Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Message Page 1 of 2 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Murashige, Laura <br /> <br /> From: scot2000 [scot2000@earthlink.net] <br /> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 6:23 AM <br /> To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us <br /> Cc: Chris Yuen <br /> <br /> Subject: Bill 246, Ordinance Amending Chapter 23, Subdivision Code <br /> Written Testimony from Barbara E.Scott <br /> 75-5782 Lopeka Place <br /> Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 <br /> (808) 327-1277 <br /> <br /> Planning Committee Meeting <br /> April 18, 2006 <br /> BILL 246, ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23, SUBDIVISION CODE <br /> <br /> <br /> K. Angel Pilago, Chair <br /> Pete Hoffman, Vice Chair <br /> James Y. Arakaki <br /> Stacy K.Higa <br /> Fred C. Holschuh, M.D. <br /> Donald Ikeda <br /> Virginia Isbell <br /> Bob Jacobson <br /> Gary Safarik <br /> Honorable K. Angel Pilago and Planning Committee Members: <br /> Over the past decades, the County of Hawaii interpretation of the Subdivision Code has resulted in an <br /> unreasonable amount of litigation. That litigation is not managed within Corporate Counsel office, but is <br /> purchased with County taxpayer funds (in excess of $3 million in recent years, according to the Profession <br /> Services Award list). In January, the Hawaii Supreme Court upheld Judge Ibarra's decision that the informational <br /> requirements of the Subdivision Control Code are mandatory. The County has been violating the plain language <br /> of the Code for three decades. The Supreme Court held that PLANNING DIRECTOR Yuen's interpretation of the <br /> law was "manifestly incorrect and unreasonable." <br /> The PLANNING DIRECTOR has repeatedly allowed the removal of Rezone Conditions for approved commercial <br /> and residential development, basically usurping the authority of elected officials and resulting in deficiency in <br /> every aspect of infrastructure on the island. <br /> Violations of Chapter 23 of the Subdivision Code are not resolved by Changing the Subdivision Code to support <br /> irresponsible practices. We are currently in the process of developing the Kona Community Development Plan. <br /> There is no purpose in making that effort, financed by $500,000 in County taxpayer funds, without clearly defined <br /> procedures that do NOT include continued exceptions at the discretion of one person. <br /> My objection is directed to the authority given to whomever will be in the position of PLANNING DIRECTOR. I've <br /> not reviewed projects for very many years, but I already cannot count how many times I've read the phrase "this <br /> project does not create any adverse infrastructure impacts" when, in fact, every single project approved has had <br /> an adverse impact to all infrastructure. One agency after another signed off: "no significant impact" and went right <br /> along. Where caution was recommended (as to the Kona Soil and Water Conservation District), the <br /> recommendations were ignored. <br /> Comm No. <br /> Ref. To:.r!lt r~ <br /> Ref. Date <br /> 4/17/2006 <br />