COM 0998.002 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Pete Hoffman, Chairman Hawaii County Council Angel, Pilago, Chairman Committee on Planning February 27 2008 Page 4 Subject Property. The Planning Director's attempt to downzone the Subject Property based on his own interpretation of the General Plan amounts to the promulgation of legislation without due process. The Planning Director also argues that the downzoning is supported by Senate Concurrent Resolutions No. 179 and 146. These Resolutions do not provide legal justification for the proposed downzoning. To find otherwise is to permit the Planning Director to create, and the Council to enact, laws outside of the legislative process. First of all, Resolutions are not "law" they are merely policy statements that cannot override validly enacted laws, such as Ord. 97-102 and the General Plan. Second of all, S.C.R. No. 179 was passed in 1988, nine years before Ord. 97-102 was enacted, and therefore provides no basis for the downzoning. Finally, S.C.R. No. 146 was passed in 2001, four years before the most recent General Plan amendment. Therefore, any issues of concern in S.C.R. No. 146 with respect to the Subject Property would have found expression in the 2005 General Plan. As previously discussed, Ord. 97-102 was, and remains, consistent with the General Plan and neither Resolution can be used to support the proposed downzoning. For the reasons stated above, Kohala believes that the County Council cannot consider the Planning Director-initiated zoning amendments at this time. Kohala is strenuously opposed to the proposed downzoning and welcomes the opportunity to brief the County Council more thoroughly on the legal issues at stake. However, because the proposed downzoning is tied to the three matters still under Planning Commission consideration, Kohala requests that the Council refuse to hear the two downzoning matters now, so that they may be returned to the Planning Commission where all five matters can be given full consideration before being presented to the County Council for action. Kohala also wishes to inform the County Council that, as required under Hawaii County Charter Section 13-18, it has provided notice to the County Clerk of the substantial damages Kohala may claim should the proposed downzoning and/or SMA revocation take place. Very truly yours, STEVE S.C. LIM JAB cc: Lincoln Ashida, Esq. (via email) Amy Self, Esq. (via email) Client Jennifer A. Benck, Esq.