HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0824.002 2010-2012 £IP&
C>ulk. 82LI
TESTIMONY OF
MICHAEL J. MATSUKA WA .:I.'. '' r 1. !I: I t#
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. A planned unit development is an "exception" to the
Zoning Code, but in practice has been treated otherwise. The county council,
whose policies and ordinances are in play when a landowner applies for a planned
unit development, is best suited to determine whether the application should or
should not be approved. Bill 291 could be improved by the addition of the
following:
1. Site Visit. A site visit by the landowner and the submission of
photographic evidence of the site by the landowner should be mandatory.
2. General Plan Analysis. The quality of the general plan "analysis"
under proposed Section 25-6-3(2)(E) should be addressed. What constitutes a
satisfactory "analysis" could differ without such guidance. This could be assured
by explaining as a minimum what the "analysis" should contain.
3. Acceptance of Application. The term "acceptance" should be defined.
Under existing Section 25-2-3(e), an application can be "deemed accepted," even
though incomplete, if the planning department does not respond to the application
within 15 days. This is important because "acceptance" is the event that triggers
the timing of the review and decision-making process.
Thank you. �C�t
Michael J. Matsukawa
Comm. No., ` $ 24. 2
Ref f8C
. L1112
Ref.To:Date. 5