Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-04-17 Leeward Exh A (Amend Subd Code Site Visit for Subd App) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 17, 2014 COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED AMENDMENT TO A regularly advertised hearing on the CHAPTER 23 OF THE HAWAI‘I COUNTY CODE, RELATING TO SITE VISITS FOR APPLICATIONS FOR SUBDIVISIONS was called to order at 9:37 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Vice Chair Thomas Hickcox presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Thomas Hickcox, Collin Kaholo, Barbara Nobriga and Thomas Whittemore ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Brandi Beaudet, Geraldine Giffin and Richard Nelson, III ALSO PRESENT: Bobby Command (Deputy Planning Director), Margaret Masunaga (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Bennett Mark (Planning Program Manager), Keola Childs (Planner) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And two people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL Bill No. 182 amending Chapter 23, Article 4, Division 1, Section 23-61 of the Hawai‘i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) relating to site visits for applications for Subdivisions. More specifically, the amendment will require the Planning Director or representative to conduct a site visit of property(ies) affected by a proposed subdivision action to verify accuracy of information shown on the preliminary plat map or any omissions required by the Subdivision Code, and site conditions that could result in deleterious effects to general welfare and health of the community. HICKCOX: First item on the agenda this morning is Bill No. 182 amending Chapter 23, Article 4, Division 1, Section 23-61 of the Hawai‘i County Code 1983, 2005 Edition, as amended, relating to site visits for applications for subdivisions. More specifically, the amendment will require the Planning Director or representatives to conduct a site visit of properties affected by a proposed subdivision action to verify accuracy of information shown on the preliminary plat map or any omissions required by the Subdivision Code, and site conditions that could result in deleterious effects to general welfare and health of the community. At this time we’d like to call upon staff to give us a presentation. CHILDS: Thank you, Chair Hickcox. And good morning, Chair and Commissioners. The proposed Bill No. 182 initiated by the County Council attempts to amend the Subdivision Code to require the Planning Director or his or her authorized representative to conduct a site visit of any and every property that is designated as being subject to a proposed subdivision action, and to do so prior to the tentative approval or disapproval of the preliminary subdivision plat map. Purpose of the site visit is multifold, as proposed by the Council, to first verify that the information provided on the preliminary plat map and any supplemental materials is in fact accurate; to secondly determine if there are any omissions with consideration for what the required content, what is required in 1 EXHIBIT A content of the preliminary plat as provided for in the Subdivision Code, subdivision control code technically, in Division 2, which covers contents of the preliminary plat map, and that’s within Article 4 of the Code; thirdly, to determine if there are any conditions on the designated property that, by considering the proposed land use as expressed by the preliminary plat and supplemental materials – and, by the way, I would mention that usually the plats do not indicate what the intended uses are, this is one of the fine-point concerns that there are with the bill – but if there are any conditions on there that could reasonably be conceived to result in potentially deleterious effects to the general welfare and health of the community. There’s a lot of words in the sentences in there about “potential” and “reasonable” and “conceived” and “deleterious” and “general welfare and health.” And then the Director, by in a site visit and making those reassessments, if the Director finds that any of these conditions exist, the Director shall notify the subdivider, and the subdivider shall in consultation with the Director revise the preliminary plat and supplemental materials to mitigate the conditions so indicated by the Director. It’s a relatively complicated and vague proposal, and the Director is recommending as a consequence unfavorably on this proposed bill that it not be recommended for approval. Any questions, clarifications that we can add? HICKCOX: Commissioners, any questions of staff? I have one. I have one question. Just based on the language as we read through it, there seems to be a degree of overstepping or duplication of responsibilities that have already been assigned to other agencies. Am I correct in assuming this? CHILDS: Some of the responsibilities are held by other agencies, Public Works for example, and all the County agencies and some State are given copies of this and an opportunity to comment. Unfortunately, the maps that are provided do not necessarily cover and address everything that, besides what those agencies might require to focus on per the Code, that may be there, there are conceivably in the minds of some other issues, which are not required to be submitted and/or not required to be considered, which it would seem the bill is proposing. The Planning staff was not educated and trained and competent to make a decision or advise the Director as to matters that are not in the Code for us to comment on, be it topography, groundcover, types of animals that are on the property, rainfall variations, terrain comments, there is a wide range of things that we are not directed by law or code or rule to even think about. We are not charged with that; that would be outside of our program that we are paid for by tax dollars to do those things. So our staff relies on the professionals or the various agencies; if they see something that alerts them that there may be other collateral concerns, they are, of course, welcome to comment to us and we can ask for more information. But as staff we do not send out copies to every agency in the United States covering every possible focal point where there may be a concern, for practical reasons. We are enforcing and implementing the Code that the Council and Mayor have seen fit to make law. That’s been the limit of our work. We wouldn’t know how to address many of these other types of issues that I’ve alluded to; we have no competency. HICKCOX: Then, would I be safe to assume, and I don’t like using the word “assume,” that the language as submitted in this proposal is 1) vague, 2) in some areas too far reaching, and 3) not specific? CHILDS: As staff, rather than to characterize the language as necessarily too vague or too general, I would just say it’s perplexing to the staff and to the Director as to how we might be able to carry this out without any standards as a course of law to make a decision. There is no information proposed