HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0088.066 1998-2000 oras..rr R r
U /( 4t bb4 � EMAU
4 d:
NA ALA HELE
le P.O. BOX 6384 L_. _ _1
I p KAMUELA, HAWAII 96743
0
° 99 PIRR 16 iPfl 2 03
Hawaii County Council 15 March 1999
25 Aupuni Street i
Hilo H196720 - Y..1\
RE: Bill 250
Dear Members of the Hawaii County Council:
Our nonprofit trails and environmental organization urges you to give consideration to two important new
provisions in Bill 250 pertaining to the zoning code. We have over 250 members statewide. Our purpose
is to promote the preservation of historic Hawaiian trails and advoci'te the protection of historic and natural
areas which are found along trail routes.
We urge you to:
a) Restore to ordinance the former section 25 -42 that defined a 40- foot -wide shoreline setback for the
island.
The present administration revision removed this section from the zoning code. Also, in early 1997, the
administration initiated a change that removed mention of a 40 foot width from the Planning Commission's
Rule 8. The width is presently found in Planning Department Rule 10. State law, Chapter HRS 205,
requires only a 20 foot width. We understand that under the present circumstances, the width may be
changed by the planning department subject to the mayor's approval and a public hearing, pursuant to
Chapter 91 I-IRS.
The setback is too important to our island community to he in the hands of one person, or to exist in a
remote rule. Please restore it to ordinance.
b) During 1995 -98, E Mau Na Ala Hele participated as an intervenor in Land Use Commission docket 94-
705A, a contested case. At that bane the County Planning Department sought to urbanize 3,700 acres of
privately owned North Kona land, later reduced to approximately 950 acres. The consistent position of the
Planning Department before the Land Use Commission was that archaeological surveys could be delayed
to "prior to land alteration " - -that is, after zoning by the Hawaii County Council.
Section 25- 2 -44(a) of Bill 250 has newly defined, and therefore limited, conditions that the County
Council may set on zoning actions. While we support the general definitional approach, the conditions
allowed do not include conditions necessary to preserve Hawaiian historic sites and trails. We strongly
recommend that an additional phrase be added:
The council may impose conditions provided that the council finds that the conditions are:
(1)...(as currently specified)
(2)...(as currently specified)
(3) (additionally) reasonably conceived to protect historic sites, trails or environmental resources.
It is essential to clarify this matter straightforwardly in the code. Thank you for your consideration of
these important ;natters.
Sincerely, Q p
Comm. No. u D , a 6
Barbara A. Schaefer L ���/ �� M 4.1.416 President, E Mau Na Ala Hele ale No.
Ref. To:
Ref. Date 3 - 17-11