COM 0998.001 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Casey Jarman February 1, 2008 Page 3 defects may seem like mere technicalities. However, should the Downzoning be enacted by the Hawaii County Council, Kohala's currently entitled 50-lot subdivision will be reduced to approximately 7 lots. In light of the potentially devastating effect of the Downzoning, Kohala is obligated to raise these deficiencies in an attempt to protect its valuable and Constitutionally protected property rights. Notice of the first Commission hearing on the Downzoning was published three times in two newspapers, as required by Haw. Ct. Code, § 25-2-43 (c). However, no subsequent hearing were so noticed. In the same way that a property owner who initiates a zoning change is legally obligated to serve notice on surrounding owners and lessees of record, as provided under Haw. Ct. Code § 25-2-42 (b), in this case the Planning Director, as the initiating party, had the legal duty to publish proper notice informing the public of his proposed zoning amendments. This duty is clearly set forth in Haw. Ct. Code § 25-2-43 (c), which states as follows: Notice by mail to surrounding property owners and lessees of record or properties within the boundaries shall not be required In lieu of mailing written notice to surrounding property owners and lessees of record, the director shall publish notice of the commission's public hearing in at least two newspapers of general circulation in the County, once a week for three consecutive weeks, with the last notice to be at least ten day prior to the hearing. The notice shall specify the time, date and place of the hearing, its purpose and a description of any property which may be involved. Haw. Ct. Code § 25-2-43 (c). Notice of the December 12, 2007, hearing was published one time only, despite the fact that at the prior hearing, held August 31, 2007, the Downzoning had been continued indefinitely. Unlike other hearings where a firm date for a continued hearing is established, and interested members of the public are therefore provided an opportunity to attend the scheduled continued hearing, in this instance no such date was determined at the August hearing. Therefore, it was impossible for any interested person in attendance at the August hearing to know when the Downzoning matter would next be before the Commission. In fact, because an October hearing date was discussed at the August hearing, it is likely that any person interested