Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 105 04/14/1998 1996-1998 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: Apri114, 1998 Re: C-760Bi11 No. 211 PLACE: Councilroom TIME: 2:37 p.m. Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Bill No. 211, transmitted by Mayor Stephen K. Yamashiro per Communication No. 760 dated March 4, 1998, reports as follows: The purpose of Bill No. 211 is to initiate a charter amendment of the Hawaii County Charter (1991), relating to the Planning Director, Planning Commission and Board of Appeals. At its February 2Q 1998 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the approval of the proposed bill to provide a more effective appeals system to reduce duplication and conflicts with state law, and to eliminate the existing conflict of the duties of the Planning Commission and the Boazd of Appeals. The groposed bill would also place the Board of Appeals, for administrative purposes, in the Office of the Corporation Counsel instead of the Planning Department. The Commission requested that the Council give consideration to alternative methods of solving the problem of having attorneys from the Corporation Counsel's Office representing the Planning Director/Chief Engineer, Planning Commission and Board of Appeals. The Commission felt the Board of Appeals needed to have outside counsel to make it completely independent of the County. Bill No. 211 is identical to Bill No. 277, which was first heazd in the Planning Committee on June 18, 1996. Your Committee passed Bill No. 277 with the recommendation that the public should have the opportunity to decide whether this charter amendment should be adopted. However, on the Council's third and final reading, Bill No. 277 did not muster the six votes to pass. At today's meeting, Planning Director Virginia Goldstein explained each proposed change. Your Committee agreed that the proposed amendments were matters of great concern, but the placement of the Board of Appeals with the Corporation Counsel was another matter. Currently, the County of Hawaii Charter grants both the Board of Appeals as well, in some instances, the Planning Commission the ability or the function of heazing appeals of the Planning Director. The proposed amendment would eliminate the review and approval of appeals by the Planning Commission on the variances which are granted by the Planning Director, and the appealed variances would then go directly to the Boazd of Appeals. The proposal to move the Boazd of Appeals to the Corporation Counsel would make a cleaz separation between the functions of the department. PC Report No. 105 PC 105 2 Apri114, 1998 The proposed amendments are: 1. Page 3, item (b). "Prepare a general plan and amendments thereto, and other mans and amendments thereof The insertion of the underscored language is for housekeeping purposes, because under the General Plan, the Planning Department also proposes and prepazes other regional and community plans, as well as amendments, therefore, this language would clazify that. 2. Page 3, item (h). Delete "but if any objections.......planning commission" to streamline item (h). Because the definition of the word "review" is not clear, the Commission recommended that this language be deleted so the appeals would go directly to the Boazd of Appeals and not to the Planning Commission. Currently, the appeals go to the Planning Commission and the Commission's actions can be appealed by the Boazd of Appeals, so to save time and eliminate conflicting actions, the recommendation is to have the appeals go directly to the Boazd and not the Commission. There were some concerns about this section to include denials as well as objections to the approvals. 3. Page 5, item (e). The deletion of the language so the appeals will go directly to the Boazd of Appeals. The addition of Perform such duties as aze authorized by state statute allows for special permits and geothermal permits. 4. Page 5, item (f). The deletion and addition of the language encompasses all matters upon which the commission is required by law to act and does not limit the scope of the appeals. 5. Page 5, Section 5-6.3. Adds The board of appeals shall establish its rules of procedure. 6. Page 5, item (a). Insert a comma after the word "law". This section enables the Boazd to hear appeals against the planning director, planning commission and the chief engineer. Previously the chief engineer only dealt with the enforcement of the building, plumbing and electrical code and laws, but the new language will encompass other permits which are granted by the public works department through ordinances such as the grading permit, etc. 7. Page 6, item (b). Delete "All hearings shall he conducted according to" and insert "The board shall conduct heazings in accordance with the State Administrative Procedures Act." This isjust a technical change. 8. Page 6, item (c). The deletion of "although such a background or expertise is not a prerequisite for membership" because it is redundant. Your Committee decided that this section be left intact. 9. Page 6, item (d). The proposed bill recommends that the Boazd of Appeals be placed with the office of the Corporation Counsel, however, Your Committee recommended that the Board of Appeals remain with the Planning Department. Concerns about the lack of clerical assistance at the office of the Corporation Counsel was mentioned, but the Planning Director mentioned that they budgeted for a new position to help the Board. The Planning Director noted that if the Boazd is transferred to the office of the Corporation Counsel, the budgeted position would also be transferred to Corporation Counsel. At that point, an inquiry was made if that person could also handle the Boazd of Ethics because Corporation Counsel had to hire a person especially to deal with the Boazd of Ethics since the Corporation Counsel staff could not handle the work load. PC Report No. 105 PC 105 3 April 1998 Your Committee had concerns about placing the Boazd of Appeals with the office of the Corporation Counsel because there may be conflicts of interest. But it was stated that wherever the Board is situated, there will be conflicts of interest. Your Committee deemed this a very difficult decision to render and is trying to protect the integrity of a procedure which is flawed. It was agreed that this decision needs a considerable amount of thought, so a suggestion was made to simply withdraw it from the bill. The communication from Deanna Hammersley, Chairwoman of the Boazd of Appeals, expressed that "having direct and immediate access to the necessary Planning Department and Planning Commission files enables swift and accurate compilation of documents for review. If these functions were removed to the Office of the Corporation Counsel, this accuracy and efficiency would disappear, and an additional layer of bureaucratic interface may be created." Your Committee then decided to restore the original language in Section 5-6.3 (d) to the Planning Department. Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the intent and purpose of Bill No. 211, as amended to Drafr 2 and recommends it pass first reading. bh ~ X i AYES NOES A&E X Respectfully submitted, LEITHEAD-TODD X COMMITTE N PL ING TYLER X ~ / CHUNG J{ REYNOLDS x BY JEA LEITHEAD-TODD, CHAIR SANTANGELO sMiTH x PC REPORT NO. 105 YAGONG X J11N ~ ~ X998 ARAKAKI E.O.M. ADOPTED'