The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0561.000 2002-2004Harry Kim Mayor COUNTY OF HAWAII c��9 RiRR 16 25 Aupuni Street, Room 215 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 (808) 961-8211 • Fax (808) �G1-',553 KONA: 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 9674l��OUI,� i (808) 329-5226 • Fax (808) 326-5663 March 16, 2004 Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members: Change of Zone Application (REZ 03-030) Applicant: Hester Farming Co., LLC Request: A -20a to Agricultural Project District Tax Map Key: 9-6-5:18 and 9-6-6:4 Dixie Kaetsu Managing Director Peter �.)Hendricks Deputy Managing Director PM 3 42 As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action is the Planning Commission's letter and enclosures regarding the above -referenced request. Sincerely, Harry Kim 71 Mayor Lhester0l may Enclosures cc: Planning Department 13J_/1 lIf9 Comm. No. Ref. To: C� Ref. Date MAR 1 9 2004 Harry Kim May., March 15, 2004 County of Hawaii PLANNING COMMISSION 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 (808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742 Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members: Change of Zone Application (REZ 03-030) Applicant: Hester Farming Co., LLC Request: A -20a to Agricultural Project District Tax Map Key: 9-6-5:18 and 9-6-6:4 The Planning Commission, after a duly held public hearing on March 5, 2004, voted to recommend for your approval the proposed legislative bill to change the district classification for approximately 171+ acres of land from an Agricultural 20 -acre (A -20a) to the Agricultural Project District. The property is located approximately 1.5 miles north (mauka) of Pahala Village in the vicinity of the former Meyer Camp, Palima and Paauau Ist, Ka`u, Hawaii. The Commission concurs with the following Planning Director's reasons for recommending favorable consideration of the change of zone: The applicant is requesting a change of zone from Agricultural (A -20a) to Agricultural Project District to subdivide the 171.577 -acre site into twenty-five 5 to 12 - acre lots. The objective is to provide smaller, more manageable farming acreage from land that was formerly devoted only to sugar cane. The applicant intends to retain at least 75 acres for their own operation. The properties are proposed to be subdivided by mid - 2004. The estimated cost of infrastructure improvements is approximately $1,000,000.00. The applicant is seeking an Agricultural Project District instead of a change of zone to allow deviations from the standard infrastructure and water requirements normally required with a change of zone. Specifically, these deviations are: Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 2 Water - the Subdivision Code requires compliance with the Department of Water Supply standards, which could require connection to a water system or an approved private system. For a private system, the Department of Water Supply requires a backup well. There will be only one well on the property. Roads - for agricultural standard roads, the Subdivision Code requires a minimum 20 -foot pavement within a 50 -foot wide right-of-way. Although the project will have the minimum right-of-way of 50 feet, some of the proposed lots have access from 10 -foot wide paved roads or 20 -foot wide graveled roads. The Agricultural Project District (APD) is intended to provide a flexible and creative planning approach for developments within the agricultural zoning districts, in lieu of specific land use designations. It will allow for flexibility in the location of specific types of agricultural uses and variations in lot sizes. Under this planning approach, opportunities will be provided for a mix of small scale agricultural activities and associated residential uses, as well as larger agricultural projects. This district will also provide a vehicle to satisfy the demand for a rural lifestyle on marginal agricultural land, while decreasing the pressure to develop important agricultural land for this purpose. (This area, however, is not marginal agricultural land. It is prime agricultural land.) The planning approach would establish a continuity in land uses and designs, while providing for the needed infrastructural facilities and systems to support the various types of agricultural developments. An Agricultural Project District may be established as an amendment to the Zoning Code whenever the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare require that a comprehensive planning approach for an area should be adopted in order to establish a continuity in land uses while providing the required infrastructural facilities and systems. In addition, an Agricultural Project District may only be established if the proposed district: (1) is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter and the County General Plan; and (2) will not result in a substantial adverse impact upon the surrounding area, community or region. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 3 Any uses permitted either directly or conditionally in the Agricultural or Intensive Agricultural districts are permitted in an APD and the overall density permitted in an APD shall not be greater than one acre per building site. Each of the proposed uses and the overall densities for dwelling uses must be included in a master conceptual plan for the APD and in the APD enabling ordinance. The minimum land area required for an Agricultural Project District is five acres. The project site consists of two contiguous parcels located approximately .6 miles mauka of Pahala in an area formerly known as Meyer Camp. The camp, as well as other camps in the general area, were abandoned and demolished by the plantation in the 1960's. According to Real Property Tax Office records, the applicant's dwelling and equipment storage building are located on TMK: 9-6-5: 18. The properties are located approximately five (5) miles from the ocean at an elevation of 1,300 - 1,900 feet. The subject site has a variety of farm crops on approximately ten acres. The entire site was formerly planted in sugar cane. There is a gradual 10 to 15 percent slope towards the ocean in the lower parcel, TMK: 9-6-5:18. The upper parcel, TMK 9-6-6: 4, is steeper, with slopes from 15 to 21 percent. Located within TMK: 9-6-5: 18 is parcel 47, a County -owned parcel