COM 0176.083 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

BILL 51 DRAFT 3 DPW COMMENTS - 5/23/07 Sec. 27-20(a)(1): The Department should not be the repository of all government permits. Under the Freedom of Information Act we will now be responsible to provide copies of these permits to the public. It is our goal to have DPW permits filed electronically. However, we should not be liable for nor bear the cost of keeping permit files and making copies requested by the public for permits issued by the State and Federal governments. Further, should this condition be retained the Department of Public Works does not have the hardware, software or expertise to address the storage of electronic copies. The implementation of this requirement needs to be discussed with the Data System Department. Sec. 27-20(a)(2): Subdivisions greater than 2 lots or 1 acre will now include many "mom & pop" subdivisions that are dividing their property for estate purposes. This requirement will require them to pay for atechnical/scientific flood study meeting with the approval of FEMA that may extend fat beyond [he limits of their property. The current minimum size was thought to be large enough to absorb the cost for a flood study. However, because we have parcels of very large size, the five acre limit is already causing difficulties for some family subdivisions. We can see no economic, technical or scientific justification that warrants this change. Sec. 27-20(e): This section will be inconsistent with identical sections found in Chapter 23 and 25. This inconsistency may render both laws to be unenforceable. This issue should be further discussed with Corporation Counsel. It must also be noted that this requirement will be required and enforced by the Planning Director. Sec. 27-20(g): The rational for the requirement fails to recognize that there aze many azeas in Puna, Hamakua, Kau as well as other locations that do not have or have very few downhill urban azeas yet there are no exceptions. The proposed drainage improvement standazd for agricultural subdivisions will be more stringent than urban subdivisions as proposed by Section 27- 20(e). This is counter-intuitive and has no technical or scientific justification. Consequently, the design requirements established by this section for agriculture seems to be arbitrary and capricious. Further, the requirement to address existing rainfall contradicts a fundamental engineering/legal principle that a property owner cannot be held responsible for what is naturally occurring. If drainage design standazds for agricultural subdivision are to be considered, this matter should be discussed with the Planning Department, Department of Reseazch and Development, SWCDs, NRCS, State Dept. of Agriculture, State Dept. of Land & Natural Resources and other stakeholders. Page 6 of 8