HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0699.002 1996-1998 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HILO HAWAII
~ecscona~cdcurc
Date March 18, 1998
To RICHARD WURDEMAN, Corporation Counsel '
From DONNA FAY K. KIYOSAKI, Chief Engineer'
i
SUBJECT: YAGONG MEMO - RESOLUTION.NO. 225 '
Dedication Deed for Waiakea Heights Subdivision, Unit II
Tmk: 2-4-37: 014
Our comments to Chairman Yagong's concerns are as follows:
1. Hawaii County Code, Chapter 23, section 23-30 Subdivision Control Code
A. The subdivision is not traversed by a natural water course, drainage way, channel or stream. See
attached definition from National Flood Insurance Program (FEMA) for AH zones.
B. Not Applicable.
C. In this particular case a ponding or possibly sheet flow area. See attached definition from
National Flood Insurance Program (FEMA).
2. No. Subdivisions in an AH zone should pose no danger to the "health and safety of its occupants"
when the requirements ofChapter 27, Flood Control, are followed. We do not believe section 23-37
is applicable to this or any other subdivision within any mapped flood zone. Instead the Department
has been following the provisions ofChapter 27. Sections 23-30 and 37 were crafted in 1975 as part
of our first comprehensive subdivision ordinance. Its intent was to identify, disclose and to prevent
construction in flood areas at a time when we had no FEMA flood maps, no flood classification
system or appropriate flood design and construction standards. There are still no established
guidelines, policies, procedures or standards to even identify "periodic inundation" areas. Chapter
27 addresses all of the shortcomings of 23-30 and 23-37 by following the requirements of National
Flood Insurance Program. The subdivision sections are technologically outdated, too conservative
and arbitrary when compared with the provisions of Chapter 27. Chapter 27 is also far more
comprehensive as it is applicable to all new residential construction. The Department does continue
to use the provisions of Section 23-30 and 37 where an unmapped gulch exists in order to give a
developer an alternative to conducting a costly Chapter 27 flood study.
~o. ~ q 02
~ r, Doc. v
'resented P u/Pc
E:\WP FilesUM1EMOSUNTER.WPD(50) 'rp~-' -
ode .17AY 5.1A9w ~
Richard Wurdeman
March 19, 1998
Page 2 of 2
3. By providing a County dedicable standard stub-out to the adjoining Hoolaulea Street right-of--way,
the subdivider has met the "connectivity" concerns of the Department and Chapter 23. We are not
aware of an;' subdivision that had a requirement to provide a physical connection within an adjoining
private prop.: ty; nor are we aware of any provision in Chapter 23 that allows the County to impose
subdivision c~ instruction requirements on an adjoining piece of property. As a result, despite the
flood zone, we believe that the County Council is extending its considerations into an area that has
no legal foundation or precedent.
Because the issues clearly involve the Planning Department, I must strongly suggest a meeting to discuss
our concerns and to develop a mutually agreeable response. If this is acceptable, please contact Galen
Kuba at x8327.
Enclosures
cc: Planning
F.:\W P Piles\MEMOSllNTP,R. W PD(5I )