HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0824.001 2010-2012 REVISED TESTIMONY OF
PATRICIA MISSLER
In Support of
BILL 291 : Relating to Planned Unit Developments
September 18 , 2012
Members of the Hawaii County Council , County of Hawaii
I support Bill 291 . My husband and I recently
completed a costly and lengthy 10-month appeal with the
Board of Appeals contesting a PUD approval by Planning
Director BJ Leithead-Todd .
As our appeal progressed we were shocked , disillusioned
and saddened by what appeared to be "business as usual"
at the Planning Department and obvious lack of
professionalism combined with a reluctance to follow
the Kona CDP ordinance .
The power to approve a PUD should be removed from the
Planning Director and reassigned to a governing body
with checks and balances and transparency . The
public ' s interests and concerns are a MUST in
determining these decisions that affect our
communities .
In our appeal , an adjoining property owner , Robert
Chang , submitted a letter to the Planning Director
regarding Hawaiian burial sites . His concerns were
ignored .
Larry Nakayama , county planner , when asked during our
appeal if he had undergone any kind of special training
or educational programs to qualify to be a planner , he
said , "No" . Thorough understanding of the specific
language regarding Planned Unit Developments is
essential . Whoever is responsible for making these
important decisions needs a thorough knowledge of
planned unit developments and the law. C
Comm. No. o Z
Ref.To: P/PCB
Ref. Date SI 18 201L
The application fee could be raised from $500 to
$5 , 000 . This will weed out the persons seeking
variances to enhance the "sell-ability" of their
property . In our contested case , the owner , after
having been granted a PUD approval testified , "...we ' re
just trying to get some partners to actually do any
kind of developing . You know, we never really intended
to do this ourselves . " In other words , the applicant ' s
PUD was only on paper , not really something he was
prepared to execute .
In our contested case , if the applicant had submitted
an inventory of all the natural resources as required
by law, it would have revealed an kipuka with 1 , 000
year old ` Ohi ' a trees . The planning department would
have had more information in which to make an INFORMED
decision . However , this was not done . To compound the
errors , architect , Michael Riehm, designed this PUD
without ever having made a site visit .
The end result was an approval letter from the planning
director with a description of the property to be
developed as , "Vegetation within the Property area
consists of a combination of kiawe , koa haole , and
variety of grass , shrubs , and weeds . The plants found
on the Property are generally alien and introduced
species , none being considered rare or endangered . No
endemic species of animals were located nor were their
habitats . " Thus an ancient old-growth ' Ohi ' a forest
and native habitat was reduced to being a kiawe
wasteland . Furthermore the letter implied that someone
actually went to look at the property , which NEVER
happened . Site visits MUST be made mandatory .
As a Hawaii resident , I care what happens to our
natural resources therefore Bill 291 will go a long way
in correcting the problems we have been facing with the
PUD application processing .
Mahalo .
Patricia Missler , South Kona