HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0018.005 1998-2000
KONR SHIATSU CLINIC Fax ~ 808-323-3111 Feb 19 0816
May 2ti, 1999
Council Member Dotttinic Yagong, Chair _
County Public Works and Parks Committee R~C,EI'v v
25 Aupuni St.
Hilo, Hawaii 96725 99 f7flY 25 Aft 7 51
Thomas Langenstein, Associate Director COUNTYTOF I ERK
Kona Soil and Water Conservation District Board HAWgI)
P O Box 1165 Phone/Fax:(SU8)323-3111
Captain Cook, Hawaii 96704
Re Addendum to KSWCDB testimony on Proposed Hawaii County Code Chapter IO
Revisions, Identified aS Bill 6
Aloha Chairperson Yagong and Council Members'
Thank you fot the continuation of discussion with the Kona Soil and Water Conservation District
Board and interested parties regarding proposed Bill 6 As an outcome of our April 19, 1999
meeting between Council members Pisicchio and Tyler, Mr. Tom Pack-DPW, and members of the
KSWCDB, recommendations have been forwarded by Mr. William Cowell-Chair based on some
of our discussion, In addition to comments in his letter, attendants at the meeting agreed that
enforcement of regulations and adequate fates to deter non compliance with the permitting
process are issues also needing to be addressed in proposed Bill 6 Additionally, it was
recommended that we research drainage and flooding ordinances of Maui acid Kauai to see if
proposed chapter 10 can be improved from that perspective. Since that time, 1 have done
research on ordinances of Maui and Kauai, and have some comments.
Subsequcnt to my February 22, 1999 testimony, Mr Jiro Sumada, DPW wrote comments
regarding some of my suggestion in a memo to you dated April 15, 1999. i would like to first
respond to some of his comments.
It is true that developers who submit plans For of lands permitted for subdivision approval already
sae required to prepare drainage and mitigation studies. When individual property owners,
however, make improvements (i a ohana, workers quarters, guest housing, etc.. and then CPR
them for the individual sale, these improvements do not meet the subdivision approval process.
This is increasingly occurrigg within developments existing as previously approved subdivisions
and on agriculturally zoned lands. Mr. Sumada didn't stale what statutor}~ authority the County
uses in,justifying nonenforcement of flooding and drainage standards by saying that property
owners can ill afford to provide drainage studies and mitigation plans for properties in lo~v coat
subdivisions or because they are owned by a first time home owner.
It was suggested that language made to limit the authority of the Soil and Water Conservation
District would contradict the intent of Section 10-2-(b)(4).
Continued on Page 2
x.. 18. o
b°11e He. GG E O
>3nt. 'PQt ~ W ~G
;~,.t. MAY 2 6 1999
k'ONR SHIRTSU CLINIC Fax ~ 808-323-3111 Feb 19 0816
Page 2
May 26, 1999
The Statutory authority for Cotrnties to protect human life and health; minimize the expenditure
of public money for costly Hood control projects, minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts
associated with flooding; nunimize prolonged business interruptions and damage to public
facilities in areas of special flood hazard, and to ensure that those who occupy the areas of special
Hood hazard assume the responsibility for their actions, is given pursuant to the lJ S- National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (public laws 90-448 and 91-152) as amended, the U S. Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (public law 93-234) as amended, and chapter 46 HRS (Ord. 2223
Section 1 (part), 1993: Ord. 1145 1145 Section 2 (pa~Y), 1981, and Chapt. 27.
If individually Considering Section 10-2 (b)(4), it rttay appear to give the SWCD the authority to
supersede chapter 10. With the statutes quoted, along with Chapters 180C and 180-13 HRS,
however, the intent is clearly stated for the County to cooperate with the soil and conservation
district boards as the community conservationist advocate in encouraging surveys, investigations,
research relating to soil and water conservation, and even forcing enforcement. Intent in these
sections imply that the district board embellishes the minimum standards rather than having the
County abrogating standards to them as an independent authority.
As to assertions that the County is not liable for actions that it deters to the SWCD because it is a
State agency, I recommend that such assumptions should be checked with Corporation Council.
Mr Sumada states that "for some types of grading violations (my emphasis), we (the DPW)
require the violator to obtain a grading permit." Unless a permit is required, the public tray be
responsible for rectifying actions of irresponsible property owner's actions which may aRect
property owners or public facilities downstream. Whether it be by County or State authority, we
are talking about this potentially cvsUng public monies.
In addition to recommendations made by Mr. Cowell in his communication, the group discussing
issues relating to proposed Chapter 10 at the April l9, 1999 meeting agreed increasing the fines
for non compliance with the permitting process, and requesting Corporation C'ouncil's opinion as
to suggestions our board has made would he a valuable. As an example of~a more appropriate
fine, Maui County requires that whenever work requiring a permit has commenced without first
obtaining an appropriate permit a special investigation shat] be made before a permit may be
issued. An investigation fee in addition to the permit application fee is charged regardless of
whether or not the permit is finally issued (Chapt 16 26 (e) (l)(2)&(3)). Any person who violates
any provision of Maui's drainage ordinance, upon conviction can be punished by a fine of'up tv
$500. Continuance of any such violation after conviction is deemed a new offence for each day of
such continuance (Chapter 12.12.040). I recommend Hawaii County adopt a sirttilar ordinance,
Thattlc you.
Sincerely,
Thomas Langenstein, A sociate Director
Kona Soil & Water District Soard
cc Mr William "Skip" Cowell, Chair - KSWCD
Mr Steve Skipper - NKCS, Kona