Laserfiche WebLink
Hon. James Arakaki <br /> June 15, 2004 <br /> Page Two <br /> Many people lack confidence that the county will adopt the critical <br /> development plan ordinances (based on experience). For that reason, many <br /> advocate "front-loading" the plan out of practical necessity. Understandably, <br /> Draft 2 avoids such "front-loading" in order to make the plan a more streamlined <br /> document. However, the plan should contain some minimum "guarantees," as <br /> required under Section 226-58, HRS, that the county will adopt these <br /> development plan ordinances within specific time deadlines. <br /> Finaiiy, the Council should abandon the notion that the plan can be "non- <br /> regulatory." The Hawaii Supreme Court has already cautioned government <br /> officials that if a plan is hortatory with no force of law, such a plan cannot be <br /> enforced. The result is obvious. No one can rely on the plan or any of its parts, <br /> including its LUPAG maps. <br /> Thus, a landowner whose land is designated "Resort" on the LUPAG <br /> maps or may be entitled to claim a "floating commercial zone" cannot expect a <br /> court to protect that designation. Similarly, citizens who oppose a specific land <br /> use proposal may find county officials are unable to deny such if the plan is a <br /> decision-making criterion. The result is confusion. <br /> The question for the Council, then, is not whether the plan should be <br /> regulatory or non-regulatory. The plan must be regulatory. The real question is, <br /> "How extensive should that regulation be?" Should the plan emulate the State's <br /> approach in Chapter 226, HRS, Chapter 205, HRS or Chapter 205A, HRS? <br /> I will be glad to provide what help I can provide and meanwhile remain as always <br /> Ve ours, <br /> o G~if/~J <br /> Michae . Matsukawa <br /> <br /> c: Legislative Auditor <br /> County of Hawaii <br /> <br />