HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0580.006 2000-2002 Charles Hanson
PO Box 7i i397
Moun~ai~.View, I-II4_9677i
15 Apri12002
I~awaii Couarty Council
25 Aupuni Street _
Hilo, ICI 96720
Re: Bi112~5 concerning Streets and Sidewalks -Revision of Chapter 22
This bill has a number of problems and should not be passed without a lot more work. It
would repeal and replace the existing Chapter 22, but daes not address all of the areas
that the existing Chapter 22 addresses. Also, there are a number of technical flaws.
I see problems with a number of the definitions in Section 22- i .2.
(1) `manner" means any temporary sign which is suspended over a county street.
A banner could also be displayed parallel to the street. Also this issue could
be addressed in Chapter 3 which is titled Advertising and Signs. Delete this
definition.
(2) "Building means a structure which is occupied for residential purposes or used
as a place of business.
Since the section on building numbering has been removed, this is
unnecessary. Also, the definition is inadequate. )~or example, is not a vacant
house a building? Is a greenhouse or chicken coop a place of business?
(7) "I3riveway" means a road on private or public property giving access from a
private of public street to an established use on the property.
Change to: "I3riveway" means a road on property not designated as a public
or private street that provides vehicle access to the street.
(14) "Roadway means that portion of a coumy street, excluding shoulders, curbs,
gutters, sidewalks or other roadside drainage facilities, used exclusively by
vehicle traffic.
Change to: "Roadway" means the central portion of a street r'?ght-of
way that
is used far vehicle traffic. It does not include shoulders, curbs, or any area
outside the shoulders or curbs.
I find the use of "exclusively" especially troublesome.
Comm. Noe •
F`[le No.
R.ef. ~o ~
Ref. Date
(19) "Violator" means the property owner, lessee, or the person responsible for
the violation.
I hope that the County does not see all property owners as violators.
Section 22-2.1. Encroachments.
No object shall be allowed in, under, ar over any county street, except objects that
are permitted by the director, chief of police or other provisions of law to be in, under, or
over a county street, or which have a clearance of fi#Ieen feet or more above the surface
of the street, such as the canopy of trees.
A distinction needs to be made between the central portion of a street and the area outside
the curb or shoulder. Sometimes a street right-of
way is wide enough that there is no
problem with trees and shrubs growing on the outer fringes. Out in the rural areas, the
outer portion is sometimes undeveloped raw land.
Section 22-3.3 deals with banner permits. There is far too much detail. Let the director
allow permits for whatever seems prudent and reasonable. This is not that common an
occurrence. Also it should be dealt with in Chapter 3.
Section 22-4.9 (d) deals with Location of driveway approaches at intersections. The
phrase "the intersection of property lines or their extensions" is used in several places to
refer to the corner of an intersection. This is confusing and probably inaccurate. fetter
terminology might be, "the Yntersectlon of the property lines or thew extensions that form
a corner of the intersection."
Section 22-4~.9 (e) deals with the maximum number of driveway approaches. The limit of
two driveways might be unreasonable far a larger property. Allow more driveways as
long as the percentage of curb space used up is not excessive.
I am not comfortable with Section 22-8 dealing with penalties and enforcement. There
should be a clear methodology of escalation when a violation continues. First the
violator is notified and told to take corrective action. If the violator does not make a good
faith effart to fix the problem then a fine is threatened and then imposed. There should
be a limit on the amount that a violator can be fined without taking him to court. Open
ended per day fines are too much like a police state.
I also see a problem with the format that has been adopted for the County Code. The
Article and Division categories do not fit with the Section and Subsection categories. I
think they cause confusion and should be eliminated.
Thank you for year consideration,
Charles I-Ianson y~.- L