HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0762.009 2004-2006
Message Page 1 of 2
Murashige, Laura
From: scot2000 [scot2000@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 6:23 AM
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Cc: Chris Yuen
Subject: Bill 246, Ordinance Amending Chapter 23, Subdivision Code
Written Testimony from Barbara E.Scott
75-5782 Lopeka Place
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
(808) 327-1277
Planning Committee Meeting
April 18, 2006
BILL 246, ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23, SUBDIVISION CODE
K. Angel Pilago, Chair
Pete Hoffman, Vice Chair
James Y. Arakaki
Stacy K.Higa
Fred C. Holschuh, M.D.
Donald Ikeda
Virginia Isbell
Bob Jacobson
Gary Safarik
Honorable K. Angel Pilago and Planning Committee Members:
Over the past decades, the County of Hawaii interpretation of the Subdivision Code has resulted in an
unreasonable amount of litigation. That litigation is not managed within Corporate Counsel office, but is
purchased with County taxpayer funds (in excess of $3 million in recent years, according to the Profession
Services Award list). In January, the Hawaii Supreme Court upheld Judge Ibarra's decision that the informational
requirements of the Subdivision Control Code are mandatory. The County has been violating the plain language
of the Code for three decades. The Supreme Court held that PLANNING DIRECTOR Yuen's interpretation of the
law was "manifestly incorrect and unreasonable."
The PLANNING DIRECTOR has repeatedly allowed the removal of Rezone Conditions for approved commercial
and residential development, basically usurping the authority of elected officials and resulting in deficiency in
every aspect of infrastructure on the island.
Violations of Chapter 23 of the Subdivision Code are not resolved by Changing the Subdivision Code to support
irresponsible practices. We are currently in the process of developing the Kona Community Development Plan.
There is no purpose in making that effort, financed by $500,000 in County taxpayer funds, without clearly defined
procedures that do NOT include continued exceptions at the discretion of one person.
My objection is directed to the authority given to whomever will be in the position of PLANNING DIRECTOR. I've
not reviewed projects for very many years, but I already cannot count how many times I've read the phrase "this
project does not create any adverse infrastructure impacts" when, in fact, every single project approved has had
an adverse impact to all infrastructure. One agency after another signed off: "no significant impact" and went right
along. Where caution was recommended (as to the Kona Soil and Water Conservation District), the
recommendations were ignored.
Comm No.
Ref. To:.r!lt r~
Ref. Date
4/17/2006
Message Page 2 of 2
Is there a clause I've overlooked in the County Charter that states that county development is completely in
control of one person - the PLANNING DIRECTOR? Somewhere along the way, it is necessary to recognize that
the PLANNING DIRECTOR is a political appointee.
In Hawaii, government is constitutionally by the will of the people - and that is (ideally) conveyed through the
District Council Representatives, not the PLANNING DIRECTOR. By placing unlimited development authority in
the hands of the PLANNING DIRECTOR, the County Council Representatives and the County population all
abdicate their interest and responsibility to the will of one person.
There has already been a significant change in public information availability through the Planning Department
link on the County website. A recent notice posted on the County Property Tax site indicates that property
searches by ownership name would no longer be available due to privacy concerns. Property ownership is public
information. Restricting the search to continually changing Tax Map Key numbers and semi-existent addresses is
dysfunctional. The name search function should be restored to the County Real Property Site / Property Search
link on the County website immediately.
The requirement for development applications to be completed, before submittal to the County for approval,
needs to be enforced, not removed from the Subdivision Code. Past experience should indicate clearly that any
provision not spelled out in development approvals will not come to fruition and, even where conditions have been
spelled out, there has been a way for developers to circumvent Rezone Approval Condition requirements.
Amendments to the Subdivision Code should include language to require all changes to an approved
development applications to return to the County Council for final Rezone Condition Change approval and no
incomplete development application should be considered for approval under any circumstances.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding proposed amendments to the Subdivision Code.
Sincerely,
Barbara Scott
4/17/2006