Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0493.001 1998-2000 r-;~_' Charles Hanson Box 7I I397~ pq 29 Phi 12 15 Mtn. View, j6 CC 29 November 19~®Uv ~ 1 C~~ ! !,',U.!^,~~ Hawaii County Council Planning Committee Dear Councilmembers: Enclosed are my commen s on Bill 276, the proposed subdivision code revision. Most of the problems I see are mi rand easily correctable. My main concern is the treatment of lot sizes and shapes in thi bill and in the Zoning Code. Sincerely, l Charles Hanson Comm. No. ~7 73. 00~ File No. HCG SV6 13eP. Tor p~- Ref. Date ~ 3 0 1999 PROVISIONS FOR LOT SIZES AND SHAPES The proposed Subdivision Code does not get into the specifics of minimum lot sizes and shapes. This matter is handled by referring to the Zoning Code, where one finds for each zoning district regulations for: Minimum building site azea Minimum building site average width Minimum yards This works for `new' subdivisions, but there is a problem with existing subdivisions which were created when the rules were much more relaxed. There are many existing lots which can not meet the regulations on Minimum Building Site Average Width. As an example, consider the Agricultural District, where Section 25-5-75 states: "Each building site hi the A district shall have a minimum average width of two hundred feet for the first five acres of required area plus twenty feet for each additional acre of required area Provided that no building site shall be required to have an average width greater than one thousand feet." I read this as saying that a 20-acre pazcel would not qualify as a building site unless it was at least 500 feet wide. A parcel of greater than 45 acres would have to be at least 1000 feet wide in order to qualify as a building site. This simply does not make sense. A look at the Plat maps will reveal a vast number of lots that do not meet this requirement. I believe that any lot that the County has allowed to be created should qualify as a potential building site. The minimum yard size is really the only requirement that belongs in the Zoning Code. Subdivisions with long, narrow lots were allowed in the past and nothing can change this. Clearly, there is merit in trying to assure that new subdivision lots are more reasonably shaped, but the place to address this is in the Subdivision code revision. Currently we have an unreasonable and unnecessazy restriction in the Zoning Code that should be removed. Expand Sections 23-4-3 and 23-4-4 and delete all sections in Chapter 25 dealing with minimum building site average width. Chapter 23 should reference minimum lot size rather than minimum building site. "Building site" is used extensively in Chapter 25 and I believe that this is a mistake. The phrase is ambiguous, even with the definition provided in Section 25-1-5 (18). I recommend using a cleazer definition that conforms to Standard English, or not using this phrase in the code. Chapters 23 and 25 should be amended at the same time for these ideas to work. Bi11276, Draft 3 Subdivision Code Comments and Recommendations Section 23-1-2. Purpose and intent The primary purpose should be to provide an orderly method for subdividing land. This has somehow been left out. Section 23-1-5. Definitions. A definition for `monumem' should be included here. See 23-4-2. (29) "Pavement width" -this is an artificial definition which amounts to Non- Standazd English. This technique should be avoided because it will mislead many people who aze trying to read and understand the document. Section 23-2-1. (Exceptions) Public utility, public facility, or public right-of--way subdivisions. When would these entities subdivide? Why should they be exempt when they do? `Public utility' is somewhat ambiguous. Would a radio station or a cell phone provider be exempt when prepazing a site for an antenna tower? Section 23-2-6. Fazm subdivisions. This is a misleading title. "Agricultural leasehold subdivisions" would be much better. Will telecommunications antennas be allowed on these parcels? This should be cleazly spelled out to avoid future problems. Section 23-2-7. Notice to property owners and lessees of record. References to the state land use districts aze confusing. How about referencing county zoning districts and then stating that HRS may have other requirements? Someday the state land use commission may be done away with. Section 23-2-9. Grounds for variances. (b) Should State, "I'he regulations m this chapter do not offer a reasonable alternative that would resolve the difficulty; and" Section 23-2-13. Review of director's action by non-applicant. (2) Should conclude with "and the applicant shall be so notified." Section 23-2-14. Appeal of director's action by subdivider. Should read "Appeal of director's action on a variance by subdivider." Section 23-2-16. Persons who may appeal; procedure. (d) I believe that anyone who is willing to pay the $250 should have the right to appeal. Section 23-2-25 thru 23-2-29 Criminal prosecution. These sections aze unnecessazy and should be deleted. If someone does not comply with the Subdivision Code then permission to subdivide is not granted. There is nothing in Chapter 23 for which a violation would warrant criminal prosecution. Any serious violation would be covered by Chapter 25, which does allow for criminal prosecution. Section 23-3-2. Review of subdivisions in three steps; complete submittals. What happens when a request for a variance is part of the process? How does this affect the time limits? Section 23-3-6. Preliminazy Subdivision Approval. (b) Instead of referring to "the requirements of this chapter," how about saying "pursuant to Section 23-3-3"? (3)(A) Name of subdivision. This should not be required for a small subdivision. Section 23-3-12. Action. The term `tracing' or `tracings' is used several times here. I believe this is obsolete. Replace "construction plan tracings" with "construction plans." Section 23-3-18. Action. (b) Disapproval. How about including a time period for the subdivider to make corrections? Section 23-3-23 (aX5) Replace `tracings' with `plans.' Section 23-4-2. Monuments. A clear definition of `monument' would be helpful. A comma is needed: "...with one inch round galvanized pipe or equal and firmly and permanently set in the ground." Between `equal' and `and.' Section 23-4-3. Lot size, shape, and setback line. I have written a separate page on this issue. Section 23-4-6. Flag lots. This type of subdivision lot should be discouraged and perhaps disallowed altogether. Section 23-4-17. Pavement width. A definition for pavement width is being used which does not conform to common sense or Standard English. Perhaps something like "road width available to motor vehicles" would be better. Section 23-4-34. (Drainage) General. (b) This paragraph refers to `the hundred year storm,' `the ten year storm,' and `the fifty year storm.' 1 don't believe these requirements are computable. Section 23-4-36 (b) Drainage easements This should not be a necessary requirement for an Ag subdivision.