HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0762.076 2004-2006
\ 1 t
Margaret Whlle --w-
65-1316 Lihipali Road
Kamuela Hawaii 96743 JU~+ Z
Tel: 808 887 77419 Fax: 808.887.14 ! Q 07
Email: willem00l @ awii.rr.com,
June 7, 2006
Honorable Stacy K. Higa, Chairman lj~Ett~ail and mail
And Members of the County Council
Hawaii County Council
Hawaii County Building
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Re: Bill 246: Subdivision Code: THANK YOU COUNTY COUNCIL
Dear Chairman Higa and Members of the County Council:
THANK YOU for making the revisions to Draft 2 of Bill 246, that resulted in Draft 5 of Bill 246.
When I attended the June 5`" session of the County Council, I had no knowledge that there was a
Draft 5 to Bill 246. While waiting to testify, I learned of the June 1" revised Draft 5. Because I only
intended to speak about the importance of one section of the Subdivision Code that was to be deleted, I
checked to see if Draft 5 would still delete that particular provision - Section 23-66 (7). When I saw that
that Director Yuen still proposed to delete that particular code provision, I stayed focused on my plan to
testify about the importance of retaining that section 23-66(7) based on the legal reasoning in the Leslie
decision. While waiting to testify I did not further study the Draft 5 changes, other than to note that at least
(and at last) there would be public notice of subdivision applications.
I have now had the chance to review the changes that the Council, with the assistance of Director
Yuen, made in response to the public comments on this Bill 246, and I want to belatedly acknowledge and
express appreciation for these changes - which were substantial. In particular, I am referring to the
substantive change to section 23-62(e). The Council's Draft 5 and final Bill 246 clarifies that even where
there are omissions to the preliminary plat and accompanying information, there must be"... actual
compliance with the substantive requirements of this [subdivision] chapter and chapter 25 zoning code."
That change to the proposed Subdivision Code amendments, ensures that compliance with each substantive
requirement of the subdivision code, and other related statutory and regulatory requirements, is enforceable
as part of the subdivision approval process.
I continue to encourage Director Yuen to carry out the underlying purpose of the now deleted
subdivision section 23-66(7) by providing subdivision applicants a checklist of the subdivision criteria,
including where applicable other statutory and regulatory matters that must be reviewed as part of the
subdivision process, such as under a related rezoning ordinance, General Plan directives or future
Community Development Plan requirements. (A very rough sample of such a compliance criteria checklist
was submitted as part of my June 1" written testimony.) By providing, up front, such a compliance criteria
checklist to developers, the Planning Department will ensure greater accountability and will make both the
application and department review process more efficient.
Again, I regret that I did not become aware of the section 23-62(e) revision in Draft 5 on June 5s',
in time to publicly acknowledge the Council's substantive action when I testified. Hence: this belated
statement of appreciation -to both the Council and to Planning Director Yuen.
Z Sin ly,
vw v
cc: Planning Director C. Yuen " I Z- 76
Comm. No. y
Ref. Tor
Ref. Datee~r t 4 1_iJ11II