A bill aimed at increasing transparency and public input in the process of creating planned unit developments was reluctantly endorsed Thursday by the Windward Planning Commission.
PUDs allow for variances from county zoning and subdivision requirements, generally allowing a developer to get smaller lots than would be allowed under the applicable zoning code. Right now, the county planning director has the final say in whether the PUD application is granted, and public notification happens after the decision is made.
PUDs don’t, however, allow for uses not covered under the current zoning.
Bill 281 would require the PUD application to go before the planning commissions, with the requisite public notice and public hearing. It would also require the PUD to be in compliance with the applicable Community Development District. And, any appeals would be heard by 3rd Circuit Court instead of the county Board of Appeals.
Several recent PUDs have been overturned in Circuit Court, after being approved by the planning director and upheld by the Board of Appeals.
Last year, Chief Judge Ronald Ibarra ruled the county acted in violation of the Kona Community Development Plan and failed to uphold the county’s duty to protect natural resources in granting a PUD to South Kona Waikakuu Ranch.
Bill 281 would lengthen the time to consider a PUD from 60 days to a total of 150 days. Applications not processed within the given time would be automatically approved, unless written objections have been received. The current law automatically deems the application denied if it isn’t processed in the time allotted.
The commission twice deadlocked 3-3 before agreeing 4-2 on a favorable recommendation, with reservations, on Bill 281. The measure next will be heard by the Leeward Planning Commission at 9:30 a.m. Dec. 18 at the West Hawaii Civic Center.
Commission Chairman Charles Heaukulani and Commissioner Donald Ikeda voted against the measure. Ikeda didn’t like the provision giving automatic approval, but was told that is a new requirement in state law. He also questioned whether a Community Development District requirement should trump the county’s general plan.
The commission agreed with reservations voiced by planning staff that the bill could complicate a process that has desirable attributes.
Planning Director Duane Kanuha said the department generally supports the bill because it could increase the public’s understanding of what a PUD actually does, by being more involved in the process. He said public distrust probably stems from misunderstanding.
“It hopefully provides a better forum for the public and hopefully provides less appeals,” Kanuha said.
The Planning Department sees PUDs as development tools, and notes that the overall density can’t be increased without a separate variance, which does follow the public notice and input process. A PUD does, however, allow the housing units to be clustered on smaller lots, as long as there is accompanying open space so that the average lot size required by the zoning is still maintained.
“A PUD alone cannot introduce a use that is not consistent with current zoning,” said county planner Jeffrey Darrow.
Darrow said zoning and subdivision codes, as a whole, are generally viewed as “one-size-fits-all applications that do not take into account the local use and design vernacular of a particular area.”
“A PUD offers the opportunity to allow for certain limited exceptions to standard code requirements in order to encourage comprehensive site planning,” he said.