HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0936.020 2008-2010 Page 1 of 1
P•
Murashige, Laura COM M 93to
From: Michael J. Riehm [ropa @hawaii.rr.com] r :;�'i ] 1 r `]
GvT 2":
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 11:04 AM
To: counciltestimony @co.hawaii.hi.us C
Subject: riehm testimony Bill 298
Attachments: 10_29_10 Testimony Amend Chapter 27.pdf; ATT00017.html
Attached is my testimony re: Bill 298.
Michael J. Riehm, A.I.A.
Riehm Owensby Planners Architects
P.O. Box 390747
Kailua -Kona, Hawaii 96739
Tel: 808 - 322 -6115
Cell: 808 - 936 -8202
Fax: 808 - 322 -3391
Email: ropa @hawaii.rr.com
Comm. No. q M,. 2.0
Ref. To: WC41Mote r.
Ref. Dote NOV 0 4 2011
10/29/2010
I'iehoi Owensby ?'I.n hens Architects
P.O. Box 390747, Kailua -Kona, Hawaii 96739, Tel 808.322 6115. Fax 808.322.3391
To: Council Chair J. Yoshimura, County of Hawaii
Date: 10/29/10
Re: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 27, Article 2, & Article 4,
of the Hawai'i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as
Amended), Relating To Floodplain Management
D ear Councilman Yoshimura:
I am in support of the proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 27,
Article 2 & 4 and the proposed changes as noted below:
1. Remove the 50' buffer that was added to the FIRM flood boundary
lines island wide.
2. Reduce the threshold for "substantial improvement" from 50% of
the value of the building every 10 years to 50% every three years.
3. Limit the prohibition on fill in the V and VE zones to just
"structural support of buildings ".
I support this new proposed ordinance since I feel the current
ordinance is overly restrictive, especially in light, that it exceeds the
requirements of the Federal government. The current ordinance
adversely affects the ability for property owners to improve and
develop their properties in an economical manner without undue
excessive cost as a result of the 50 foot buffer and the "no rise"
requirements.
To date, I have had two projects adversely affected by the current
ordinance. One was in Kona and even though it met the Federal
requirements, additional work needed to be done to make it comply
with the current ordinance. This may have added thousands of dollars
to the project for which there was already a tight budget.
I think the intent of the original ordinance was good but its design
criteria was overly restrictive with little thought to the financial impact
it would have on local businesses.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Riehm, A.I.A.