To: Planning and Sustainability Land Use Committee (Maui County Council)
From: Stan Riddle, on behalf of the W. Stanley Riddle and Marjorie Riddle Trust,
owners of the real property immediately Mauka of Kamehameha Schools Maui in Lower Kula
Re: Opposition to PSLU-50 Bill 66 (2022) – Draft Digital Zoning Map 4 for Island of Maui
Date: May 25, 2022
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We write to oppose the approval of the draft Digital Zoning Map 4 for the Island of Maui.
My family owns the real property that is immediately Mauka of the Kamehameha Schools Maui campus (our property is on Anuhea Place in Lower Kula, just above Kamehameha Schools). We have owned this property for over forty-five years, and hope to live on that property at some point in the future. There is an open area immediately below our property (on the Kamehameha Schools campus) that likely could be a building site for the school. We are very concerned that increasing the maximum height of a building there to 90 feet would be detrimental to our property and to the upcountry community in general.
We are opposed to the Draft Zoning Map 4 for the following reasons:
1. A 90-foot building height is out of character and not compatible with Upcountry Maui.
a. Upcountry Maui is a rural and agriculturally-oriented community, where low-rise buildings are appropriate. A 90-foot building would be way too tall for this area.
b. The proposed height increase is more than double the current maximum height – this is a huge increase, that should be reconsidered.
2. Changing the zoning from P-1 to P-2 for Upcountry properties is not necessary.
a. P-1 Zoning with the 40-foot height limit is appropriate and has worked well for the upcountry community.
b. Obtaining a variance is not a burden for large property owners.
i. Large, governmental or quasi-governmental owners have the staff, resources and experience to successfully obtain variances, which they have done successfully on multiple occasions in the past.
c. The Variance process protects small community members – the “little guy” from overreach.
i. If the change is from R-2 to P-2 in Kahului, then that may be more appropriate. But changing existing upcountry properties, which are already largely built out, from P-1 to P-2 is not necessary.
Thank you for allowing me to provide this testimony. Please reject the zoning change of upcountry properties from P-1 to P-2.
To: Planning and Sustainability Land Use Committee (Maui County Council)
From: Stan Riddle, on behalf of the W. Stanley Riddle and Marjorie Riddle Trust,
owners of the real property immediately Mauka of Kamehameha Schools Maui in Lower Kula
Re: Opposition to PSLU-50 Bill 66 (2022) – Draft Digital Zoning Map 4 for Island of Maui
Date: May 25, 2022
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We write to oppose the approval of the draft Digital Zoning Map 4 for the Island of Maui.
My family owns the real property that is immediately Mauka of the Kamehameha Schools Maui campus (our property is on Anuhea Place in Lower Kula, just above Kamehameha Schools). We have owned this property for over forty-five years, and hope to live on that property at some point in the future. There is an open area immediately below our property (on the Kamehameha Schools campus) that likely could be a building site for the school. We are very concerned that increasing the maximum height of a building there to 90 feet would be detrimental to our property and to the upcountry community in general.
We are opposed to the Draft Zoning Map 4 for the following reasons:
1. A 90-foot building height is out of character and not compatible with Upcountry Maui.
a. Upcountry Maui is a rural and agriculturally-oriented community, where low-rise buildings are appropriate. A 90-foot building would be way too tall for this area.
b. The proposed height increase is more than double the current maximum height – this is a huge increase, that should be reconsidered.
2. Changing the zoning from P-1 to P-2 for Upcountry properties is not necessary.
a. P-1 Zoning with the 40-foot height limit is appropriate and has worked well for the upcountry community.
b. Obtaining a variance is not a burden for large property owners.
i. Large, governmental or quasi-governmental owners have the staff, resources and experience to successfully obtain variances, which they have done successfully on multiple occasions in the past.
c. The Variance process protects small community members – the “little guy” from overreach.
i. If the change is from R-2 to P-2 in Kahului, then that may be more appropriate. But changing existing upcountry properties, which are already largely built out, from P-1 to P-2 is not necessary.
Thank you for allowing me to provide this testimony. Please reject the zoning change of upcountry properties from P-1 to P-2.
Mahalo,
Stan Riddle