HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 1437.001 1984-1988 •
JNty of H\�
MERLE K. LAI
Councilwoman • 40
COUNTY COUNCIL
County of Hawaii
Hawaii County Building
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
February 2, 1988
TO: PC Chairman Takashi Domingo
FROM: Councilwoman Merle K. Lai a'
RE: Bills 467 & 468
The following are some of the reasons why I had requested that the
above-referenced bills be deferred (at the 1-25-88 PC meeting) and
what has transpired to date:
Reasons why deferment was requested:
I. Whenever a person ' s plans to build or renovate a building in
downtown is denied by the HRA Commission, the only recourse
available to the person is to go to court to seek relief .
This action may be expensive or be an unnecessary costly
litigation.
A. Section 2 . 21 of HRA' s Rule 5 states, "Any party may
obtain judicial review of the Agency 's final decision
in the manner set forth in Section 91-14, HRS. "
B. I would like to see an appeals body between HRA and the
Court .
II. Staff requires time to research several items .
A. HRA manager states that the Planning Board of Appeals
will not hear cases heard by the HRA Commission.
B. The Planning Director states that the Planning Board of
Appeals will hear cases .
Comm. Na 443 7,
File
Ref. To: P C'
Ref. Date
FEB . 1v
PC Chairman Takashi Domingo
February 2, 1988
Page 2
C. Staff will review items (a) and (b ) of Section 25-285
of Bill 467 to see whether or not there is a conflict
between items (a ) and (b) and between items (a) and
HRA's Rule 5 .
1 . Item (a) is in reference to the plan approval
process and makes reference to Article 20 of
Chapter 25 of the Hawaii County Code. Article 20
in turn makes reference to Section 25-7 , HCC,
which applies to the appeal process which
includes the Planning Board of Appeals .
2. Rule 5 , on the other hand, does not include the
Board of Appeals in its appeal process .
Actions taken to date
I. A meeting was held on Friday, January 29, 1988, in the office
of Planning Director Albert Lono Lyman, to discuss Bills 467
and 468. Those present at the meeting were: Merle Lai ,
Councilwoman; Pat O' Toole, Assistant Corporation Counsel;
Norman Hayashi , Planner ; Gordon Nobriga, Manager , HRA; and
Tad Nagasako, Legislative Assistant .
II. The following is a summary of what was discussed at the
meeting:
A. Those present at the meeting preferred that HRA not
duplicate authority and efforts of the Planning
Department .
B. HRA staff lacks necessary expertise in planning and
urban design to properly advise the HRA Commission.
C. Bill 467 transfers to HRA the authority to assess fees
-- an authority which rightfully rests with the Council .
D. HRA should consider a design review commission which
will make recommendations to the Planning Department on
matters relating to urban design policies for Downtown
Hilo.
E. Lono Lyman, Gordon Nobriga and HRA Commissioner Fred
Koehnen will attend the February 9th meeting of the
Kailua Village Design Commission to observe how an
urban design advisory commission functions .
F. An apparent conflict exists between items (a) and (b )
of Section 25-285 of Bill 467 .