approximately 4,487 -square feet in size. Located within TMK: 9- 6-6: 4 is parcel 21, another County -owned parcel approximately 871 square -feet in size. These two County -owned parcels are not part of this application. The Change of Zone request from Agricultural (A -20a) to an Agricultural Project District is consistent with the intent and purpose of the General Plan and the Zoning Code. The requested change of zone to a Agricultural Project District would conform to the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map, which designates the property as Intensive Agriculture and Extensive Agriculture. Intensive Agriculture includes lands used for sugar, orchard, diversified agriculture, and floriculture, and Extensive Agriculture includes pasturage and range lands. Soils on the site are classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service as Moaula (MoC and MoE) and Naalehu Series (NaQ. The Moaula and Naalehu series consists of well -drained silty clay loams. For the Moaula series, permeability is moderately rapid, runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is slight. For the Naalehu Series, permeability is moderately rapid, runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is moderate. Soils within the properties are classified as "B" or "Good" and "C" or "Fair" for agricultural productivity by the Land Study Bureau's Detailed Land Classification System. Most of TMK 9-6-5: 18 (the lower parcel) is classified as "B" soil. This is unusual. By way of comparison, only about 5 percent of the agricultural lands on Hawaii Island are classified as "B". (There are no "A" classified soils). The Agricultural Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 4 Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) system designates the property as Prime Agricultural Land and Other Important Agricultural Lands. The requested Agricultural Project District will continue to encourage agricultural activities or the utilization of the lands within the proposed subdivision in a manner consistent with the Intensive Agriculture and Extensive Agriculture designation by the General Plan LUPAG Map. The major concern in allowing a rezoning of agricultural land that creates smaller lot sizes is that this will reduce the potential use of the land for commercial agriculture by fragmenting the land into areas too small to be farmed on a commercial scale. While a few crops can be intensively cultivated on small acreages, these crops usually have a very limited market. Reducing the size of the lots can greatly reduce the range of potential agricultural uses. At the same time, a strong demand exists in the real estate market for lots in agricultural areas by purchasers who are interested in large -lot residential home sites or for speculation. The desire for these "gentleman's estates" tends to drive up the price of agricultural land making it less affordable for commercial farmers. Most agricultural rezonings in Hawaii County in the last twenty years have resulted in subdivisions where the primary use is residential, not agricultural. For the most part, these rezonings did not occur on prime agricultural land. The predominant zoning in the former sugar lands north of Hilo and in Ka'u is A -20a. There will be considerable interest by the new owners to rezone to reduce the minimum lot sizes because the biggest component to value is the ability to build a home. The per -acre price is therefore higher if the property can be sold in smaller lots. This desire to create smaller lots must be handled very carefully because of the possible carving up of the land into uneconomical units, and the increasing per -acre price. The issue of the optimal lot size for agriculture is difficult because with the end of sugar, agriculture is in flux. No one crop, or even type of crop, has emerged as a probable economic mainstay, so it is difficult to determine an optimal size of a lot. The proposed rezoning has the potential to increase the agricultural productivity of the area by providing water. For that reason, the Director is willing to recommend approval of an Agricultural Project District, but with a limit of 17 lots (10 acre average) rather than the 25 proposed by the applicant. This will allow an experiment with a mix of lot sizes, rather than having a predominantly 5 -acre lot project. The Zoning Code is one of the tools to implement the General Plan and is one of the County's primary land use control mechanisms. The Zoning Code sets out the various types of uses allowed by providing for certain zoning districts. In this particular case, the applicant proposes to establish an Agricultural Project District to provide flexibility in the location of these land uses without specifically identifying where these uses should be located on the property. This method or concept of identifying varying land use designations would be consistent with the intent of establishing an Agricultural Project District within the Zoning Code. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 5 This proposed development is consistent with the Land Use and Economic Element of the General Plan in that the proposed request will provide additional and expanded agricultural opportunities for the residents of the area as well as the entire island, in keeping with the course of action for Ka'u that states, "the County shall assist the further development of agriculture in the area." The applicant proposes to subdivide the project area to create smaller agricultural lots to support small, family-oriented farms. The applicant believes that the proposed lots would enable local residents to own and farm their own land, and thus become more economically self-sufficient. The proposed Agricultural Project District and subdivision into 17 lots ranging in size from five acres and larger would be compatible with the agricultural/rural character of the surrounding lands in the area and provide opportunities for agricultural activities on lands that are well suited for agricultural pursuits. The subject site and surrounding area has been converted from sugar cane to macadamia nut and eucalyptus tree farms and there are a variety of farm crops covering over ten acres. The proposed agricultural community will provide for the establishment of farm dwellings and protective covenants for the maintenance of necessary accessory uses to