HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0608.001 2000-2002
M:3y 13 '82 15:42 KONICA FAX 720 P. 1
SL1I~"I'Y KOi-i~LA COItP®RTA1"ION
101 AUPUNI ST., SU1TE 206 FBILO, HAWAl1 96720 • °riil.CP~1IUNE: (80A) 934.7033 FAX: (A08) 934.7231
Y
C~qT~: 5/13/02 ~~~n_,.,.~. ~
%o a _M
Mul~ber of pages including cover sheet_3 ~~4._~.-- .xi,,;,,_
Councilperl9on ~obbi Jean Leetheada~"odd
~o4X NO: X61-8912
~ROi1sl: JUAN E~OVUF~~
~U~J~CT: Comments on proposed 13111213 (ire-existing Lots)
AlI~SSAO~:Please hnd some comments and suggestions I have on the above
referenced bill.
~rrl~s: I~1~ ' I
~ ~ ~
May 13 '02 15:43 KONICA FAX 720 P 2
S[JI~'TY KOLA COI~OI~.ATION
909 lIUPURII 8T, SUITE 206 PIII.O. FfAWAII 96720 . TEi.EPFi®hIE: (808) 934.7033 . t'AX: (B08) 934-7231
May 13, 2002
I-lonorablc Councilperson J3obbi-Jean Leithead-Tod.d
Chairperson, Council Cosntnittcc on Planning
>'°lawaii County Council
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, I-il 96720
SLTI3JEGT`: Proposed I3i11 No. 213, A.n ()rdiiaance Amending Chapter 23 of the I-tawaii
Goua~ty Codc 1983 (195 Edition) itelating to Pre-existing Lots
I-lonorablc Councilperson I.eithcad-add,
'Phis tcstirrtony is in regard to the above referenced bill which, I understand, is being
considc;rcd by your Corttmittcc on Planning at tomorrow's sessions.
I recognize that this bill is basically a sinlale purpose bill which attem}~te to forclc~sc the
use of lease lots within former plantation camps as pre-existint; lots. It also proposes to
restrict the use of roadway lufs, flume lots, or railroad rights-af-ways for building sites or
other substantial structural uses for which these lots were not intended.
1 do nat have a problem with the intent of these amendments. My cornrnents speak
towards addressing theme amendments in a snore organized and stnactural fashion.
tJnder the present subdivision code, there are no provisions which address the "pre-
existing lot" situation. What is the dclinition fora "pre-existing lot"? Mow does one
request. for ~t dcterniinativn of"fsre-existing"? What criteria does the Planning
Department use to detcrYnine that a lot fs "pre-existing.."? Iiow lcyng does the department
have to render the detcnnination or non-dcterrninatiota? In what form (i.e. letter, snaps,
etc.) is the determination tranmitted to the requester?
13ccausc there is no formal procedure for this determination, it has evolved aver the years
from adpnittistratien to administration in a somewhat discreationary manlier,
My suggestion is that the axle be amended in address these fc.tndamcntal "pre-existing
tat" identii'ication procedures first, which will then provide Elie lbundation for handling
arising ieeuee each as whether or not leasing of former plantation camp housing sites
would- constitute a pre-existing situation.
May 13 '02 15:43 KONICA FAX 720 P. 3
Ltr to Go~ancilpers®n ~obbi-]can I..eithe~d Todd
May 13, 2002
Paage 2
If you would reference Article 2, Division 1, Seetioa~ 23-2-5 (ire-existing subdivisions)
of Proposed ~i111~1c~. 27fi,13raft 3 (Subdivision Code), you will see that there ha.~ been an
ongoing attempt to address the "pre-existing "situation during the con9prehensive
subdivision process. This proposed section reads:
"Section 23-2-5. Prc-existing subdivisions. The improvement standards of this
cha}~ter shall not be applicable to pre-existing subdivisions. Where the pre-existing
lots clu not rncet the minirnuxrr lot size for the applicable zoning district, the lots shall
be deemed nonconforming lots under the coning code. The director shall certify a
subdivision as pre-escistixxg provided the subdivider provides rcasona~ble evidence that
the subdivision meets the !'ollowing criteria:
(a) Thr lot (s) sues created axed recorded prior to 1944; or
(h) The lot (s) eras created through court order (e.g. pat°tion) prior to 1973; and
(c) The lot (s) had never been legally consolidated to e;~xu§e its removal from the
retal laroperty tax records; and
(d) 'The configuration of the lot (s) head never been altered from its originml shape
or size."
You can see that this proposed language may, in fact, be enough to address the leasehold
issue inasrrruch as a lease constitutes a subdivision under Article 1, Section 23-3 (29) of
the present Subdivision Codc. if not, then proposed Section 23-119 and 124 can easily be
appended to or integrated with the above.
With respect to the excluding of a tare-existing lot which was used for road, flume or
railroad rights-of--ways in the consolidation and resubdivision tsrocess, unlike the pre-
existing lot situation, there is already an existing provision for this process in the
subdivision code. Article 2, T3ivi5ion 1, Section 23-7. It would seem more appropriate to
aitaend that section directly, since it does not have a direct relevance to the pee-existing
lots based upon leases at all.
`Thank you !'car your consideration of these organization suggestions. Again, l do not'havc
an issue with the intent oi` these arxicndments, only that they should be accomplished
within the framework of the present codes as much as possible.
With hest regards,
Duane 1Caneaha, Vice President
Surety ICohala Cox~urwtion