Zoning question

[StillHope]

AG zone with mostly 7,5-8000 sq ft lots. (Seaview f.e.)
How is it meant to be AG?

1. What actual crop you can gather on that size of a lot
(- house,-septic)?
Pot may be?
Doesn't make any sense..

2. If it's AG land, how come we are not allowed to keep a live stock

(even chickens)?

Doesn't make any sense either...

[Kelena]

These people produce 3 tons of produce on their 1/10 of an acre in Pasadena: http://www.dervaesgardens.com/the-urban-homestead

I've been fascinated by Rob's garden as well and by the variety and number of edibles (plus a few ornamentals) that he has on his lot. So, I think the answer is you can grow stuff there in respectable quantities.

But your point is well taken--Seaview and HPP and other areas zoned agricultural are for the most part residential in use and not agricultural. I advocate a two tier tax system that would reduce property taxes if you can show you produce, or are likely to produce, a given amount of fruits and vegetables on your property, to encourage everyone to do just that.

[robguz]

I think back when lots were $3000, less than 10 years ago, it could have been feasible to grow some crops and buy a lot just for that, maybe your home on an adjacent lot, and make a small income. You can cram a lot of Noni trees on a small lot for example. I don't know that anyone is actually doing that in the neighborhood though. It's my understanding you can have chickens, and some of our neighbors do, and one has two goats. I'm glad it's not like many other neighborhoods where roosters abound.

[Wao nahele kane]

Stillhope,
Are the rules you're citing based on the developments CC&R's or actual county zoning regulations? Typical CC&R's seldom mesh with county zoning regulations.

E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.

[dakine]

somehow... while still in their formative years.. our local governments.. state and county.. in their yet to be developed wisdom found it beneficial to allow the creation of massive subdivisions throughout rural parts of this island.. all of which sidestepped different hurdles to their creation through what today might be considered excessive bending of the rules. if there were any rules to bend at the time. the result was the creation of many subdivisions with little to no infrastructure and zoning that does not reflect the intended purpose of the new land owners as much as the most expedient way to create the subdivisions in the first place. this is a classical example of one generation sticking it to the next in the name of making a few bucks. our governments.. community associations... and utilities have all been playing catchup ever since. tagging these subdivisions as ag seems to have been a standard way of doing things back then. one can guess at the hurdles avoided with that one.

[Rob Tucker]

It is my belief that the developers of these subdivisions were treated favorably, to their profit, by the government and the detriment of the eventual property owners and the district as a whole.

Even today this goes on. Recently the Trib carried an article about how the county has only collected $8 million of $108 million in money, promised by developers, for county infrastructure. Essentially the CoH let $100 million fall through the cracks. And this is while the CoH claims that they would have to reduce services if they don't have access to the $4 million in the Land Preservation Fund. And this in a time of declared financial emergency.

So the beat goes on.

[Bob Orts]

Ah, but the $100 million didn't fall through the cracks, the assessments are illegal under Hawaii law so the CoH can't collect that money. I'm waiting for the CoH to be ordered to refund the $8 million they did collect.

Every developer/investor's consulting firm KNEW the assessments were illegal, so they agreed knowing full well they would never have to pay. Yes, the developers/investors pulled a fast one on the County, but hey, if they have the money and funds to screw the County and taxpayers, that's American business at work. And, I will be honest, if you dissect the entire "Fair Share" fiasco, you'll see the fingerprints of the citizens all over it.

Straight facts are whenever you allow exceptions for one; you are allowing exception for others. If you allow the CoH to grant "exceptions" for public good, you had better understand the actual basis for granting exceptions because someone else (who you may not want) could use those same "standards" for exception to get what they want.

I believe Stillhope, (even thought it may not come across the way people are interpreting it) is raising a Very Important Issue. If people ant to ignore the reality of what she is saying and focus on the “touchy feely” of it, don't get upset when it’s used tactically by developers to get what they want.

[Rob Tucker]

You always have good points to make Bob. Do you have an opinion as to whether the CoH essentially knew ahead of time that "Fair Share" was illegal and unlikely to bring in needed infrastructure money or was the advice of Corporation Counsel at the time simply flawed or ignored?

It would seem that either way the appearance of attending to the public's needs was exceeded by the reality of once again letting the developers do what they want with minimal cost and maximum profit.

[Carey]

My question is: Shouldn't that question be raised BEFORE you buy the land????

If you buy AG, look at the county zoning (or search on this forum, there are a lot of links that will give you the info you are looking for.... even direct links.... I think I even pulled the county link for Stillhope in the past...)

I have moved this here:

This is also one of the problems with the zoning for all of the subdivision of SeaView (and many others). The subdivision is NOT zoned residential, it is agricultural, with all of the non residential uses that are allowed on AG zoned land....

If you buy in an agricultural zoned subdivision, you must also realize that you are NOT buying residential land. Many more things can be done with AG zoned land.... If you are totally wanting a residential community, it is up to YOU to make sure that is what you are/have bought, and that it is not the same...

There are residential subdivisions that are zoned residential, but unfortunately there are also subdivisions that look like residential subdivisions, but are AG zoned... and the residents in these subdivision must realize that they must be more 'flexible' with what is built in their neighborhood...

[StillHope]

I did.And was told that it was just a formality - "we all have it".

I did sign the papers about "no livestock" (on AG land!).
But I haven't seen any disclosure about what could be built next door because of AG zoning.

So with no live stock allowed - what exactly a possible buyer in AG zone with 8000 sq ft lots should be aware(afraid)of?

(I am not being sarcastic,I am really interested in the subject).