HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0088.024 1998-2000 a
February 18, 1999 0 � ' o
James Arakaki, Chairman eD Y1� rv YS M
�
Re: Optional Development Regulations
Councilmember:
The Hawai'i County Council (HCC) represents its constituency in matters of public health, safety, and
welfare. To this end, the HCC passes ordinances and allots funds concerning: zoning, growth,
infrastructure (roads, traffic lights, utility easements and requirements, water easements and requirements,
Police and Fire protection service, and community services such as, hospitals, parks, and shoreline
facilities).
Hawai'i County needs to maintain existing ordinances and pass new ordinances that will protect our
agricultural land from continued subdivision into residential lots less than 5 acres and make the Hawai'i
County a much safer and healthier place to live and work as well as improve the appearance,
accessibility, and infrastructure of our communities. Such protection and improvements should be
made with a very long view to the future. With that in mind, we request that the HCC should:
A. Eliminate Agricultural Project Districts (APD) completely.
1. Agricultural land should not be subdivided into lots smaller than 5 acres.
2. It is not reasonable or practical to make a living from agriculture on less than 5 acres of land.
3. The price of land in increments less than 5 acres becomes too expensive for small farmers to afford.
4. This section as written allows residences to be built on 1 acre minimum lots which defeats the
purpose of agriculture.
B. Eliminate in its entirety, Chapter 25, Zoning, Article 6, Optional Development Regulations unless:
1. Requirements of the existing zones (e.g. RA, RD, etc.) are codified in this section.
2. Control and enforcement measures are written into the total zoning code.
3. Proof of benefit to the County is provided by the developer to use Article 6 in lieu of other zoning
codes.
4. HCC not the Planning Director concurs that Article 6 is more appropriate than other zones for each
individual application to use Article 6. The requirement for concurrence by the HCC is written into
the code.
5. Requirement for complete infrastructure (all underground utilities, water mains, Fire Safety, street
lights, waste water disposal, water, streets, sidewalks, common areas, etc.) is written into the code.
6. Streets are designed and constructed for dedicability to the County and have a) striping, bumps,
and reflectors in the center of the road, b) water mains, c) fire hydrants, and reflectors on the street
indicating the location of the hydrants.
7. Complete preliminary map at the time of application is submitted by the developer indicating the
total project to enable the HCC to make a prudent and reasonable decision.
8. Each portion of the development meets the zoning code regulations of the appropriate zone
(e.g. RS for a single family residence) to which that portion would have been required to comply.
9. Written notification to all adjacent property owners and all property owners within 1,000 feet of
the proposed development at the time of application for the zoning change.
10. Preliminary map can not be changed or have additions after temporary permit is granted without
written notification to adjacent property owners and property owners within 1,000 feet, additional
announced public hearings, and HCC approval (changes in type of structure or location within the
project must be disallowed).
11. Require developers to either bond the project for the infrastructure or construct a percentage
of the infrastructure before any sales and construct additional percentagT neerafrastructure
File No. H CC— /ZNG
Page: 1 Ref. Tor Presented Co unlci c� tl
Comm. No, g' 2T Rnf 'Data FEB 18 1999
o o
before the sales occur. (e.g. Provide complete infrastructure for each project phase prior to the first
construction begins or first lot sold in that phase.)
12. All infrastructure should be completed within a reasonable time period from the beginning of
construction (perhaps 2 years).
13. Appropriately announced public hearings are held in the area where the Article 6 development
will be located.
14. Ohanas are entirely removed from Article 6 and placed in a separate section.
Optional Development Regulations are a financial detriment to the taxpayers through the: 1) loss of
revenues to the County due to low fees for zoning changes, 2) cost to County for construction of missing or
inadequate infrastructure if the developer fails to complete the project, 3) loss of agricultural land and its
production to residential use, 4) poor zoning creates financial, social, and use loss to adjacent property
owners, and 5) future infrastructure needs always fall to the taxpayers to provide and pay for.
Long -term planning must provide for protection of agricultural land, installation of adequate infrastructure,
and protection from financial abandonment of a development. Taxpayers are left to fix or complete
inadequate infrastructure or install nonexistent infrastructure in developments to meet public needs. The
connection of Lako Road both mauka and makai is a perfect example. Agricultural land used for any other
purpose is lost as agricultural land forever.
We, the taxpayers, cannot afford to allow developers to make vague promises and leave a mess for us to
fix. There is nothing wrong with making a profit but it is the duty of the HCC to make sure that there is an
appropriate balance of profit for the developer and a positive gain in infrastructure, services, revenue,
and protection of agricultural land for the County so that taxpayers don't continue to subsidize
developers and their profits. And certainly, it is the HCC's fiduciary duty to prevent a financial Toss to the
taxpayers whether in the short-term or in the long -term.
As we will soon enter the 21 century, we recognize the need to improve some aspects of our island home
and certainly its economic base. Improvement requires that the HCC provide stringent requirements for
planned growth, sound fiscal policy, as well as safe and adequate infrastructure and services for the future.
Intelligent, long -term planning and design for Hawai'i County should be reflected in a General Plan and
Zoning Code that supports the community and our agricultural lands. Specific requirements for adequate
infrastructure need to be passed, adequate not just for today but adequate for many years into the future.
These zoning requirements must be standardized as well as being consistently, fairly, and equally applied
to all future developments. We can no longer afford anything less.
It is the intent of the undersigned to have Article 6. Optional Development Regulations rewritten to include
the above requirements, remove ambiguous statements, or be permanently removed from the Hawai'i
County Zoning Ordinance (whether under revision, contemplation, or already pass.).
