Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0308.005 2002-2004 1 ~ N' JMYV Oi N~~' ~o.• Harry Kim Christopher J. Yuen Mays, R~~, friT~e~v;,. y - 1~~ Oe.M'.~1 '03 SEP y p~ ~.'I~It~moto ~/~rT1 Urpun irc~rur ~JDIxIt~kT II~ ~tt~Utttt CUU^. ~ '.r ~ r. COUNTY ~ d= N,q~n/,111 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 967203043 (808)961-8288 Fax(808)961-8742 1 SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: J. CURTIS'I'YI.ER, III, VICN; CHAIR, PL.~INNING COMbII"ITEIS, COUNTY COUNCII_ FROM: CHRISTOPHF,R~U.ANNING DIRECTOR c.. SUBJECT: AUGUST l9, ?003 Pl.ANNINCG COMMII'I'F.E MEETING This memo responds to the questions raised during the August 19, 2003 Planning Committee meeting as summarized in your memo dated August 27, 2003. 1) Metes and Bounds. We are still waiting for the Corporation Counsel opinion on the question whether an amendment to a rezoning ordinance that changes only the conditions and not the rezoning area needs to include the metes and bounds. We will advise you when we receive the opinion. 2) Background Report. Staff has been instructed to include the Director's recommendation, agency comments, and Planning Commission minutes in all future rezoning transmittals to the Council. 3) Noncompliance with Conditions. a) The question is whether noncompliance with any conditions should result in mandatory reversion. Former Planning Director Sidney Fuke testified at the Planning Committee meeting that the reason for the mandatory language at that time was to show that government "meant business", and that the director still had discretion to rezone to a "more appropriate" designation and not necessarily to the prior zoning. [f the intent is to remove discretion, then I believe the Counci] should amend the zoning ordinance to provide for automatic reversion if a Gomm. No. Ref.1~r° R::f. Uote condition imposed at the time of rezoning is not met. While such reverter provisions have been upheld in some courts, Corporation Counsel should give an opinion (if this is the route Council wishes to pursue) whether such automatic reversion complies with notice and hearing requirements under our state law. ~ I believe in discretion. Discretion is necessary to appropriately respond to the myriad reasons and circumstances resulting in noncompliance. Negotiation, backed with the power of reversion, may provide more benefits to the public. b) The word "substantial" provides a legitimate "shield" to the landowner that government will not use the "letter of the law" to nitpick. c) The phrase "timely fashion" can be replaced with "within the time limits set by ordinance." 4) Kapoho Properties. To address the questions raised at the Planning Committee meeting, we propose the following amendments: a) Condition C i) To ensure that the traffic signal and related intersection improvements are in place concurrent with occupancy, amend the last sentence: "Construction of the trafftc signalization shall be completed within five years of the effective date of this ordinance, or prior to the issuance of the first building_permit within the pronosed subdivision, whichever is earlier." b) Condition D. After reviewing studies and agency input, the Planning Department and Planning Commission did not believe improvements to South Road were necessary. Hence, we do not propose any amendments to Condition D. RRT:pak P:\WPW1N60\Roy T\Correspondence\Planning Committee.doc cc: Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Deputy Corporation Counsel Rathkopf s The Law of Zoning and Planning, §39:26.