Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0099.001 2002-2004 0121/03 14:41 REGULRTDRY RND GOVT RFFRIRS ~ 808 961 8572 N0. 164 P002/004 BILL. Zt33 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2is (ZONING GQQ)w) 4F TF~ H~WAI'I COUNTY CODE, RELATING TO SCENIC CORIYI~OF~~fa LJ11~ O StRICTS BY PAUL OSHIRO DIRECTOR - GOVERNMENTAL A~A1RS VERIZON HAWAII JANUARY ~Z, 2l)03 Chair Leithead-Todd and Members of the Hawaii County Council's Committee on Planning: I am Paul Oshirc, submitting testimony on behalf of Verizon Hawaii on Bill 265, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY COpE, RELATING TO SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICTS." $UMIVAAtpY This bill adds a new division to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code to address Scenic Corridor Overlay Districts (SCOp). Its passage would enable the Hawaii County Council to place segments of public roadways that are at least three miles in length, into a SCOD by ordinance. Although Verizon Hawaii supports the general Intent of this bill we are concerned with the overall ambiguity of the bill. BAIIG.L~IAt,J~ Verizon Hawaii appreciates the overall infant of gill 265, which provides for the enhancement of the scenic, historic, recreational, cultural andlor natural features within an area adjacent to a transportation corridor. However, we have reservations on its passage in its present form due to the overall ambiguity of the bill: 1, "Section 2S-5-bl. Criteria for establlahtn$ s Scenic Corridor Uverlay District": Criteria is not specific to the establishment of a SCOD; Present proposed t;omm. No. File No. Ref. To raseaSad Ref. Date JAN 2 2 2003 _ a121i03 14:41 REGUI_RTORY RND GOVT RFFRIRS E0H 961 8572 N0. 164 P003i004 criteria for the establishment of a scenic corridor includes the following requirements: "...(c) will enhance Hawaii County's significant natural, visual, recreation, historic and/or cultural qualities, (d) will protect and etdtance the attractiveness of I~Iawai'i County to make it a better place to live, work, visit, and play; (e) will improve Hawai'I County's economic vitality by enhancing and proteeNng our unique natural, visual, historic, cultural, and recreational resources..." Although the general intent of this-criteria is honorable; it is also very subjective. Specific criteria is needed to identify a true SCOO and those areas that will qualify as one. 2. "Seetioa 25.6-62. Mialmum corridor leagth." The minimum corridor length for a SCOD is three (3) miles; however, it is not width specific. 3. "Seetioa 25-6.63. Peratitted uses. The Scenic Corridor Overlay District is superimposed upon the existing zoning without changing the applicability of the underlying zoning. The Scenic Corridor Overlay pietrict may encompass one or more underlying zones and serves to ptnvide additional conditions and standards above those required by the underlying zone. Within the Scenic Corridor Overlay District, all uses permitted by the underlying Zoning classification shall be permitted in the Overlay District unless otherwise defined by the conditions and standards contained in the Corridor Management Plan (CMP) for the Scerixc Corridor Overlay District and in the Overlay District Enabling Ordinance. In a case where the conditions and atandazds contained in the CMP for the SCOD and in the Overlay District )enabling Ordinance differ from those within the underlying zone, the Overlay District conditions and standards shat) apply." Language is ambiguous as to wh6ther existing zoning (and requirements for existing applicants) will change as a result of a SCOD designation. 4. "Seetioa 25-ti-ti6. Review aad approval of appiieadaa." No date of compliance for owners and lessees affected by SGOD designation Hated. 5. Related to item #4, if owners and lessees affected by the SGOD designation need to make changes to their affected property or Infrastructure as a result of the designation, would the permitting and easement application processes be expedited in order to meat compliance by a certain time a?lotment9 ©121/03 14:41 REGULRTORY RND GOVT RFFRIRS ~ 808 961 B5?2 NCI. 164 P084/©84 CCNCLU81~ Verizon Hawaii supports the general intent of 8111265; however, we believe that the overall ambiguity of the bill prevents critical and conscientious comments from both businesses and residents who will be impacted as a result of this legislation. Specific concerns to Verizon Hawaii include a lack of spapific criteria In determining a SCOT, no clear language on the impacts to existing zoning requirements, and compliance information. We acknowledge that there maybe specific impacts to Verizon Hawaii and its customers as a result of the establishment of a SCOp; however, the general ambiguity of this bill currently prevents us from taking a more specific position. We thank you for the opportunity to teatliy on BIII 265.