Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2018/01/03 (2016-2018)Committee on Planning 16th Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii January 3, 2018 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 9:09 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair Ms. Eileen O'Hara, Vice Chair Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Ms. Jennifer Ruggles, Member Absent & Excused: Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: (There were none.) CHR. EOFF: We have communications first on the agenda. Mr. Clerk, can you read Communication 653? COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 653: NOMINATION OF JOHN R. REPLOGLE TO THE WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION From Mayor Harry Kim, dated December 14, 2017, submitting for the Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Requires Council Confirmation by: January 27, 2018 (Section 13-4(1), Hawaii County Charter) PC -16 January 3, 2018 Vote on Comm. 653: Ms. David moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) appointment of Mr. John R. Replogle to the Windward Planning Commission. Seconded by Ms. Ruggles and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards — 2. Excused: None. Committee members spoke in favor of the appointment. CHR. EOFF: We're going to just take a quick recess to shake your hand and say thank you personally. Okay, we're in recess. Recess: At 9:17 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 9:18 a.m. CHR. EOFF: Okay, I'd like to call this meeting back to order. Mr. Replogle, John, I just want to let you know there will be one more hearing on your nomination, but you don't have to be here for our next one, okay? Okay, the next communication is number 655. Comm. 655: NOMINATION OF DAN DOMIZIO TO THE PUNA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEE From Mayor Harry Kim, dated December 14, 2017, submitting for the Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Requires Council Confirmation by: January 27, 2018 (Section 13-4(1), Hawaii County Charter) Vote on Comm. 655: Ms. O'Hara moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) appointment of Mr. Dan Domizio to the Puna Community Development Plan Action Committee. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote. Ayes: Committee Members David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards — 2. Excused: None. Page 2 PC -16 January 3, 2018 Committee members spoke in favor of the appointment. CHR. EOFF: We'll take a recess to congratulate you, but you don't have to return to the Council meeting next time, okay? Thank you. We're in recess. Recess: At 9:25 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 9:28 a.m. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. (There were none.) CHR. EOFF: I'd like to call the meeting back to order. Mr. Clerk, would you please read Bill 88? BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Bills ORDINANCES: for Ordinances. Bill 88: AMENDS CHAPTER 23, ARTICLE 11, SECTION 23-118 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO CRITERIA TO DETERMINE A PRE-EXISTING LOT The Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions forward their favorable recommendations for this amendment to the Subdivision Code, which would add a criterion for determining a pre-existing lot. Reference: Comm. 656 Intr. by: Ms. Eoff (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 88 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. David. CHR. EOFF: I'd like to askI see the Planning Director and the Deputy Planning Director here in the chambers, thank you for coming forward. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Michael Yee came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. EOFF: And if you wouldn't mind, Director Yee, just introduce yourself and maybe provide us with some of the technical background so we all understand why this is coming forward. MR. YEE: Michael Yee, Planning Director. Without too much technicality, just want to clarify that there was a practice that people could go in to the Bureau of Page 3 PC -16 January 3, 2018 Conveyances and basically present information, parcel and stuff, without going through subdivision of the Planning Department. It would get assigned TMK (Tax Map Key) numbers and stuff and then would be able to get taxed. Except, if it wasn't if we didn't have record of it and we were then asked to determine pre- existing lot, we may see something on map but it had not gone through subdivision. So, Planning Department didn't recognize it. So, it was starting to it caused an issue with clear titles sometimes when people asked, "Is this a lot?" People were buying sub -property all the time and without being able to say, "Yes, this was a pre-existing lot that was approved by the County via the Planning Department." It would just raise questions, so we reached the point here where we felt like it was time to just clarify it, add this criteria in so all these innocent folks could be, you know, have clear title and just clear recognition of having a pre-existing lot. And again, this practice went all the way up until 1999 when we took over the subdivision and then assigning, or not taking subdivision but assigning the tax map keys. That's the short of it. CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you very much, and Council Members, we have the presentation that was given to the Planning Commission and all of the background information and minutes. So, I'm just going to open it up to the Council Members if they have any MR. YEE: And if we, excuse me, if we need more technical data, I brought the team that would really have the technical information, the Deputy and Jonathan Holmes. CHR. EOFF: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Council Members? Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: I'm glad that you're moving to make this a clearer process and just recently, I ran into a muddle trying to help out one of the subdivisions in my district with their road TMK And it happens, this is Hawaiian Shores/Beaches, there were four separate subdivisions and two of them on one side of Kahakai, two on the other, and back when the roads were formed into a deed. There is only one TMK assigned to all the roads in two separate subdivisions, so Hawaiian Shores Recreational Estates, the only one with a community homeowner's association, was in the process, or is still in the process of trying to procure a USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) rural development loan to resurface their 11 and a half miles of privately held roads. They've never been separated out from that section that the County owns, which was under a separate subdivision, Hawaiian Shores Estates without the recreation in it, just to confuse everybody. So, I met with your map person, Mary, and the Real Property Tax office, and Trevor Jackson from the Department of Public Works, and what we can Page 4 PC -16 January 3, 2018 determine from the paperwork that's held within the County, is that we have a designation that separates within a single TMK, but it was never made into two separate TMK's. And I'm wondering now if that's something that Planning can undertake because it would certainly make life a whole lot easier since we hold the warranty deeds in DPW (Department of Public Works) that designate exactly what lot the road changes ownership. But, it's still sits in a single TMK and it's been very problematic for this whole federal grant process. Just letting you know some of the nasty things that came out of the old subdivision process. So, I'm wondering how this wording would affect that situation and if we could, then, move to two separate TMK's for those road parcels. MR. YEE: Frankly, I don't know that specific case but clearly, we would certainly try to help out as much as we can and bring it back to the Planning Department, and we'll have other folks look at it. MS. O'HARA: Well I know in that process I was told that the Hawaiian Shores Recreational state the homeowners association holds four lots that are contiguous on which is the community association building as well as our water yard, because we have well -based water system with distributive water amongst the subdivision and yet in their research, going back to the late 60's early 70's, they discovered that in that subdivision process, those four lots were actually consolidated, but they had never been consolidated into a single TMK. So they did initiate, they are initiating that action to make it into a single TMK so on the same note, it would seem—they could do with the roads, but since the documentation does exist within the County and it would certainly clear things up because they weren't able to get Title Guaranty to give title because of this. MR. YEE: The Planning Department certainly wants to help clarify things when we can. CHR. EOFF: Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Director. Happy New Year. MR. YEE: Happy New Year. MS. LEE LOY: So, I'm going to actually kind of drill down on more of an application part of how this new language helps. So, pre-existing lots of record so PELOR's, up until 1999, they were handled by Bureau of Conveyances? I see Daryn nodding. (Note: At this time, Deputy Planning Director Daryn Arai came forward to address the members of the Committee.) Page 5 PC -16 January 3, 2018 MR. ARAI: Hi, good morning, and Happy New Year. Daryn Arai, Deputy Planning Director. Council Member Lee Loy, prior to 1999, the management and planning of tax maps were handled out of Oahu, through the Tax Map Branch of DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources). We took over control in 1999, which explains why in the proposed amendment, the cutoff date is 1999. Prior to that, our existing Code basically says that if a lot existed and you could demonstrate it by a recorded instrument that there was a lot of record that existed prior to 1944, that was the benchmark we used previously. And 1944 basically is when we had the first instances of the Subdivision Code that guided the subdivision of land within the County of Hawaii. So, what we're simply trying to do is cover the gap between 1944 and 1999 where another agency had control over mapping and created a lot of confusion because tax maps were actually designed for taxing purposes. It wasn't created to define legal lots of record, but people now view it as such. So, ever since 1999, what we do is before we plat a lot, we make sure that it is supported by an actual subdivision action that was approved by the County, so we reconcile the two instruments. Did that answer your question? MS. LEE LOY: Yes, so we're closing the gap. Now, there's a number of parcels that we have on this island that are recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances, but we also have Land Court, which a lot of properties in Puna are covered by, and maybe even Ka`u, I think so. So how does this language address the lots of record with Land Court and closing the gap that if there was additional lots of record under Land Court, that they're being