Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-02 Hearing Transcript-Council Initiated Bill 266 WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 2, 2014 County Council Initiated Bill No. 266 A regularly advertised hearing on the matter of was called to order at 9:33 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i with Chairman Myles Miyasato presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Myles Miyasato, Charles Heaukulani, Gregory Henkel, Donald Ikeda, Raylene Moses, and Stephen Ono. ALSO PRESENT: Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Margaret Masunaga (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Maija Jackson (Staff Planner), Christian Kay (Staff Planner) and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And approximately 2 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL (Bill No. 266) County Council Bill No. 266 amending Chapter 23, Article 4, Section 23-58 and Article 5, Section 23-68 of the Hawai‛i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), relating to submission of the preliminary plat and final plat for an application for subdivision. The purpose of these revisions is to require the preparation of both the preliminary and final plat maps by a surveyor. MIYASATO: Okay, last item on the agenda. County Council Bill No. 266. ARAI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners. MIYASATO/MOSES: Good morning. ARAI: You may have recalled back in April of this year, the County—we brought a Council initiated bill before you, Bill No. 182, that attempted to require or mandate site inspections for all subdivision applications filed with the County. And, the purpose of it was to allow the Planning Department to verify the accuracy of information presented on a preliminary subdivision plat map. You may have recalled that at that point, the Director offered an unfavorable recommendation on, regarding Bill 182, because we felt that it was the responsibility of the applicant to provide the necessary information on the preliminary plat as well as to verify its accuracy. And, we also expressed a concern that requiring a site inspection for every single subdivision application filed with the County would not be a practical use of Planning Department staff time. There are also additional opportunities, by software for example, such as Google Earth, GIS, and Pictometry, 1 EXHIBIT C that are available to assist the agencies in identifying general characteristics of these affected properties without having to physically inspect each and every single proposed subdivision site. As part of the Director’s unfavorable recommendation offered to you, the Director did make a suggestion that the Code, the Subdivision Code be amended to require that the preliminary plat map be prepared by a licensed surveyor whereas currently, the Code does not require it. However, in the Commission, in its action back in April, did forward an unfavorable recommendation--both Leeward and Windward Planning Commission--to the County Council but did not include the Director’s suggestion on amending the Code to require a licensed surveyor to prepare the preliminary plat. The Council basically is offering the current Bill 266 to help address those concerns that were expressed which originally mandated a site inspection of every application, and Bill 266 basically takes upon the Director’s suggestion to you back in April that the Code be amended to require a licensed surveyor to prepare that preliminary plat map. Bill 266 also would increase the number of copies provided to the Department from eight to ten copies and to specify that it is surveyor that would—a licensed surveyor that would prepare the plan, not an engineer. So, just to give you a little bit of background of why we think this alternative, Bill 266, is a much better alternative than the previous Bill 182 is because in 2012, we had 67 subdivision applications submitted to the Department, consolidation applications 22; 2013 that number increased to 92 subdivision applications with consolidation applications counting for 29 of them; and as of today’s date, we have 93 subdivision applications submitted and about 18 consolidation actions. To give you also another perspective, back in the mid-2000’s I believe, subdivisions alone, we were running close to 250 applications, so you can guess as to the effort that would be needed by the Department if we were mandated to site inspect every single project site. So, we believe 266 is a reasonable compromise and for that reason, the Director is recommending that the Commission send a favorable recommendation of Bill 266 to the County Council. With that, I stand ready to answer any questions you may have. MIYASATO: Commissioners, any questions? I have a question. Even with surveyor’s drawing for the preliminary, it goes through, the applicant is still not obligated to do that exact plan. Is that correct? ARAI: Could you repeat that, I’m sorry. MIYASATO: Even with the surveyor’s certified drawing, once he gets approved, he still can move things around. It’s just a preliminary. ARAI: The preliminary plat will provide the general layout at which time the plat, the preliminary plat is then circulated amongst various reviewing agencies such as Department of Health, Department of Water Supply, Public Works, and State Department of Transportation. Those agencies would then comment back to the Planning Department, and the Department 2 EXHIBIT C would then determine whether or not a revised preliminary plat is necessary to adjust the property lines in case there’s some inconsistencies or non-compliance, or whether the Department will issue what they call Tentative Subdivision Approval, which basically approves the general layout as presented. So, once Tentative Subdivision Approval is issued, then generally, we do not ask that the proposed lot layouts get reconfigured because reconfiguring would prompt us to go ahead and re-circulate to the agencies all over again to make sure that the adjustments do not run afoul of any of their particular requirements. MIYASATO: I guess what I’m trying to get at is, because it’s preliminary, is it still conceptual? ARAI: Yes, upon initial filing, it’s still conceptual, yes. What will eventually lock it in place is upon issuance of Tentative Subdivision Approval, one of the requirements is that the applicant submit a final plat map which also must be prepared by a licensed surveyor, and it is that final plat map which would basically lay out the final boundary configurations. MIYASATO: Okay, I guess what my concern is sometimes I don’t feel one shoe fits all. I can see the reasoning behind this for an 80-unit subdivision, but you know, if you have grandma that wants to subdivide for her kids, she’s on a fixed income, and she just wants to do a 4-lot subdivision, just the added cost for the preliminary, where she’d be able to just do a sketch drawing versus a surveyor’s cost, I guess for me, I would want to see triggers after a density of so much, then this would come into play. I just don’t feel--I don’t feel one shoe fits all. ARAI: I think I understand where you’re going with this. The reason why each and every subdivision plat map, whether preliminary or final, we’re recommending that it be prepared by a licensed surveyor, is because based on the final map that is approved by the County, that map would then result in the generation of specific deeds to each and every single newly created lot, and those deeds must be borne out of the boundary descriptions, because if you were to look at a subdivision plat map, it has all these courses lined out on it, and points lined out on it, and those then gets transferred to written description which is then made a part of the deed. So, you can understand the accuracy that is required because it’s then going to be part of a legal document that transfers title to a particular individual. There’s a whole bunch of other information that’s on a plat map, whether preliminary or final, and that could include water courses. Like, where are the drainageways? Where are the flood zones? Where are the utilities and the road boundaries? So, a lot of specific information that must be—which is why we demand that it must be prepared by a licensed professional. MIYASATO: In the preliminary? ARAI: And the final as well. MIYASATO: I can see the final. Okay, yeah, I just don’t feel one shoe fits all, but I can see the reasoning behind this for—of bigger densities, you know, subdivisions. I just have concerns with grandma who just wants to break up her little lot for her kids, yeah, and the added cost. Okay, thank you. Do we have any testifiers? No? If not, any questions? Any further questions for staff? Any discussion on this application? If not, I’ll accept a motion. 3 EXHIBIT C MOSES: I make a motion to send a favorable recommendation for Bill No. 266. Is there anything else I need to say to that, Daryn? ARAI: For the reasons as recommended by the Planning Director. MOSES: For the reasons as recommended by the Planning Director. HENKEL: Second. MIYASATO: Moved by Commissioner Moses, seconded by Commissioner Henkel. Any discussion on the motion? If not, call the roll. ARAI: Thank you. Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Heaukulani? HEAKULANI: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. ARAI: And Mr. Chairman. MIYASATO: Aye. ARAI: Mr. Chairman, favorable motion carries with six aye votes. The discussion ended at 9:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 4 EXHIBIT C