COM 0699.001 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Dominic Yagong Page -3- Aprit 6, 1998 A further question was raised about the whether the County was legally vulnerable if it did not require the subdivider to provide an alternative access route connection in the event of flooding. As the Public Works memorandum of March 19, 1998 stated, there is no requirement that another access be provided in this situation. Chapter 23, the Subdivision Code, §23-44, provides that streets may be required to be extended to property boundaries in order to simplify future connection with adjoining property, but there is no provision in that chapter or in any other part of the Code requiring an alternate exit. The general duty of the County is to keep its roads in reasonably safe condition. Breed v. Shaner, 57 Haw. 656, 664 (1977). This would be necesssary without regard to whether or not the roads are dead ends and stub-outs or through streets. Furthermore, HRS §264-1(c) states, in relevant part: In every case where the road, alley, street, bikeway, way, lane, trail, bridge, or highway is constructed and completed as required by any ordinance of the county or any rule, regulation or resolution thereof having the effect of law, the legislative body of the county shall accept the dedication or surrender of the same without exercise of discretion. Therefore, unless there is an ordinance, rule or regulation which requires that roads be built to provide alternate access to a subdivision, and the roads as constructed are up to dedicable standards, the Council must accept the dedication. Please contact this office if there are any questions. Sincerely, RICHARD D. WURDEMAN Corporation Counsel ~ gy -,iu~~,_ u,. ~ Frederick Giannini Deputy Corporation Counsel FG:ch comma/sunstone