, the trail shall be under the jurisdiction of the State Board of Land and Natural Resources. To further require a 200-foot wide buffer for the entire length of the trail is a rather unreasonable broad brush requirement involving a substantial amount of land, even if it may be on one side of the trail. 2. Mr. Villa's request may be more appropriate as an amendment to Chapter 264 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. 3. An inventory of those trails protected in Chapter 264, Hawaii Revised Statutes, should be made available to analyze the impact of the proposed amendments. Also affected properties and owners. 4. Comments should be solicited from the Department of Land and Natural Resources relating to the aforementioned issues. For your information, the following procedure for interim general plan amendments initiated by the Council is as follows: 1. General Plan amendments may be initiated by the Council upon a resolution adopted by two-thirds of its entire membership. Through the resolution, the Council requests the Planning Director or qualified body to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of the proposed general plan amendment. 2. The Planning Director or the qualified body shall have one hundred and eighty days or longer to submit a completed study to the Council. 3. Upon receipt of the feasibility study, the Council shall have sixty days to review and act on the study. Upon two-thirds vote of the entire membership of the Council, the Council may direct the Planning Director to initiate the proposed general plan amendment. J. Curtis Tyler, III January 7, 1997 Page 3 4. The Planning Director shall then initiate the proposed general plan amendment to the Planning Commission, who shall hold a public hearing on the amendment within sixty days of the date of the Planning Director's recommendation. The Planning Commission shall then forward its comments and recommendation to the Council. 5. The Council may, within thirty days, consider the proposed general plan amendment upon atwo-thirds vote of the entire membership. If the petition is not considered by the Council within the thirty-day period, the Planning Director shall certify the proposed amendment to be officially denied.