PD Background and Recommendation Amendments to Planning Commission Rule 8 and 9

Home

Reasons for the amendments: Previous to this amendment, only single-family dwellings 7,500 sq ft or more in size were considered"development" and therefore required an SMA permit. With this amendment all single family dwellings located within a shoreline parcel or a parcel that is impacted by waves, storm surges, high tide, or shoreline erosion will not be exempt and will require an SMA permit in order to determine potential impacts to the shoreline area and other ocean resources. 6. Act 16 amended HRS 205A-22 by stating that"development" does not include the following: a. "Nonstructural improvements to existing commercial or non-commercial structures." Reasons for the amendmentsPrevious to this amendment, only non-structural improvements to existing commercial structures could be considered exempt from development. Act 16 went further to state that non-structural improvements to non- commercial structures (e.g., townhouses and condominiums) shall also be considered as exempt. 7. Act 16 amended 205A-26(2)(A)by setting forth criteria for the Grounds for Approval of Special Management Area Use Permits as shown: "(1) The development will not have any [^��'��]significant adverse environmental or ecological effect except as [s ]aM adverse effect is minimized to the extent practicable and clearly outweighed by public health, safety, or compelling public interest. [ ] Those adverse effects shall include[,] but not be limited to[,] the potential cumulative impact of individual developments, each [one] of which taken [in] by itself might not have a [ ��'�]significant adverse effect, and the elimination of planning options;" Based on this amendment to HRS, Section 9-11(e)(1) of Commission Rule 9 is proposed to be amended as follows: "(a) The development will not have any [stibst_ *_ia'_]signiricant adverse environmental -5-