HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0227.010 1996-1998
July 29,1997
From: Robert Jacobson
P.O. Box 900
Kurtistown, Hawaii, 96790 RECENED '?h-..,_
808-966-8831 -
n~___~._ ay
To: Planning Commission Mambera County Council j,P- PC
County Council Members -
Subdivision Rule Chengee Draft 3
This is further testimony regarding the proposed changes in sub-division regulations. I
am including my initial observations from October 24, 1995 and fiutt?er comments based
on draft 3. I notice that no attention has been directed to those areas of concern I had two
years ago. Section numbering is about the same:
I would like to make these observations and suggestions regarding the Subdivision Code
Revision Draft 7/31/95.
1) Page 10, Sec 23-2-3 (A} Filing fees. Filing fees seem quite tow considering the
impact new subdivisions have on our infrastructure. Even as a processing fee it would
not reflect administrative costs. I suggest as a minimum 51,000 plus 5500-1,000 per lot.
2) Page 11, Section 23-2-6 Planned developments. This section would allow Rural
Town Districts exceptions from important portions ofthis code.
3) Page 12, Section 23-2-9 Preexisting subdivisions. This seems to remove the
responsibility for approval of subdivisions approved since 1947. Does it seek to change
the status of current residents or only affect the future use?
4} Page 13, Section 23-2-10 Plantation subdivisions. Is this really in everyone's beat
interest? This exempts plantation subdivisions from important provisions of this code.
5) Page 21 Section 23-2-21 Appeals to the director's decisions. This whole section
removes important components of oversight by eliminating contented case hearings from
the code. It makes already excessive appeals costs higher by raising the filing fee from
5100 to 5250.
6) Section 23-4-15 Street layout. Thia plan creates a new level of sub standard roads.
This will contribute to a continuation of county's policy of neglect toward existing
subdivisions. Lives maybe lost because of degraded standards. This section moat be
given close scrutiny to avoid the problems ofsubstandard roadways.
Conclusion: This revision makes the approval process much easier for developers
without appreciably improving the situation for residents in affected areas. It does not
address the key problems we face from new subdivisions. O
Dooa? liar
true i<a. GC SU
list. '1"0: Presented•7`
Ytef. l~tA 'J 11,
2 9 199~7~
*At this point I will make my comments on draft 3. Comments are keyed directly to
numbered sections of draft 3.
Section 23 Articlel-2 Purpose. It seems that part of the purposes that are not stated
include:
A) Making more subdivision lots available for residential use is not in the best interests
of existing residents. There are more than 50,000 vacant residential lots in Puna
alone. HOVE, Ranchos and other subdivision in Ka'u account for at least 13,000
more vacant lots. This is on an island with leas than150,000 resident. By the most
optimistic growth figures we have enough vacant lots for 20 years! Every time more
lots are opened, existing values drop further. If the Big Island had a housing shortage
rather than a glut, relaxing subdivision rules might make sense, however prices
continue to slump and sales are flat. This is true statewide.
B} Deficiencies in our infrastructure continue to hamper transportation and the delivery
of basic services. The first few votes of this council irrvolved letting developers out
of previously negotiated agreements to provide parks, roads, et cetera Even once this
more lax code is approved, developers can be expected to attempt to circumvent and
avoid arty expectations expressed in this code. Existing residents will have to pay
more to make improvements in these new subdivisions while their own needs
continue to be unmet. Existing taxpayers will have to sell their homes at deflated
values and buy into new subdivisions to benefit from these rule changes.
C) Making "cheap, narrow road' as advocated by shortsighted planners would
immediately benefit developers by decreasing road construction costs and making
more land available to squeeze houses onto. This type of road construction is of
dubious value to prospective owners of new subdivision lots. If the new owner
suffers a head on collision on these "cheap, narrow, roads", the first night in the
intensive care unit of the closest hospital, will eat up most of dollar savings on their
new lot. That is, if they live through a head on collision.
Section 23-2-1 (a) (1} Complete application. The time frame for acceptance of
applications is 10 days. Before this accepted, an audit of staffing and past acceptance
procedure patterns should be done. Developers could bury the planning director with
applications, thus assuring acceptance of applications without proper time for analysis. If
this dubious time frame is accepted, there should be stiffpeualties applied for inadequate
or false information in applications that would take more than 10 days to verify.
Penalties could be graduated from small fines to larger fines and then refuse to accept any
more applications from that offending applicant. Should the developers violate written
application terms in their projects, they should be liable for criminal fraud charges and
loss of licenses and bonds until a third party corrects deficiencies.
Section 23-2-1 (a)(4} This is worded in a manner that automatically accepts all
correction of deficiencies as accurate, leaving no time to verify these new statements.