recorded and given the appropriate tax map number to be appropriately taxed? Did I ask that correctly? MR. ARAI: You asked it well, it's just a difficult question. Land Court, from my understanding, is primarily to ensure clear title, which is why the County of Hawaii, under Chapter 46, Hawaii Revised Statute, has the authority to subdivide land. So that authority rests solely with us. However, while we have that authority, on Land Court lands, it must also be cleared of title by the State surveyor, right? So once title is cleared, then we go ahead and assign tax map key numbers. So, there are times when we do a subdivision of land, Land Court lands, but we have to wait until the State surveyor clears title. And then once that is done, then we assign the tax map key numbers because as you can imagine in the subdivision of land, you may have a land of one owner or multiple owners. But once it's chopped up into little pieces, before a tax map key number is assigned, Real Property also needs to then assign title to the respective owners because from one owner into multiple owners it needs to define what piece of land goes to which person, which is why we have to wait for clear title. MS. LEE LOY: And I'm sorry, I just know a lot of people who go through this process, the application part, so when we deal with Land Court, we submit the Page 6 PC -16 January 3, 2018 mylar first to Land Court? Let that clear and then submit the subdivision map? I'm sorry, I know this is kind of really drilling down, it's just that I know a lot of people who are going to have to go through the application process so I just want to understand it very clearly. MR. ARAI: And don't worry, I don't have consultation fees, so you can ask. As far asI mean because we control subdivision, we need to go through the subdivision process, regardless of whether it's Land Court or regular system. But once final subdivision is approved, the maps are then filed by the applicant with Land Court. Land Court would go through their process to ensure title and that the boundaries are accurate and so forth and so on. And once Land Court confirms that, then we assign the tax map key numbers. MS. LEE LOY: Pre-existing lots of record, if they go through a parcel consolidation re -subdivision, is that still afforded with this language? So we have eight lots of record, they're going to consolidate and re -subdivide back into eight lots, but just a little bit of a different configuration, you know, better roadways, wider roadways. Does this language still afford them that opportunity? MR. ARAI: It depends. When a subdivision application is submitted to our office, we will check parcel history to ensure that the parcel being subdivided or consolidated and re -subdivided are actually legal lots of record. If we do not find that the lots were created appropriately through the subdivision process, we would then ask the applicant to provide documentation so we can then make a pre- existing lot determination. Because as you may know, there are provisions in the Subdivision Code where if you consolidate lots and re -subdivide them into the same number of lots, then the requirements of the Subdivision Code can be waived, or shall be waived. So, there are a lot of privileges that goes along with that privilege. So, we have to make sure that those lots that existed previously are actual legal lots of record, which is why yes, this could accommodate them because now, only lots that were justified as being in existence prior to 1944 were available for consideration. Now we're basically saying that because of the mapping and how because of I guess lack of communication between government entities that we've now extended to 1999, provided that you can provide proper documentation. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you so much. I'm going to yield. I have a few other questions but I think they're just a lot more technical. I'll just have a different conversation with the Planning Director and Mr. Arai, so thank you, I yield at this time. CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Any other question? Ms. David. Page 7 PC -16 January 3, 2018 MS. DAVID: Yes, thank you. Happy New Year, Director and Deputy. The documentation that you just spoke of, what would that entail, that you would be requesting people to provide in order to become a legal lot of record? Is that something they would have to go through an attorney to do or is it an application that they file? The reason I'm asking that question, while you're looking for the answer, is while we wait for the Land Court to confirm clear title, what is the process on non -Land Court lots that we would require confirmation of clear title before we assign a lot? I mean the only reason I'm asking is this island, as you know, have a lot of undivided interest and like she said, kuleana lots. So, I'm just wondering what is the safety net on non -Land Court as opposed to confirming clear title. MR. ARAI: If you—attached to the communication is the draft bill and as you can see, the proposed amendment is adding one additional criteria to the criteria that already existed. So, the two that previously existed, which is defined by Section 23-118(a) of the Subdivision Code, it talks about things like basically, if there's like documentation of title, like old maps. I'm trying to remember, there were like old file plans, State maps. When the State—there was a surveyor in Hilo when that office closed, I think the State then transferred all of those maps to the County of Hawaii and