support agricultural operations. Lands surrounding the site are zoned Agricultural (A -20a) and in various agricultural uses. A variety of agricultural crops are near the site, including macadamia nuts, eucalyptus trees and various truck crops. Thus, the proposed development would not be incongruous with the emerging diversified agricultural land use pattern of the area. There are residences in the town of Pahala, approximately .6 miles from the site. The Agricultural Project District will result in maintaining the existing uses and the integrity of the Ka'u area while providing opportunities for residential uses. The proposed agricultural/residential community would be an extension of the existing surrounding agricultural community. There are no electric lines in this area. The applicant currently uses solar with diesel generator backup. Communications will be via cellular phone. From the comments received from agencies, various improvements would be required for the development of this project. Therefore, conditions will be included to assure that these services and infrastructure are provided in a timely manner to accommodate the uses proposed in this Agricultural Project District. With the requirement that the applicant provide these essential services and infrastructure, the granting of this change of zone would not unreasonably burden the public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewer, water, drainage improvements and police and fire protection to accommodate the development of this project. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 6 The request for an Agricultural Project District will not result in a substantial adverse impact upon the surrounding area, community or region. The project site consists of two contiguous parcels located approximately .6 miles mauka of Pahala in an area formerly known as Meyer Camp. The camp, as well as other camps in the general area, were abandoned and demolished by the plantation in the 1960's. The subject site has a variety of farm crops on approximately ten acres. The entire site was formerly planted in sugar cane. By letter dated November 11, 2003 (Appendix A of the application), the applicant has requested a "no effect" letter from the Department of Land and Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-HPD). As the site was formerly cultivated in sugar cane, an archaeological inventory survey of the site was not conducted. By letter dated January 20, 2004, the DLNR-HPD has confirmed that no archaeological inventory survey has been conducted of the subject area. While the majority of the property has a history of agricultural usage, maps of the area flume, ditch and trail may still exist. The DLNR-HPD also states that there may be habitation sites as well as a graveyard associated with the plantation camp located in the area. Therefore, the DLNR-HPD recommends that an archaeological inventory survey be conducted for their review and approval. If significant historical sites are identified, a mitigation plan may be required. The applicant has stated that work will cease and the applicant will notify the Planning Department should any unanticipated archaeological features or sites are discovered during the course of improving the site. The subject site is not adjacent or proximate to the shoreline. As such, gathering of marine life and coastal access is not an issue. The applicant states that no Native Hawaiians have used the subject or immediate surrounding area in the recent past for the gathering of plants. Thus, it is believed that the project would have no adverse impact relative to the cultural and historical resources of the area. To the extent to which traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights are exercised, the proposed action will not affect traditional Hawaiian rights and no action is necessary to protect those rights. There were no professional surveys conducted of the floral or faunal resources of the site, as the site was extensively planted in sugar cane in the past. The flora of the uncultivated portions of the site is dominated by fallow sugar cane and non-native plants. According to the applicant, there are no known federally listed or endangered flora species at the site. No known federally listed threatened or endangered faunal species are known to nest at or inhabit the project site. There is no record of a designated public access to the shoreline or mountain areas that traverses the property. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 7 Access to the site is via the extension of a private road known as Meyer Camp Road, an extension of Huapala Street. Meyer Camp Road has a right-of-way of approximately 50 feet with a pavement width ranging between 18 and 22 feet, and was used by the plantation during the sugar cane era. The applicant intends to have all lots within the project serviced from this road by either a 10 -foot wide paved road or 20 -foot wide graveled roads. The Department of Public Works has requested that the applicant: • provide a minimum 20 -foot wide agricultural pavement within a minimum 50 - foot wide right-of-way conforming to Standard Detail R-39. • In addition, where grades are 8% or greater, the roadway section should be paved as shown in Standard Detail R-34. • All existing and proposed private roads within the subdivision shall be constructed and/or improved in conformance with the Subdivision Code. The Planning Director recommends a variation from the Department of Public Works' standards, given that some may not be necessary for a low-density agricultural use. The full standards would require a 20 -foot wide paved road, with 15 -foot paved shoulders and swales on each side, for a total of 50 feet of pavement, where grades exceed eight percent. Meyer Road, the primary access, has about 20 feet of pavement on a heavily built sub -base. This should be adequate for a relatively low density development involving only 17 lots. The other roads should be adequate with a 16 -foot wide pavement, or built to "private road standards" in the subdivision code: 8 -foot wide pavement if it serves only one lot, 12 feet for two lots, 14 feet for three lots, or 16 feet for four to six lots. The applicant has stated that only one farm dwelling would be allowed on each proposed lot. Although the Planning Director supports this rezoning request to allow a 17 -lot subdivision with one dwelling on each lot, the potential to allow additional dwellings may contribute to a cumulative burden on the existing infrastructure which cannot be supported. Therefore, a condition will be included in the ordinance to prohibit a second dwelling unit on each lot. In addition, a condition will be included to place restrictive covenants in the deeds of all the proposed lots for the subdivision prohibiting second farm dwellings to preserve the residential -agricultural ambience of the area. According to the applicant, an irrigation system is in the process of being developed by the applicant. The system would be made available to all lots and allow lot Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 8 owners the opportunity to gain access to irrigation and potable water throughout the year. The applicant has expended more than $400,000.00 to drill a 1,200 -foot deep well on the site. A pump has been installed to deliver approximately 200 gallons per minute. The appropriate booster pump, storage tank and water lines will be developed to service each of the proposed lots. At the property line, each lot owner will have to provide its own hook-up with a water meter and piping to service its property. Once the system is in place, the applicant will form a cooperative water company to operate and maintain the water system. The cooperative will be proportionately owned by all lot owners and would establish a connection fee along with a reasonable rate for water consumption. There is a County water tank and well located on the mauka portion of the site. As such, the site already has access to overflows from this system, which is then captured in two 45,000 gallon storage tanks. When the tanks are full, the excess is captured in an open reservoir. The applicant intends to use water from the 90,000 -gallon tanks for potable purposes, while the 1,200 -foot well will be used primarily for irrigation. Water from the irrigation well will also be used to supplement the potable needs of the lot owners. Water from the open reservoir will be used only for irrigation. When completed, the cost of the private irrigation and quasi -potable water system will exceed $700,000.00. According to the Department of Water Supply, the County's existing water system facilities cannot support the proposed subdivision at this time. Extensive improvements and additions, including source, storage, transmission, booster pumps, and distribution facilities must be constructed. Currently, sufficient funding is not available and no time schedule is set. A condition is included to require the applicant to construct a private water system which provides water to each lot. In view of the recent Hawaii State Supreme Court's "PASH" and "Ka Pa'akai O Ka Aina " decisions, the issue relative to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights must be addressed in terms of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and the associated traditional and customary practices of the site: Investigation of valued resources: No formal archaeological reconnaissance survey, oral history of kamaaina accounts of the area, historical survey of documentary records, botanical and/or fauna study was submitted. The valuable cultural historical, and natural resources found in the rezoning area: As the site was formerly cultivated in sugar cane, an archaeological inventory survey of the site was not conducted. By letter dated November 11, 2003 (Appendix A of the application), the applicant has requested a "no effect" letter from the State Historic Preservation Division. The DLNR-HPD has confirmed that no archaeological inventory Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 9 survey has been conducted of the subject area and recommends that an archaeological inventory survey be conducted for their review and approval. If significant historical sites are identified, a mitigation plan may be required. The applicant has stated that work will cease and the applicant will notify the Planning Department if any unanticipated archaeological features or sites are discovered during the course of improving the site. A condition will be included to require the submittal of a "no effect" letter from DLNR- HPD as well as the completion of an archaeological inventory survey and acceptance by the DLNR-HPD. As the agency has indicated that their maps show the possible presence of a trail on the subject site, a condition will be included to require the applicant to obtain a determination from the DLNR-HPD to ascertain the presence of any State-owned trails on the property, and if so, that there shall be no disturbance or alteration of such trails without the agency's written approval. Possible adverse effect or impairment of valued resources: Native plants could be destroyed by construction and ground alteration. The subject property does not abut the shoreline, therefore Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights is not an issue. Feasible actions to protect native Hawaiian rights: Conditions of approval will be included to require the applicant to notify the Department of Land and Natural Resources - Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-HPD) should any unidentified sites or remains be encountered, and proceed only upon an archaeological clearance from the DLNR- HPD. The applicant has stated that no Native Hawaiians have used the subject or immediate surrounding area in the recent past for gathering of plants. Thus, it is believed that the project would have no adverse impact relative to the cultural and historical resources of the area. To the extent to which traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights are exercised, the proposed action will not affect traditional Hawaiian rights and no action is necessary to protect these rights. For your favorable consideration, an amendment to Section 25-8-28 (Ka'u District Zone Map) of the County Zoning Code is transmitted. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 10 We are enclosing copies of the staff Background and Planning Director's Recommendation for your information. Sincerely C, v Fred Gal ones, Chairman Planning Commission Lhester02PC Enclosures cc: Mr. Sidney Fuke Hester Farming Co., LLC Department of Public Works Department of Water Supply Department of Land & Natural Resources-HPD/Kona Rodney Haraga, Director/DOT-Highways, Honolulu BHesterREZAPDYuen.do -2/3/04 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HESTER FARMING CO., LLC CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 03-030) HESTER FARMING CO., LLC has submitted an application for a Change of Zone by changing the district classification from Agricultural (A -20a) to Agricultural Project District to subdivide an approximately 171.577 -acre site into twenty-five 5 -12 -acre lots. The properties are located approximately .6 miles north (mauka) of Pahala Village in the vicinity of the former Meyer Camp, Palima and Paauau 1 st, Ka'u, Hawaii TMK: 9-6-5: 18 and 9-6-6: 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request: The applicant is requesting a change of zone from Agricultural (A -20a) to Agricultural Project District (APD) to subdivide the 171.577 -acre site into twenty-five 5 to 12 -acre lots. The objective is to provide smaller, more manageable farming acreage from land that was formerly devoted only to sugar cane. The applicant intends to retain at least 75 acres for their own operation. The properties are proposed to be subdivided by mid -2004. The applicant is seeking an Agricultural Project District instead of a change of zone to allow deviations from the standard infrastructure and water requirements normally associated with a change of zone. Specifically, these deviations are: • Water - the Subdivision Code requires compliance with the Department of Water Supply standards, which could require connection to a water system or an approved private system. For a private system, the Department of Water Supply requires a backup well. There will be only one well on the property. • Roads - for agricultural standard roads, the Subdivision Code requires a minimum 20 -foot pavement within a 50 -foot wide right-of-way. Although the project will have the minimum right-of-way of 50 feet, some of the proposed lots have access from 10 - foot wide paved roads or 20 -foot wide graveled roads. The estimated cost of infrastructure improvements is approximately $1,000,000.00. The properties are owned by Ellis J. Hester. (See Exhibit A - APD application) C ' S 6 / ('6, V 9) PC STATE AND COUNTY PLANS 2. State Land Use Designation: Agricultural. General Plan LUPAG Map: Intensive Agriculture with small pockets of Extensive Agriculture. 4. County Zoning: Agricultural (A -20a). 5. Agricultural Project District: The Agricultural Project District (APD) is intended to provide a flexible and creative planning approach for developments within the agricultural zoning districts, in lieu of specific land use designations. The APD will allow for flexibility in the location of specific types of agricultural uses and variations in lot sizes. Under this planning approach, opportunities will be provided for a mix of small-scale agricultural activities and associated residential uses, as well as larger agricultural projects. This district will also provide a vehicle to satisfy the demand for a rural lifestyle on marginal agricultural land, while decreasing the pressure to develop important agricultural land for this purpose. The planning approach would establish a continuity in land uses and designs, while providing for the needed infrastructural facilities and systems to support the various types of agricultural developments. An APD may be established as an amendment to the Zoning Code whenever the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare require that a comprehensive planning approach for an area should be adopted in order to establish a continuity in land uses while providing the required infrastructural facilities and systems. In addition, an APD may only be established if the proposed district: (1) is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter and the County General Plan; and (2) will not result in a substantial adverse impact upon the surrounding area, community or region. Any uses permitted either directly or conditionally in the Agricultural or Intensive Agricultural districts are permitted in an APD and the overall density permitted in an APD shall not be greater than one acre per building site. Each of the proposed uses and the overall densities for dwelling uses must be included in a master conceptual plan for -2- the APD and in the APD enabling ordinance. The minimum land area required for an Agricultural Project District is five acres. (See Exhibit B - Section 25-6-50 Agricultural Project District, 25-5-70 Agricultural District and 25-5-80 Intensive Agricultural District sections of Zoning Code) 6. Coastal Zone Management, HRS, Chapter 205A: The entire State of Hawaii lies within the Coastal Zone Management area. The intent of the Coastal Zone Management Program is to guide and regulate public and private uses in the coastal zone management area with respect to recreational resources, historic resources, public access to the shoreline, scenic and open space resources, coastal ecosystems, marine resources, economic uses, coastal hazards, managing development, public participation, and beach protection. 7. Special Management Area: The project site is located approximately five (5) miles from the shoreline and not within the County's Special Management Area (SMA). The SMA is a part of the Coastal Zone Management Program regulated by the County. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA 8. Subject Properties: The project site consists of two contiguous parcels located approximately .6 miles mauka of Pahala in an area formerly known as Meyer Camp. The camp, as well as other camps in the general area, were abandoned and demolished by the plantation in the 1960's. According to Real Property Tax Office records, the applicant's dwelling and equipment storage building are located on TMK: 9-6-5: 18. The properties are located approximately five (5) miles from the ocean at an elevation of 1,300 - 1,900 feet. The subject site has a variety of farm crops on approximately ten acres. The entire site was formerly planted in sugar cane. There is a gradual 10 to 15 percent slope towards the ocean. Located within TMK: 9-6-5: 18 is parcel 47, a County -owned parcel approximately 4,487 -square feet in size. Located within TMK: 9-6-6: 4 is parcel 21, another County -owned parcel approximately 871 square -feet in size. These two County - owned parcels are not part of this application. -3- 9. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: Lands surrounding the properties are zoned Agricultural (A -20a). Land use in the area is generally in transition from one form of agriculture to another. Properties surrounding the site are planted in macadamia or eucalyptus trees. Fallow lands lie makai of the properties. 10. U.S.D.A. Soil Type: Moaula (MoC and MoE) and Naalehu Series (NaC). The Moaula and Naalehu series consist of well -drained silty clay loams. For the Moaula series, permeability is moderately rapid, runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is slight. For the Naalehu Series, permeability is moderately rapid, runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is moderate. 11. Land Study Bureau's Productivity Rating: "B" or "Good" (TMK: 9-6-6: 4) and "B" and "C" or "Fair" (TMK: 9-6-5: 18). 12. ALISH: Prime Agricultural Land, land which has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops economically when treated and managed according to modern farming methods; and Other Important Agricultural Land, land other than prime or Unique Agricultural Land that is also of statewide or local importance for agricultural use. 13. Flora/Fauna: There were no professional surveys conducted of the floral or faunal resources of the site, as the site was extensively planted in sugar cane in the past. The flora of the uncultivated portions of the site is dominated by fallow sugar cane and non- native plants. According to the applicant, there are no known federally listed or endangered flora species at the site. No known federally listed threatened or endangered faunal species are known to nest at or inhabit the project site. 14. Noise Impacts: There may be short-term noise impacts associated with the construction of the on-site infrastructure for the proposed subdivision. Contractors will be required to comply with appropriate noise and related mitigation measures of the State Department of Health. 15. Air Quality: The proposed project will not generate any direct air quality impacts. The only air quality impact may be associated with vehicular traffic to and from the site as well as farm vehicles operating within the project site. -4- 16. Rainfall: Annual average rainfall in the area ranges from approximately 42 to 82 inches. 17. FIRM: Zone "X", an area outside of the 500 -year flood plain. 18. Coastal Hazards: The subject property is not proximate to the shoreline, is not an oceanfront parcel, and will not affect or be impacted by shoreline processes. 19. Archaeological/Historical/Cultural Resources: By letter dated November 11, 2003 (Appendix A of the application), the applicant has requested a "no effect" letter from the State Historic Preservation Division. As the site was formerly cultivated in sugar cane, an archaeological inventory survey of the site was not conducted. By letter dated January 20, 2004, SHPD has confirmed that no archaeological inventory survey has been conducted of the subject area. While the majority of the property has a history of agricultural usage, maps of the area flume, ditch and trial may still exist. SHPD also states that there may be habitation sites as well as a graveyard associated with the plantation camp located in the area. Therefore, SHPD recommends that an archaeological inventory survey be conducted for their review and approval. If significant historical sites are identified, a mitigation plan may be required. The applicant has stated that work will cease and the applicant will notify the Planning Department should any unanticipated archaeological features or sites be discovered during the course of improving the site. The subject site is not adjacent or proximate to the shoreline. As such, gathering of marine life and coastal access is not an issue. The applicant states that no Native Hawaiians have used the subject or immediate surrounding area in the recent past for the gathering of plants. Thus, it is believed that the project would have no adverse impact relative to the cultural and historical resources of the area. To the extent to which traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights are exercised, the proposed action will not affect traditional Hawaiian rights and no action is necessary to protect those rights. 20. Public Access: There is no record of a designated public access to the shoreline or mountain areas that traverses the property. -5- PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES 21. Access: Access to the site is via the extension of a private road known as Meyer Camp Road, an extension of Huapala Street. This road has a right-of-way of approximately 50 feet with a pavement width ranging between 18 and 22 feet, and was used by the plantation during the sugar cane era. 22. Water: According to the applicant, an irrigation system is in the process of being developed by the applicant. The system would be made available to all lots and allow lot owners the opportunity to gain access to irrigation and potable water throughout the year. The applicant has expended more than $400,000.00 to drill a 1,200 -foot deep well on the site. A pump has been installed to deliver approximately 200 gallons per minute. The appropriate booster pump, storage tank and water lines will be developed to service each of the proposed lots. At the property line, each lot owner will have to provide its own hook-up with a water meter and piping to service its property. Once the system is in place, the applicant will form a cooperative water company to operate and maintain the water system. The cooperative will he proportionately owned by all lot owners and would establish a connection fee along with a reasonable rate for water consumption. There is a County water tank and well located on the mauka portion of the site. As such, the site already has access to overflows from this system, which is then captured in two 45,000 gallon storage tanks. When the tanks are full, the excess is captured in an open reservoir. The applicant intends to use water from the 90,000 -gallon tanks for potable purposes, while the 1,200 -foot well will be used primarily for irrigation. Water from the irrigation well will also be used to supplement the potable needs of the lot owners. Water from the open reservoir will be used only for irrigation. When completed, the cost of the private irrigation and quasi -potable water system will exceed $700,000.00 According to the Department of Water Supply, the County's existing water system facilities cannot support the proposed subdivision at this time. Extensive improvements and additions, including source, storage, transmission, booster pumps, and distribution facilities must be constructed. Currently, sufficient funding is not available and no time schedule is set. IQ 23. Wastewater: There is no County wastewater system in this area. As such, a cesspool or septic system will be installed, meeting with the approval of the Department of Health, by the applicant or respective landowner in conjunction with the issuance of a building permit for a farm dwelling. 