Should any applicant have a peitern of deficiencies or falsities in their applications or
corrections„ they should be disqualified from any subdivision applications and approvals.
Section 23-2-2 Conditions. The welfare of current residents of this county should take
precedence over the needs ofproepective reaide~s and economic desires of developers.
Section 23-2-3 Filing fees. Please see my previous testimony. The fees here are
criminally inadequate. I can only speculate that a developer wrote this fee schedule.
Section 23-2-5 Cemeteries and crematories. There are no fees required for thin use
indicated here. This would appear to be a special, vested interest provision ofno value to
taxpayers and residents. In fact it tends to erode the tax base of the county.
Section 23-2-10 Plantation subdivisions. See previous testimony.
Section 23-2-11 (c}(3} Farm subdivisions. Limiting lessee to 30 years will prohibit
forestry, permaculture, and conservation uses for tenants.
Section 23-2-12 Appeals. See previous testimony.
Section 23-2-17 Application for variances. Residents and owners within 1,000 feet, and
all subdivision lot owners within 1,000 feet, should be notified of use changes that will
significantly affect their investment and lifestyles. All new subdivisions would have such
major effects. Also, adequate notice and time must be afforded to those lot owners not
living on this island, so that they can prepare a meaningful response.
Section 23-2-20 (a) Review of director's actions by anon-applicant. Demanding a fee of
$250 from the public (and not the developers) to review the planning directors decisions
runs counter to all sunshine laws. Trying to enact a fee like this to examine governmental
decision making smacks of cover-up, collusion and back room deals. Think hard about
this before you implement this unconstitutional fee. This is ablatant attempt to
circumvent the county charter. Who wrote this section?
Section 23-2-20 {c) (1} Review. Prohibiting contested case hearings is not in the
public's best interest. This provision only benefits developers.
Section 23-2-20 (c) (2) Notice and hearing. Notification of those only within 300 feet is
inadequate. Time frames of 5 days after notification is a bad joke. It takes my mai14
days to reach Honolulu after I mail it. How can we expect owners to respond in this short
amount oftime.
Section 23-2 21 Appeal of director's action by applicant. See my previous testimony.
Section 23-2-25 (c) Final approval. Approval of all aspects of subdivision should be
mandatory before any advertising of iota or signing of binding sales agreements.
Community improvements (such ae roads, trails, parka, schools etc) should be required to
be in place prior to issuance of any building permits for residences in new subdivisions.
Section 23-3-1 Preapplicffiion meetings. All communication and meetings with the
planning director, planning office employees or the mayor should be a matter ofpublic
record Mirmtes, notes, or trar?ecriptiona of such meetings should be part of the public
record and be available to the public for review. This is only common sense. The Mayor
or planning director could involve the county in agreements that could result in liabilities
to county taxpayers ifpublic oversight is blocked
*Section 23-3-1(a)(2xB) Preapplicffiion If a developer seeks to further subdivide an
existing subdivision, or make a subdivision within an existing subdivision, it is
imperative that all owners and owners' associations in that subdivision be given adequate
notice (30 days minimum) and be given a chance to comment on such changes in their
subdivision. If the subdivision association or a majority of lot owners oppose the re-
aubdivision, approval should not be given without contested case hearings. In such a
case, the developer must prove overwhelmingly that the re-subdivision is for the greater
public good, for the application to be approved Subdivision associations should be
consulted and included in pre-applicffiion meetings.
23-3-3(bx4)(E) Utilities. New subdivisions should not have cffichment systems as their
only water source, considering the current availability of residential lots on the Big
Island. This only invites more of the same problems in obtaining adequffie safe supplies
ofresideffiial wffier thffi are facing taxpayers and ratepayers now.
23-3-4 Review. c@
23-3-5 Action The planning director should be required to post applications that would
allow for public examination.
23-3-6 Approval. Approvals should expire in a finite time period and should be non-
transferable. Before issuing any residential permits, infrastructure and public
works improvements thffi were ageed upon should be completed.
23-3-7 Phased Development. All phases of a project that are planned should be included
in and be part of the initial application.
23-3-12(a} Building permits shouldn't be issued until the required improvements are
completed
23-3-12(b) Other agreements should not be made with the county allowing developers to
circumvent subdivision agreements.
23-3-13 Time Limitation. As previously noted, all prior infrastructure agreements
should be completed prior to final approval.
23-3-14 Inspection Fees. Is 0.5% adequate as an inspection feel
23-3-15 Agreement to provide utilities. Developers should pay for all coats of water
hookups (i.e. 12-inch lines or whatever is required).
23-4-2 Setbacks. All setback rules should be followed before subdivisions should be
approved
23-4-8 Large Iota should not be allowed to be subdivided into smeller lots. This could
double or triple densities with negative impacts on an already overburdened
infrastructure.
