People class divisions through zoning.

[Wao nahele kane]

Kapohocat,

You hit the nail square on the head. I was building those Mc Mansions out here in Hawaii, know what we put in them (just as you do) and they are things that many regular people want and can also afford in their houses (but are restricted from doing so). The fact that zoning is inappropriately applied to give the wealthy greater latitudes of living arrangements with less restrictions while suppressing those choices to the less fortunate financially is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. Zoning was not created nor intended to be used in such an irresponsible manner. When I was building in Washington state, the McMansions were not given any extra latitude through zoning, however, simple things such as attached MIL’s are allowable in every applicable residential zone (cottage home zones perhaps not because the density is too great to begin with). There are no inappropriately applied zones, the same rules applied in the wealthy subdivisions as were applied to spec home subdivisions regardless of average lot size.

So, attached or detached Ohanas (secondary full living quarters) should be allowable in any zones unless not feasible by lot size. Deep swimming/infinity pools without view obstructing fences should be allowable in any zone (if it can be done in the hotel zone home… then it should be applicable to any home, the safety argument is made null and void by virtue of the imbalanced application in zoning rules for homes). The list goes on…

The issue extends into the area that Rob has pointed out too, each is as seriously flawed and bad for the community as a whole. None of which is acceptable zoning/building practice.


E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.

[PaulW]

I agree with Rob, the zoning problems on the East Side are far more grievous than what a few rich folk are doing on the West side. If they're going to clean up the discrepancies, start here. And, as KathyH pointed out, at least the circumventions on the Kona side are helping the economy. That can wait.

[DanielP]

Not that I am opposed to more ohanas being allowed; I am not. However, it would potentially raise the overall population density where infrastructure is already meager, not even including the traffic issue.

From the armchair, Dan

P.S. I believe that the traffic circulation issue should be top priority for Puna.

[Wao nahele kane]

PaulW,
My point is the inequity (as Rob put it) within the zoning and with zone designations. Meaning when it comes to homes, regardless of the zone, there needs to be uniform sound application. On the same hand, the zones in and of themselves need to be assigned correctly here in Puna. Some of this applies to every district in the COH when the Zone rule is modified and made uniform and some of it applies to Puna only with regard to changing existing zones to other zones. It’s not about stopping what’s going on over on the Kona side. It’s about rectifying inequities all together.


E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.

[Ed Smay]

quote:

---

[
Keep it Hawaii and keep it civil and all is well.

Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator

---

And keep it Puna!

"From knowledge comes understanding"

[PaulW]

Agreed, there should be consistency. I'm more concerned about where it impacts the rest of us, instead of trying to put a stop to where it benefits the wealthy.

PS Ed - it's Keep it Hawaii, not necessarily Puna.

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane

On the same hand, the zones in and of themselves need to be assigned correctly here in Puna. Some of this applies to every district in the COH when the Zone rule is modified and made uniform and some of it applies to Puna only with regard to changing existing zones to other zones. It’s not about stopping what’s going on over on the Kona side. It’s about rectifying inequities all together.

---

Let me make this statement and I'll shut up from here on out as this is a battle for the local residents:

Regarding these so called inequities. Puna has over 2,000 acres designated for commercial development within subdivisions located in the Puna District. Although they may currently have an AG designation, the development plans for those sub divisions clearly indicated that they can be used for commercial development. So, is it the fault or interference of the County that they remain AG zoned, or is it the fault of the owners who have chosen not to rezone by right the property from AG to commercial? The County is being blamed for the refusal of the property owners to request the change. This is not limited to just HPP. Many other subdivisions have similar development master plans that were approved when these subdivisions were formed. There is no less than 5 Resolutions that reaffirmed that the County has accepted these initial development plans as what will be rezoned.

I would think that within the halls of County government, they know full well the amount of land that has approved commercial development possibilities. The fact that they are not encouraging owners to rezone does not negate the fact that it can be if requested. I see someday when this comes to a battle, they will pull out all those maps and plans and wave it in the people's face and rightfully claim that it is not the County government hindering commercial development but the people who have chosen not to develop commercial opportunities. How far will that embarrassment set back the battle?

If the right to rezone and develop a property as commercial exist, but the property owner chooses not to do so, how is that any different than if the property was zoned commercial and the property owner still decided not to develop?

You also have properties through out the Puna District that has Residential zoning changes written into their development plans approved by the County, but again, if the property owner has not asked for the change, whose fault is that? Who is really stalling development?

Additionally, you can’t blame inequities in zoning based on what occurs in other Districts if you’re not asking for the same consideration. It’s not the job of the County to say that because North Kona has done this, or Hamakua has done that, you need to do the same thing to be equitable. The responsibility is on the people and property owners to request the same consideration. But if you don’t ask, whose fault is that? And, keep in mind that just because you don’t have similar things happening does not mean it can’t happen. If there is property zoned “V”, they can propose similar style development as happened over there. Just because they choose not to do it, does not mean they can’t.

This should not be confused with people asking for the ability to do things on property that never was intended for that purpose. The County has a legitimate responsibility to ensure that if development plans exist with designated commercial zoning, that any development occurs within the designated lots. If an area or subdivision has approved development lots that are the property a person needs to obtain so they can proceed with what they want. To just buy any lot and start complaining that they can’t get what they want, is absurd.

Finally, although the County has not lifted a single finger to educate people and they have sent out enough signals that they are against any development, that by itself does not mean the rights to develop does not exist. The County can say all they want but the true test is how they ACT. If they deny rezoning when a development right already existed, they are obstructing. But if you never put them in the position to ACT, all you have is inaction based on fear. The inequities are not from the county government but rather, often self imposed by the property owners on themselves.

Just my last thoughts on this.

[Kapohocat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Tucker...
And R zoned lot in Hilo must be 10,000 sf for an Ohana. An acre lot in Puna doesn't have the same opportunity....

---

Actually even if zoned R and over 10K SF you still may not be able to get an Ohana permit if the DWS is involved and has issues with increase of population density as it relates to water supply.

[Rob Tucker]

I am speaking generally. There are always pecky details. Have rarely heard of water supply denying an ODU. There are also specific ODU set back requirements..... But the baseline is a 10,000 sf R zoned lot.

[missydog1]

Question: wasn't there resort zoning existing in Kalapana, and wasn't there at one time a proposal for a large resort there? It was covered by lava. It seems to me that the only reason Puna doesn't have its own Hualalai is that no one sane would invest that kind of money developing land that is so likely to be inundated. And yes, I do know that when Hualalai goes off again, it will seem insane in retrospect that so much money was poured into the areas that it will zap. A lot of people think that the hot spot has moved south and that Hualalai is done. Right or wrong about that, Kilauea is so evidently alive that it can't be ignored, and so the sunny oceanfront of Puna does not have a big hotel surrounded by condos and villas. Also it lost the resort-worthy black sand beach. But that is a lot of what protects it from the same issues.