2024-12-02 Debra Green #3 & #4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

3) Bill 194 Subsections 25-2-74(6), (7), (8), (12), (13) and 25-4-12(i)(3) & (4) These Subsections constitute plan approval application requirements. The former Director stated that these sections are outside the purview of Planning but this is not a valid claim as there is nothing unusual about these sections. Conditions such as these are routine for various permit applications here. They include conditions such as flood control, fire prevention, Department of Health requirements, County code compliance, and so forth. In addition,jurisdictions across the country have implemented ordinances such as Bill 194 through their local planning departments. It's common practice here and elsewhere to include such provisions. 4) Bill 194 Subsection 25-4-12(f) This Section states that "the director may [emphasis mine] engage a private consultant to inspect and determine whether the proposed use violates any" FCC standards provided that the consultant's time not count toward the time limit. The former Director repeatedly and incorrectly stated that Bill 194 includes the "Use of Private Consultants" when there is no required use of private consultants anywhere in the bill. His claim is misleading as the proposed ordinance does not mandate hiring a private consultant. The choice to engage a private consultant is mentioned once, is optional, and is at the discretion of the Director. Then former Director Kern raised four concerns. First, he stated that "engaging private consultants may significantly raise costs for the County, creating unnecessary financial burdens," but this claim is alarmist and unfounded. Again, the proposed ordinance does not require hiring a private consultant. The choice is optional and at the discretion of the Director. Second, he stated "the current wording suggests that the consultant's determination occurs after Plan Approval" but this claim is unfounded as the language refers to "the proposed use" which indicates this option is part of an application process and does not occur after Plan Approval. Even if the language needs to be tweaked a bit, that hardly constitutes a "significant concern" that merits an unfavorable recommendation. Third, the former Director stated that "it would be more logical to hire a consultant before Final Plan Approval rather than afterward" but, again, the language in this Section refers to "the proposed use" which indicates this option is part of an application process and does not occur after Plan Approval. Fourth, the former Director stated that "relying on private consultants could introduce delays in the approval process" that may violate the 60-day timeframe mandated by HRS 4689. Again, this claim is unfounded and alarmist because nothing in Bill 194 includes "relying on private consultants". The choice to engage a private consultant is mentioned only once, is optional, and is at the discretion of the Director.