24. Solid Waste: Solid waste will be handled by the individual homeowners and hauled to authorized landfill sites or transfer stations. 25. Essential Utilities and Services: There are no electric lines in this area. The applicant currently uses solar with diesel generator backup. Communications will be via cellular phone. AGENCIES' AND ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS 26. Department of Public Works: (See Exhibit C - December 16, 2003 and December 19, 2003 Memos and December 31, 2003 Applicant's Response Letter) 27. Department of Environmental Management: (See Exhibit D - November 26, 2003 Memo) 28. Department of Water Supply: (See Exhibit E - January 14, 2004 Memo and February 10, 2004 Applicant's Response Letter) 29. Police Department: (See Exhibit F - December 9, 2003 Memo) 30. Fire Department: (See Exhibit G - December 11, 2003 Memo and December 26, 2003 Applicant's Response Letter) 31. Department of Land and Natural Resources Historic Preservation Division: (See Exhibit H - January 20, 2004 Letter) 32. Department of Health: (See Exhibit I - December 19, 2003 Memo) 33. Department of Transportation: (See Exhibit J - December 8, 2003 Letter) 34. Na Ala Hele: (See Exhibit K - December 17, 2003 Memo and January 7, 2004 Applicant's Response Letter) AGENCIES - NO RESPONSE 35. Department of Land and Natural Resources Land Division, Natural Resources Soil and Conservation Service 7- PUBLIC COMMENTS 36. The Planning Department has not received any written comments or objections from the general public or adjacent landowners on the subject request. -8- AGRICULTURAL PROJECT DISTRICT APPLICATION COUNTY OF HAWAII c n 73 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (Type or legibly print the requested information) . APPLICANT: Hester Farming Co., LLC APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: ADDRESS: P. O. Box 219 Pahala, HI 96777 LIST APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER: LIST PRINCIPAL(S) INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS: PHONE:(Bus.) 936-6095 LANDOWNER(S): Ellis Hester; Keaukaha Proper LANDOWNER SIGNATURE(S): LANDOWNER(S) ADDRESS: 0MO M L Macadamia Orchards LP letter) (Fax) DATE: rf- ,3 _G DATE: '% REQUEST: _4GPicu.7u2C 2C AC12ES TO 4691r'u0Tf'-1li_ bi57ml<f TAX MAP KEY: (Existing zoning) (Proposed Zoning) STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 3oc?0 hiEy!e- a7Ab PAWLA SIZE OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S) TO BE REZONED: 17 I . 7 u acres AGENT: Sidney M. Fuke ADDRESS: 100i'Pauahi_ Street, Suite 212 Hilo, HI 96720 TELEPHONE: (Bus.) 969-1522 (Res.) 961-6909 (Fax) 969-7996 Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent. ORIGINAL: Sidney M. Fuke COPIES: Hester Farming Co., CLC EXHIBIT (See Instructions on Reverse Side). A ATTACHMENT Agricultural Rezoning I 2 PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE If your request is approved, do you intend to subdivide the subject land in accordance with the approved change of zone? If yes, please answer the rest of question 1 and then to question, 3. a. How many acres of the requested area do you intend to subdivide? b. Into what lot sizes? C. If your request is approved, approximately how long after the date of approval do you expect to submit your subdivision plans to the Planning Department for preliminary approval? d. Do you intend to build houses on the newly created lots? If yes, please answer the following questions: On how many of those lots? At what approximate price range? House Lot Total Approximately how long, after approval of the subdivision, would the first house be available for occupancy? If you intend to subdivide, please submit a preliminary schematic subdivision plan together with your change of zone application form. If you have no firm plans of subdividing the subject area, do you intend to: a. Sell or lease the land to someone who has firm plans? b• Sell or lease the land to someone who has tentative plans? C. Sell or lease the land to someone who has no plans? d. Keep it? e Q n 9 5 / P-4....,„,...�.. — Yes All 5+ acres 1 month No 3 1 If you intend to do either a, b, c, please elaborate on the kind of plans the other party has. Please, also include in your answer approximately how soon after approval of your rezoning do you expect to transfer the subject land to another party. Do you think that your request and your further plans for the land will alleviate the local housing situation? Yes How? The lots will enable lotowners to build a farm dwelling on the property. 4. Are there any buildings on the subject area? Yes If so, what kind? One of the applicant's dwelling and fano structures What do you intend to do with those buildings if your request is approved? Keep them 5• Is the subject land currently being used for any agricultural activity? Yes If so, please list the kinds of products grown and on how many square feet or acres of land per product. Please refer to Planning and Environmental Report 6. Was your request to allow for the creation of smaller agricultural lots? Yes If so, did your plan include the following considerations? Yes a. Commodity to be produced? Yes What kinds of commodity? b. Suitability of the proposed lot -size for that commodity? Yes C. Sufficient farm size to allow reasonable chance of success in commercial agriculture? Yes -2- 9 d. Agricultural leases or other forms of assurance that potential buyers or leases would out the subject area into some form of agricultural use? Please state the proposed type of arrangement. Please refer to Planning and Environmental Report Please submit your agricultural plans for the subject area and present evidence of consideration of the above requirements together with your request for a change of zone. If you do not intend to subdivide the subject land for some sort of agricultural purpose, please state your other reasons. 