Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0313.015 2024-2026P /Quo .dill W CLMM.nl3 PEDERSEN PLANNING CONSULTANTS P.O. Box 1268 Keaau, Hawaii 96749 970-887-3759 Memorandum Date: June 16, 2025 COUNTY CLEW To: Hawaii County Council COUNTY OF HAM T I Hawaii CountyBuilding RECZr= g Time 12 :02 2A. ey 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 Date JUN 1 6 2025 counciltestimony@hawaiicounty.gov From: James Pedersen, Principal Planner Subject: Testimony Concerning Proposed Bill 60 Amending Chapter 25, Article 1, Article 2, Article 4, Article 5, and Article 7 of the Hawai'i County Code 1983 (2016 Edition, As Amended), Relating to Zoning District Regulations for Meeting Facilities, Churches, Temples, Synagogues, and Community Buildings I am a landowner and resident of Hawaiian Paradise Park and have concerns regarding proposed Bill 60 that is under consideration by the Hawaii County Council. I have some 50 years experience in community and regional planning that has included significant project experience in Hawaii, Wyoming, Colorado, Alaska, American Samoa, the Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Republic of Palau. A portion of my career has included the evaluation, preparation and administration of zoning regulations for various county and municipal governments. Our firm is currently nearing completion of a contract related to the development of an updated Building Code for the American Samoa Government. Since I only received a copy of proposed bill 60 yesterday evening, my comments reflect only a quick review of the proposed amendments to the Hawaii County Zoning District Regulations. From my review, I have the following concerns: 1. Section 5 (a) (3) of Bill 60 indicates that existing zoning regulations permit churches, temples, and synagogues in RS, RD, RM, RA, and A districts. But, in Section 5 (a)(9), the proposed meeting facilities are permitted in only RA, FA, and A districts. Most zoning regulations that I have reviewed do not restrict religious facilities in other residential districts. My question: What is the rationale for a reduction in areas where religious facilities can be developed? It is diffficult enough for believers of any faith to locate and purchase properties for the construction of new or renovation of existing facilities. Consequently, I would encourage that religious facilities are permitted in other residential districts unless there is a reasonable rationale for the exclusion of these facilities in other residential districts. Otherwise, this amendment generates a significant burden to any religious group seeking to establish a new church facility. Comm. mea Ref. To: Ref. gate W-1-7 2025 2. Section of Bill 60 (d) requires that the hours of operation of a meeting facility take place between 8 am and 9 pm. This requirement is not necessary as most religious facilities are used within the proposed time of operation. However, there are some events and programs that take place somewhat earlier and later. From brief discussions with Ivory Quintal at Councilwoman Kierkiewicz' office, I learned that a possible deletion of this requirement from the bill is under consideration. I strongly support the deletion of that requirement as this poses an unnecessary constraint to the operation of religious facilities. There are other issues associated with this bill which I cannot identify since I must submit my testimony in five minutes. But I am happy to provide the Council with additional insights during your consideration of the proposed amendments. Mahalo nui loa for the opportunity to provide some thoughts concerning bill 60. Thank you also for your service to Hawaii County.