to be added that would tell us what would be the factors, or triggers, to be potentially deleterious and what and how would those relate to the general welfare. There are no dots to 2 EXHIBIT A connect in order for us to be other than arbitrary and capricious in saying to someone that I as Director, whoever he or she may be at the time, now see things this way, and from this day on this is too steep, these trees are too many, they are a wrong type of trees, I want those types of trees, they are too big, the rainfall is not enough, or what would be such standards that we would go out and look for and make a decision that someone must change. HICKCOX: Thank you. Thank you very much. Commissioners? WHITTEMORE: Quick question. Hearing your presentation, the amendment the way it is stated really indicates that every property subject to subdivision approval has got to be inspected? Every property? CHILDS: Yes, sir. WHITTEMORE: Okay. CHILDS: Chair Hickcox, I forgot to mention, I know you have a copy, but I’d like it to be publicly identified that there was one item of written testimony that came in by email to the Department from a Ms. Fay Daniel and submitted in writing to you, and ask that it be acknowledged for this meeting. HICKCOX: Thank you. Commissioners, has everybody received the copy of this? WHITTEMORE: Yes. HICKCOX: And have we had an opportunity to review it or read it? NOBRIGA: Do you want me to read it? HICKCOX: No, it won’t be necessary to read it, as we did on our own. Has everybody read it? NOBRIGA: It was sent to me and I sent it on. HICKCOX: Ah, mahalo. Mahalo. Okay, any other questions? None? Moving along. The applicant is not here. So, do we have anybody signed up? Yes, we do, for public testimony. J. Tanimoto. Am I correct? J. Tanimoto. Public testimony. I see you are already seated. You’ve got the mike. Could you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission? TANIMOTO: I do. HICKCOX: Thank you. Would you then speak directly into the mike and proceed with your testimony. Thank you. TANIMOTO: Thank you. My name is Josephine Tanimoto for the record. I live in Kawaihae, and I am making this testimony for myself, okay? And I guess I know everybody on this panel. It’s wonderful. I haven’t seen you in such a long time but. I am in support of this bill, to site visit every subdivision, because, in fact, I would ask that there be another amendment to the bill that would 3 EXHIBIT A include unilateral decisions by the Planning Director, because those types of information, it is not available to the general public as a subdivision would be on public notice in the newspaper. So I would ask, No. 1, is to amend that to include whatever permits are being requested from the Planning Director, that they do unilateral mail, email, whatever. And the reason I say on this bill every subdivision is because it is my experience that not every time there is a subdivision permit allowed through the CDP that gets requested to be reviewed. And so the CDP, in my understanding, would be an advocate of the community. So the community may have a question about a subdivision or they have a concern, but they cannot come to public hearings of this type, and maybe even, not even have a computer to follow through. So on that I would say I support what the County Council has done. There has been subjects of concern in the past that I know of before the CDP, and those things got passed by. But the County is responsible to preserve, protect history, culture. And in our case in Kawaihae my family and I, we try to keep track of the cultural things where we live. So I would say I would support that, and ask to amend it again to include unilateral decisions made by the Planning Director. Thank you. Any questions? HICKCOX: Any questions, Commissioners? Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else here that wishes to testify before this matter on the agenda? Okay, none, moving along. Commissioners, at this juncture I need a motion in reference to our agendized item. WHITTEMORE: Mr. Chair? HICKCOX: Yes, sir, Mr. Whittemore. WHITTEMORE: I’d like to make a motion that the Leeward Planning Commission send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council regarding Bill No. 182, relating to site visits for applications for subdivisions. NOBRIGA: I’ll second. HICKCOX: Okay. We have a motion on the floor now, moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Commissioners, I’d like to interject a little bit. Sending an, excuse my naiveté in this, but if we send a recommendation back to the County Council, recommending that we not accept this, should there not be solutions attached to this, which would assist in, if they so desire, creating a more workable bill? That’s my question. I know the bill before us is just yea or nay, I understand that, but -. WHITTEMORE: Well, with respect to my motion, I, and I’m in full agreement with you; I think that, you know, it isn’t just a yes-or-no kind of thing. There are a lot of issues out there, and I think the Planning Department has stated some of the issues or concerns that they have, and they are part of the record. And that would be, that’s the basis by which I’ve made my motion. I would want those to, those issues to be highlighted, and perhaps the County Council can then reconsider resubmitting a proposed amendment. But that would be my intent. HICKCOX: Thank you. Are we good with that? COMMAND: Mr. Chairman? HICKCOX: Yes. 4 EXHIBIT A COMMAND: Yeah, I think I should just make one comment here. I think you are absolutely right. And as a matter of the Department, I think we feel that in concept this is, this has a lot of merit. Practically speaking, though, it needs work. And, you know, there is a whole range of things that we might be able to do to make it work, anything from adding expert staff, which costs a lot of money, to, you know, narrowing the scope. But I agree it is on the record; there are solutions on the record that they can consider. So I’ll just leave it as that. HICKCOX: Okay. And one more question. Corp Counsel, is that pono? Is that good? MASUNAGA: Yeah, that -. HICKCOX: Within our area, or scope? MASUNAGA: Yes. HICKCOX: Thank you very much. Okay, Commissioners, it has been moved and seconded, and we had some discussion in reference to this Bill No. 182 amending Chapter 23. CHILDS: Ready for a roll call, Mr. Chair? HICKCOX: Yes, sir. Roll call. CHILDS: Okay. The motion is to send an unfavorable recommendation to the Planning Director (sic) with regard to Bill 182, as reviewed today. Commissioner Whittemore? WHITTEMORE: Aye. CHILDS: Commissioner Nobriga? NOBRIGA: Aye. CHILDS: Commissioner Kaholo? KAHOLO: Aye. CHILDS: And Commissioner Hickcox? HICKCOX: Aye. CHILDS: Chair Hickcox, the motion passes unanimously with four ayes. HICKCOX: Thank you. It was moved by Commissioner -. CHILDS: Commissioner Whittemore and seconded by Commissioner Nobriga. HICKCOX: Nobriga. Okay. Motion carries. 5 EXHIBIT A The discussion ended at 9:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 6 EXHIBIT A