EVLtL CUarn5 ' v ia°.rc-, A
art,
Ap
/RA 11
AlAotj re- /( GPI/ k i! 5n • / a
cc: Curtis Tyler, Councilmember
Nancy Pisicchio, Councilmember
Page: 2
r
In reading Chapter 25. Zoning (L aft 8), we observed the following problems:
A. Redundancy to other sections of the Zoning Code (zoning protects our needs as a community)
1. Agricultural Project District (APD) within Agriculture (A) & Intensive Agriculture (IA) zones is already
covered by
a. RA residential agriculture
b. FA family agriculture
2. Proiect District (PD) and Planned Unit Development (PUD) are already covered by
a. RS single - family residential district
b. RD double family residential district
c. RM multiple- family residential district
d. RCX residential commercial mixed district
e. CN neighborhood commercial
f. CG general commercial
g. CV village commercial
h. V resort
B. Purpose of APD, PD, PUD is ambiguous, misleading, and potentially allows deviations from
zoning requirements if the requirements of the established zoning districts were used.
1. PUD (planned unit development) - "...encourage comprehensive site planning that adapts the
design of development to the land, by allowing diversification in the relationships of various uses,
buildings, structures, open spaces and yards, building heights, and lot sizes in planned building
groups, while still insuring that the intent of this chapter is observed."
a. Too much latitude due to multiple zoning districts requirements.
b. Allows developer to avoid requesting and paying for multiple zoning changes.
c. Reduces revenue to the County for zoning changes.
d. Potential conflicts between zoning requirements.
2. CPD (cluster planned development) — "...provide exceptions to the density requirements of the
single - family (RS) district so that permitted density of dwelling units contemplated by the minimum
building site requirements is maintained on an overall basis and desirable open space, tree cover,
recreational areas, or scenic vistas are preserved
a. The density is much higher than by allowed by code for the established zone district.
b. No requirement for sewage disposal or other infrastructure.
c. Designating "historic buildings or sites" as "common land" probably violates access to
ancient Hawaiian locations since "common land" is owned by the CPD. Historic buildings and
sites should NOT be included as "common land" and public access must be allowed.
3. PD (project district) — "...provide for a flexible and creative planning approach rather than
specific land use designations, for quality developments. It will also allow for flexibility in
location of specific uses and mixes of structural alternatives. The planning approach would establish
a continuity in land uses and designs while providing for a comprehensive network of
infrastructural facilities and systems."
a. We need specific land use designations and appropriate regulations to support the
designations.
b. Who defines a "quality development ", the developer?
c. Specific uses and mixes of structural alternatives is what the County should be avoiding in
a planned community.
d. Continuity in land use is violated by PD.
e. Comprehensive Network of infrastructural facilities and systems is undefined, ambiguous, and
unenforceable.
4. APD — "... provide a flexible and creative planning approach for developments within the agricultural
zoning districts, in lieu of specific land use designations. It will allow for flexibility in the location of
specific types of agricultural uses and variations in lot sizes... provide a vehicle to satisfy the
Page: 3
demand for a rural life sr .,e on marginal agricultural land, while d rcreasing the pressure to develop
important agricultural land for this purpose. The planning approach would establish a continuity in
land uses and designs, while providing for the needed infrastructural facilities and systems to
support the various types of agricultural developments."
a. The county needs to protect our agricultural lands from additional development not encourage
more flexible ways to use it for residential use. Specific land use designations provide that
protection.
b. Lot sizes in agricultural areas are already specified and need to be continued.
c. "Marginal" agricultural land is undefined but can be very productive agriculturally and needs
protection as well.
d. Rural and life style are undefined. The building lot sizes allowed in APD (1 acre minimum)
precludes "rural ".
e. APD does nothing to decrease residential pressure on other types of agricultural land.
f. Continuity in land uses and infrastructural facilities and systems are undefined, ambiguous, and
unenforceable.
C. Violates existing zoning requirements and restrictions.
1. PUD allows "a use not permitted either directly or as a conditional use within a district..."
2. CPD provides exceptions to the density requirements.
3. PD allows mixes of structures.
D. PUD, CPD, PD, APD all allow increased densities in violation of existing zoning codes.
1. We all know that a "living" cannot be made on 1 acre of "agricultural" land. In the case of APDs, the
potential increased density of building lots to a minimum of 1 acre effectively makes APDs
the same as RA -la. APDs should be disallowed.
E. Ohana Dwellings
1. Should be placed in its own section and not with projects, developments, etc.
2. Increase subsequent ohana permit application time from 2 years to 5 years.
3. Increase filing fees.
4. When property is owned by a corporation, association, or a partnership, an ohana should not
be allowed. An ohana by common definition is a residential unit for the extended family.
Otherwise, it is a method to increase density and provide a rental unit under the guise of an ohana.
5. All owners of any percentage ownership must be identified not just those with 10 %+ ownership.
6. Applicants should be required to serve written notice on adjacent and surrounding lot owners within
1,000' of the lot for which the ohana permit is requested.
7. Variances should be required for ohanas.
8. Filing fee should be increased substantially.
9. Impact fees should be assessed.
F. Additional concerns
1. Special Management Area (SMA) has not been addressed.
2. Safety flood zones has not been addressed.
3. Rural is undefined.
4. Residential - agricultural zone (RA) allows urban density.
5. District A in agricultural land is undefined.
6. APD minimum building lot size is redundant to zones RA, FA, A, and IA, and therefore unnecessary.
G. Financial impacts include:
1. Loss of revenue for multiple zoning changes.
2. Filing fees that are too low.
3. Lack of impact fees to compensate County for future infrastructure needs.
4. :oss of agricultural production and tax revenues (APD).
5. Increased services for fire and police safety, water, roads, schools, and increased traffic densities.
Page: 4