COM 0762.059 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

regulatory criteria must be reviewed at the preliminary application stage and that some review criteria had been overlooked by the the Department. 3. The Public does not have access to the relevant Information If not provided In the subdivision application: Director Yuen has indicated that, although the Department does not require some information when the initial subdivision application is filed, the Public does have access to sufficient relevant information. My experience, in researching subdivision applications, is to the contrary. After two months of investigating the status of various aspects of the Parker Ranch Luala'i 3 Subdivision, I have not be able to ascertain the Department's performance requirements for the Developer in important areas such as 1.) road concurrency and design standards; 2) the status of the regional park that was to be dedicated to the County for the benefit of the Waimea community; and 3) whether sidewalks will be required along the primary roads. I found that the Department had overlooked applicable requirements at both the preliminary and final review stages of this Luala'i 3 subdivision. And, as the Court in Hokulia pointed out: "Without affirmative action prior to subdivision approval, the County's enforcement ability will be impractical.... " Hokulia Decision of 10-22-03 Conclusion of Law # 21 (in the context of determining compliance with the statutory requirements for protection of prime agricultural land). 4. The Developer benefits from providing sufficiently detailed information at the preliminary plan review stage. Under the real property doctrines of "equitable estoppel" and "vested rights", if the Developer provides sufficiently detailed information in the preliminary subdivision application, the Developer is far more confident that the final subdivision approval will not be delayed or denied and is far less likely to be reversed in the event of a judicial challenge. In light of the recent case law in this area, avoiding potential legal challenges should be a more important concern to Developers than minor delays in finalizing the preliminary subdivision application. Requesting sufficient details of the subdivision project at the time of preliminary review is also consistent with the information requirements contained in the state's "Uniform Regulation and Practice Act. Haw. Stat. 484- 4 et. seq.. That statute mandates what information must be available to potential real estate buyers (in large subdivision offerings) following preliminary subdivision approval, and includes a requirement that "There is reasonable assurances that all proposed improvements will be completed as represented." Haw. Stat. 484-7. The now proposed deletion of HCC 23-66- 7 (which presently requires details concerning proposed improvements) would be inconsistent with the corresponding provision of the Uniform Regulation and Practice Act. As acknowledged by the Legislature: The lack of certainty in the development approval process can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other development to the consumer, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning in the long run, for the Developer more certainty even at the cost of less flexibilty and some initial delays is more beneficial." Haw. Rev. Stat. section 46-121 (2003) (emphasis added) Developer representatives who seek to avoid or minimize compliance with development approval criteria have, and still may, at times succeed. However, in the long run, as evidenced by the Hokulia case, that approach unnecessarily creates legal uncertainty and can be far more costly. Submission of information regarding these other criteria at the preliminary approval stage is important so that the Developer does not fail to address