then we have now archived them. So, what we basically try to do is try to look for any instances where there was some sort of partitioning of land and somehow recordation somewhere where some government entity recognized it. As the two criteria does explain, like for example, one is that the lots were created prior to December 21, 1966 as an agricultural lot, an excess of 20 acres, that's one criteria. Another was it was required to maybe a court order, a partition action, that's another criteria. So, we do look for these types of opportunities and a lot of times we may not have—we're not a title agency. MS. DAVID: Right. MR. ARAI: Or, title, I'm not sure of the proper word. So, we do rely on landowners to do the research and provide us with that documentation, and whatever it may be and we'll assess it to determine whether or not there was some recognition by a government entity. MS. DAVID: Okay, and then—well thank you for that. So only lots prior to 1999 is covered by this proposed amendment? So, anything after that we assume that it's all complete? MR. ARAI: Yes. MS. DAVID: Okay, so anything before 1999 is what's covered by this amendment? Page 8 PC -16 January 3, 2018 MR. ARAI: That's correct. MS. DAVID: Okay. Alright. MR. ARAI: I'm sorry, and there are two distinctions now, right? Prior to 1944 we look at instruments that was like recorded or somehow documented previously. Up to 1973, you can include partition actions. Up to 1966 you can include agricultural lots and 20 acres. So, each time we keep expanding the time frame but it doesn't mean that those criteria expand—covers all the way up to 1999. MS. DAVID: I see. MR. ARAI: There are—the gap really here is from 1944 basically to 1999 where we're basically saying that in the absence of such documentation, if a tax map was platted and building permits were issued, there were conveyances that occurred, that's a separate criterion that covers the gap from 1944 to 1999. MS. DAVID: Perfect. Alright, mahalo for that. I yield. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Mr. Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. Just trying to see, you know, the process by which you guys go through previously to this. A homeowner would come in, they want a recorded lot but it's not there. I'm just trying to see because these are all legally within the State, the Bureau of Conveyances, everything's legal, correct? If it's all recorded and went through the process, so I mean, is this just kind of clearing up our Code and how we process things? Or if we never had this, how would you keep on going through this process? MR. ARAI: In essence, we wouldn't. I mean because the Code, as you well know, can be really hard and fast. Like again, we only had opportunities under, originally, criteria (a) and (b) to consider only certain types of documentation and justification in order to make a pre-existing lot determination. There had been many instances and I know of one personally where an elementary school teacher of mine lived on the parcel for decades, only to realize that when she wanted to do her estate planning, she realized that her home sat in a subdivision of four lots that were never approved by the County. I think whoever did the subdivision simply platted it with Bureau, with no subdivision approval, and it got platted on the subdivision maps, I mean on the tax maps. But decades later, there was absolutely nothing we could do for her. So, in essence, she has undivided interest in a larger piece of land so there was no way for her to clear the title. It would mean she would have to work with all those homeowners and then put in subdivision improvements that we realized she would not be able to satisfy Page 9 PC -16 January 3, 2018 because it was an old layout with substandard roads. So, this would help in that particular instance. It's not legal all the way when you really think about it, but providing this exception, for lack of a better term, it will then make it legal. MR. KANUHA: But at the time they were doing this, it was legal, correct? That process. MR. ARAI: It was legal in a sense that Bureau of Conveyances allowed you to record any instrument. They are simplyI try not to mischaracterize them, but I view them as like a repository only. They do not check for legality, they simply make sure it's appropriate to form and you can then record anything. Whatever is recorded at Bureau is then picked up by the Tax Map Branch. Back then, the Tax Map Branch in Honolulu—and they would simply plot it on the tax maps. And that's where the confusion is. It may have been proper to their process, but it wasn't proper to our process. What we're simply doing it recognizing what was done back then and simply saying it is unfair because some government entity basically said it's good, even though it wasn't in adherence to all laws, both local and State level. MR. KANUHA: So, I'm assuming you guys have been dealing with this since 1999? MR. ARAI: Yes, we've seen quite a few. MR. KANUHA: How come it's taken this long to try to rectify the situation? I'm not blaming anybody, but if there was a problem, you know, after this went through that process, why now is it only coming up? MR. ARAI: I was going to have my Director answer that one. MR. YEE: I think I can answer that. Different leadership with a different focus on MR. KANUHA: Priorities. MR. ARAI: And over the years, you can see where past Planning Directors have had compassion, you know? They would see the problem and honestly, decisions were made because they realized that