Posts: 14,116
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
PMAR can also stand for Puna Mauka Alternative Route
The big difference being that the residents of Volcano are somewhat more organized than those of Lower Puna.
I offer the following suggestion in either case: given the tremendous opposition to a new road (big local landowners, huge expense), maybe it makes more sense to develop those services within the subdivisions?
The necessary rezoning is "just" staff time -- no capital expenditure.
The document recommends improving two roads -- South Lauko Road in Fern Acres and South Oshiro Road in Eden Roc -- and connecting them with other streets that in turn link to Highway 11.
If I recall correctly, the Fern Acres egress construction was estimated at $2M -- compared to a $5M park, or a $300M highway -- and directly benefits the residents of that subdivision. Are they simply not worth the expense?
Posts: 8,464
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
Yeah, yeah, yeah, developing local services is a great idea and needed but will never address the reality of a future with 200,000 people and one highway in and out.
No one has found a legal way to prevent a property owner from occupying their property. The CoH created these 80,000 lots and over time they will fill up.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 1,955
Threads: 100
Joined: Aug 2005
There are ways to use zoning to reduce the numbers some - mostly in non conforming A1 and use tax incentives to balance the takeing. Or in HPP make it so there is only one road fee for joined lots.
Posts: 14,116
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
ways to use zoning to reduce the numbers some
"Transfer of developent rights" is outlined in the 1997 HPP plan.
developing local services is a great idea and needed
...and it might be the only tool we have for the next 20 years:
http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/news/loca...ts-shelved
Without an increase in funding, the state Department of Transportation says it intends to delay new "capacity" projects for as much as 20 years or more.
DOT is interpreting the rules/laws to mean that they must have an indefinite funding commitment before breaking ground on any project -- I assume the real "problem" is that periodic reauthorization of funds creates opportunities for additional scrutiny, which makes it harder to "award bonuses" (or however they spell "kickback" these days).
Posts: 3,204
Threads: 108
Joined: Jun 2010
Waive zoning and permit requirements for small, non-polluting businesses througout Puna. Set some safe-harbor provisions like hours of operation, noise levels, and 'unlicensed establishment' warning signs. Let people create their own wealth, instead of everyone driving to town for jobs.
Call it a rural economic development zone. Let the people do all the work, then claim it as a success in the next election. Win-win!
Posts: 1,858
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2015
quote:
Originally posted by randomq
Waive zoning and permit requirements for small, non-polluting businesses througout Puna.
Let's not and say we did.
Mr. Ruderman's "posturing" explanation due to them not getting the funding $$$ increases this year was great I thought. Now they want to punish the poor people of the big island for not getting those increases.jmo
It may be better this way that the work really hadn't started yet, or some of these projects might have ended up looking similar to this recent Hawaii airport project.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/30895...rt-project
Senator Lorraine Inouye seems to handle these many "developing" situations with plenty of experience, grace, and integrity. jmo
Posts: 14,116
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Waive zoning and permit requirements for small, non-polluting businesses
Check out the "home occupation permit" (in R zoning) requirements: you can't have signage, or any visible tools of the trade, or employees, nor make excessive noise -- basically, maintain the "character" (or "look and feel") of the residential neighborhood.
An "illegal" business would already do these things by necessity, so it's unclear what value is added by the permitting process.
For ag-zoned lands, any non-ag use requires a "special permit", the process for which is expensive and burdensome, but (in theory) applies equally to any non-ag use, including a telecommuter who doesn't post signage, or have employees, or client visits (while also, incidentally, reducing the number of "trips to town" and the congestion these bring).
I think the "standard" should be: if you have a GET license, and the neighbors can't tell you're conducting business, no additional permits should be required.
Now they want to punish the poor people of the big island for not getting those increases.
No. Punishment started when County issued the first building permit in a "private ag subdivision" with no infrastructure. It only gets worse from here.
Posts: 3,204
Threads: 108
Joined: Jun 2010
Nope, we need signs and parking lots, corner stores and restaurants, propane vendors, markets, etc.
What's the legal definition of a farm stand, as we are permitted on our ag lots?
Also, is turning your own lot into a (toll) road a permissible ag use?
Posts: 14,116
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
What's the legal definition of a farm stand
25-5-72(a) The following uses shall be permitted in the A district: (21) Roadside stands for the sale of agricultural products grown on the premises.
The code does not, however, define "roadside stand".
is turning your own lot into a (toll) road a permissible ag use?
Maybe, if such road can be construed as public uses and structures which are necessary for agricultural practices under 25-5-72(a)(18).
|
