My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
PL-SLU-2022-008-PL-REZ-2022-039 06.13.23 K. Counter Opposition Testimony within 48 hrs
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Board Packets
>
2023
>
2023-06-15 Leeward
>
Item #1 Kaupulehu Land, LLC (PL-SLU-2022-000008)
>
Additional Info Provided to Commission for Consideration at 6-15-23 Hearing
>
PL-SLU-2022-008-PL-REZ-2022-039 06.13.23 K. Counter Opposition Testimony within 48 hrs
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2023 7:28:06 AM
Creation date
6/16/2023 7:28:04 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
From: Kristin Counter <br /> To: LPCtestimonv <br /> Subject: Testimony for KAUPULEHU LAND LLC Applications <br /> Date: Tuesday,June 13,2023 2:51:12 PM <br /> My name is Kristin Counter, I live in Waimea, and am writing to oppose the rezoning and state land <br /> use amendment applications proposed by KAUPULEHU LAND LLC. <br /> I understand the committee has a difficult job in balancing individual property rights and requests <br /> with what is best for the community overall. <br /> The applicant continues to push for as many residential lots as possible in the mauka section of the <br /> property. It seems like an attempt to simply maximize a return on investment by having as many <br /> sellable lots as possible on this beautiful agricultural lot. It isn't enough to pave it into a 3 parcel, <br /> 19,000 square foot commercial subdivision with parking lot, the applicant is also seeking to <br /> completely chop up the back 3 acres as well. I don't see why both have to be approved. <br /> This committee had concerns about the previous application and the attempt to rezone the mauka <br /> portion to Urban, which allowed for six RS-10 parcels. The applicant has simply swapped that for a <br /> Rural rezoning for five RA-.05 parcels. Rural sounds better than Urban on paper, but aside from <br /> dropping one of the lots, it is the same effort to maximize development of the parcel. <br /> The image below shows the subject parcel (red star) is completely surrounded by Ag-5 or larger <br /> parcels. By allowing the mauka portion to be converted from Ag-5 to RA-.05 this committee is <br /> setting a precedent for adjacent and nearby parcels to do the same. <br /> Why should the applicant also be allowed to further chop up the mauka portion of this <br /> agricultural property into 5 parcels?Why not just keep the largest ag lot possible? <br /> Is the committee ready to set that as the precedent for all the surrounding properties? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.