irrespective of the law, there were actions taken by government. This simply codifies it now to make it clear to anyone out there they have this opportunity that they can utilize. MR. KANUHA: Before this, could the Planning Director or Planning Department make that determination for what we're trying to do now? Or has it happened? Page 10 PC -16 January 3, 2018 MR. ARAI: They could have. I mean each Director operates—you know, they use their best judgement and it's—bad judgement is based on the evidence that's given to them at that time. This simply defines it really clear. For example, previously, we weren't really sure what date to use, but it became apparent to us that the date we took over control of the tax maps is the best date to use, because after 1999 is when we started reconciling between the subdivision actions and the tax maps. MR. KANUHA: Just one last question. How many subdivisions are we talking about and how many lots? Approximate, I don't know if you even have a number. MR. ARAI: We do not have a number. What we've done is we—all subdivisions that we have approved since early 1940's we haveI believe we plotted every single one in GIS, our Geographic Information System. There's a way to highlight those maps so it shows which lands are covered by an actual subdivision application. It doesn't necessarily mean that there's—everything else is illegal. It just says that we don't have enough information to determine whether or not it did go through the proper process. Because remember, prior to 1944, if it was recognized by an entity, then we will accept it as a legal lot of record. Not every lot in this County has gone through that analysis. MR. KANUHA: Okay, I'll yield. CHR. EOFF: Thank you, Mr. Kanuha. Mr. Arai, did you want to add something before I go to another question? MR. ARAI: I think we're okay at this time. CHR. EOFF: Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. And I can appreciate how all government agencies are trying to fit into one another with the Bureau of Conveyances, with Land Court, with our Subdivision Code. Was there any consultation done with the title companies? And I'm asking that question because that's where a lot of these owners have people research the title or the deed, and having worked in areas where we've actually had to craft the deeds and the different meets and bounds with the surveyor, has there been any consultation done with the title company so that what we're doing is really streamlining the process or actually reducing the cost of transferring properties to families? MR. ARAI: Part of the ability of title companies to provide accurate information or complete information I guess is the better term, is really dependent largely on how complete the records of government is, because a lot of times, title companies will reach out to our office asking if there's any records. They do their Page 11 PC -16 January 3, 2018 own title search to Land Court or Bureau of Conveyances, but that can sometimes only take you so far as well. So, the title companies are aware of our process but whether we've had any extensive discussions with them on how to make it better, not really, at least not to my knowledge. But we feel that this proposal here is an attempt to provide, at least clarity. CHR. EOFF: One more? MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, because I'm going through the process, having done it before. So, before property owners or parties were able to request letters of parcel recognition from the Director, is that still available, or does this clean that up? MR. ARAI: Sorry, could you repeat that? MS. LEE LOY: Before we used to, and not this Director, but in the past, we used to get confirmation letters from the Director that there are different parcels that do exist. Would that process still be available, or does this bill clean that up? MR. ARAI: Oh no, this does not change that process. The pre-existing lot determination process has been in place for many years. I can't even recall how many decades it's been around. This simply enhances the opportunities for the Director to consider what can be officially defined as a legal lot of record, or pre- existing lot of record I should say. MS. LEE LOY: And then we're going get into action to quiet title, but I'll leave that for you, me, and a few others, so I'm going to yield at this time. Thank you very much. CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Are there any other comments or questions? Then before we vote, I just wanted to thank you for thoroughly explaining this. I looked at it and I know you were patient with my staff asking a lot of questions, and I think my fellow Council Members elevated the conversation to a really understandable level now. So, thank you. All in favor of moving Bill 88 to Council with a positive recommendation, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 88: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 88 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards — 2. Excused: None. Page 12 PC -16 CHR. EOFF: Bill 88 will move with a favorable recommendation to Council. Okay, thanks again. January 3, 2018 ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 10:01 a.m., Mr. Kanuha moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. David and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff— 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards -2. Excused: None, CHR. F.OFF: Meeting's adjourned. Thank you. Approved: Ms. aren Eoff, Chair Planning Committee KE/jm t l9. /7 (Date) Page 13