23-4-14(b) Street classification and easements. This document is open-ended in what the
requirements are. Changing the definition of what as adequate road is doesn't change the
fact that narrow roads lead to fatalities and ignore common sense. There are no
protections for natural features such as lava tubes when constructing roads.
23-4-22(a) Right of ways. Easemerds and easements should remain 60 feat for new
subdivisions. Minimum roadway widths should be 20 feet with two 8-foot shoulders and
a bike lane on the other side of a barrier.
23-4-25 Intersections. Make intersections wide enough to allow for care larger than
subcompacts. There are many larger vehicles that people must drive to navigate
current substandard roads. Don't allow new substandard roads to victimize our
residents and tourists. Requiring an adequate right of way will give future
planners and residents more flexibility in meeting future needs. Bikeways,
fixed rail, greenways, and ideas not yet thought ofwill become impossible to
contemplate. Plan for the next 100 years, not for a favor to developerx!
23-4-26 (b}(i} Private roads. Private roads should meet basic safety standards. Take a
ride in Hawaiian Acres and experience what private roads are like when
developers are concerned more about their profits than basic safety and welfare
of people. As Iota fill up in new subdivisions, there will be calls for better roads
to be provided by the county. Have we ?eamed nothing from past experience?
The council has approved more than Slmillion to attempt to improve a road in
Hawaiian Acres. Hawaiian Acres has about 65 miles more to improve. Is this a
cost you want to pass on to future councils and taxpayers? Right ofways
should be 60 feet Emergency vehicles must be able to navigate new roads
safely.
23-4-27 Street trees. Trees should nvt be planted in the right of way. Even if you ignore
the liabilities of trees or barriers on the right of way and the potential for human
misery, one should examine the potential for the necessity of removing the trees
for future roadwork, thus eliminating those beautiful trees. If the council wants
to promote the planting of trees (a very good idea}, protect them by granting
developers a 5-10 foot wide tax-free strip that would permanently be dedicated
to trees.
23-4-28 Pedestrian and bikeways. Such trails or paths should be located off of roads to
prevent needless human suffering. Special attention should be paid to those
places where out of necessity bikeways and pedestrians meet roads. These are
acknowledged as dangerous places for non-motorized traffic. Pedestrian and
bikeways are important in meeting our future needs. Eliminating one car from
the roads saves us all money. Eco tourists will use such paths. Residents will
benefit greatly if such paths are convenient.
23-4-29 Street lighting. Motion, and pressure detectors should be used for controlling
streetlights. Savings from decreased energy use, protecting our skies from
excessive light pollution allows the telescopes to function better, and aesthetics
are improved by using light only when needed.
23-4-30 Utilities. I have talked to engineers in the water department about locations of
utilities. 'Their opinion is that utility lines and pipes would be beat located on
the right of way between the edge of the pavement and the property lines.
Tearing up pavement to access such utilities inconvenience drivers, raises coats
unnecessarily, and seems to only benefit paving companies.
This section needs a requirement for new subdivisions to generate their own
power. Conservation of energy and water should be mandated. This could be
done with tax incentives.
23-4-33 Developers should finance their own water needs unless all other residents of
the island have satisfactory water delivery systems. Taxpayers shouldn't have
their bond ratings reduced because of excessive debt load and public
underwriting of private developments.
23-4-34 Catchment wafer systems. Currently there are tens of thousands of vacant lots
on this island. 'There is no reason to allow new subdivisions to have catchment
as their sole source of water.
23-4-37 Drainage. No roadways should be allowed on natural waterways. Drainage
patterns shouldn't be altered to accommodate new subdivisions. Developers
should be accountable for any alterations made.
23-4-40 Waterways. Any alterations to waterways should be done in a manner to
accommodate the native flora and fauna. Drainage channels should not be flat
concrete. They should be rounded at the bottom and be lined with gravel. This
and other such systems allow for the aquatic life to survive.
23-4-41 Parke. Parks should be in place and completed before any residential building
permits are issued There should be a process setup to allow for local residents
and nearby owners to preserve natural and historic features. Contested case
hearings and severe penalties against developers who wantonly destroy such
features should be a part of this subdivision code rewrite. Clear rules mandating
public access to beaches, forests, lava tubes and cultural sites must be a part of
this new code.
Summary
A moratorium on all new subdivisions should be enacted now. Tinkering with our
current regulations is not the answer to the enormous problems facing our county
governmerrt. Enacting this revision might have positive benefits for a few developers,
but would yield no substantive benefits to residents. In fact, this revision would create
further problems for current and future generations of resider?ts and taxpayers. I would
venture a guess that future councilmembers would view this as a great detriment to the
fiscal health our county.
Respectfully sub ~tte ,
Robert Jaco son