7. To your knowledge, has there been any flooding and/or drainage problem on the subject area? No If so, please describe the problem. Please refer to planning and environmental report for this request. 8. Do you think that the roads leading to the subject area needs improvements? No If so, what kind? Please refer to planning and environmental Is the road adequate for the fro this c volume or Yes Yes What sort of governmental assistance and/or improvements do you feel will be needed in the subject area when developed? Yes No �i a. Schools x b. Roads X j Sewer X d. Drainage X i I! !I -3- Yes e. Police Protection f. Fire Protection 9. Recreational Facilities h. Public Utilities [_ Other X X X No For those checked "yes", please elaborate what type or kinds of improvements and/or assistance are needed. Signature: ��1�/ Address: P.O. Box 219 Paha a, HI 96777 Telephone: (808)936-6095 Date: November 11, 2003 -4- COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT AGRICULTURAL PROJECT DISTRICT REZONING REQUEST HESTER FARMING CO., LLC PALIMA AND PAAUAU, KA -U, HAWAII TAX MAP KEY: (3) 9-6-05: 18 & (3) 9-6-06: 04 I. INTRODUCTION The applicant, Hester Farming Co., LLC, is requesting the rezoning of a 177.577 -acre area from Agriculture (A -20a) to Agricultural Project District (APD) zoning in Palima and Paauau, Ka'u, Hawaii. (See Figures 1 & 2) The subject site is located in the area formerly referred to as "Meyer Camp", approximately 1.5 miles mauka of the town of Pahala. The subject site consists of 2 contiguous parcels. The larger parcel (parcel 18) consists of 112.397 acres, while the other parcel (Parcel 4) encompasses 59.18 acres. If approved, the applicant intends to subdivide the 17(.10 -acre site into twenty-five (25) 5+ to 12+ acre lots. The goal of the applicant is to provide smaller, more manageable farming acreage out of land that once was devoted totally to sugar cane. The target of these lots would be to area and island residents interested in farming at affordable prices. The applicant intends to retain at least 75 acres for its own operation. II. PROJECT LOCATION The subject area is located approximately 1.5 miles mauka of the town of Pahala. This area was formerly referred to as "Meyer Camp". That camp, as well as a number of other camps in this general area were eventually abandoned and demolished by the plantation in the 1960's. The primary access to the subject site from the town of Pahala is from Huapala Street and eventually over a road easement. Huapala Street intersects with Maile Street in the vicinity of the former mill warehouse in the town of Pahala. A good portion of the area surrounding the subject site has been converted from sugar cane to macadamia nut and eucalyptus tree farms. The subject site has a variety of farm crops spanning over 10 acres. There are residences within the town of Pahala, approximately 1.5 miles makai of the subject site. 1 rs �% i Site n L �l /6 ub ey"riss Camp P Cam y. `v u 1606 ° -�C i° �PahWater ala -_ p � � To nk Strip � p 1115 WT-, � q _ �_ `Y • �yginH�ta eon ir Nate Tar Pahalaj. � 2 nk Wate, Ta� Kau High Sch� � "Cem 5 0 � } ..� A aa3 � i �ess�oa `1v 1 `v °�- % :' �:vo )• it f- 1 ,.y9e �od � ':.•_ ';��,� ZONE ��— �/ Kim re cr,d, / TMK:-6 kA, 9 -6:4 Acres: 75.9 meyer) i J, TMK: 9-6-5,18 Acres: 118.3 Qp, ...... do ff TMK: 9-6-5:17 Acres: 61.5 -1 IL Z -,z qm ia -er k'- I L n r MiO 9ch 1000 or01 0 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project Concept The principals (brothers, Ellis and Adin Hester) of Hester Farming Co. LLC have been involved in various aspects of farming for over 40 years. This experience ranged from the actual cultivation of various crops to the management of large farm cooperatives. Specifically, their combined experience have included • The cultivation and ownership of a certified organic farm spanning over 500 acres in Willamette Valley of Oregon. Crops included cucumbers, sweet corn, green beans, cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli, raspberries, Marion black berries, and blueberries; • Working with farmers growing tomatoes, peaches, pears, apricots, cherries and grapes for food processing; • Operating a processing -marketing farm cooperative in California; • Growing olives in California for both table use and olive oil; and • Being the President and CEO of the Olive Growers Council of California, an agricultural bargaining association of olive growers throughout California. One of the principals lives on the subject site and has been farming the site while rebuilding its soil to make the site more arable over the past 3 years. As a resident and farmer, the applicant believes that the site is very suitable for small- scale farms. At the same time, the applicant notes the absence of smaller farm lots in the area, which limits the opportunity for area residents to purchase and engage in small family-oriented farms. As such, the applicant — in applying its farming and managerial knowledge - wishes to create smaller farm lots in this area with the necessary infrastructure to support these farms at an affordable level. The applicant believes that the proposed 5-10 acre sized lots is a size that would enable locals and others to own and farm their own land. and thus become economically more self-sufficient. B. Proiect Components As noted above, the applicant's goal is to provide affordable farm lots with reasonable farm -related infrastructure. The applicant's proposal includes the following components: • Lot Size: Subdivide the subject site into 25 lots, with lots ranging between 5 to 12+ acres. (See Figure 3) • Price: The priority target market would be area residents, then island residents, State and out-of-state buyers. The price would be determined after the estimated and/or actual development costs are calculated. The applicant is also exploring the possibility of providing some financing for local residents. Marketing: Using their knowledge, the applicant would help new farming families determine a feasible plan for their operations, including resuscitating the soil, land preparation, crop selection, production practices and market opportunities. • Water: An irrigation system is in the process of being developed. by the applicant. This system would be made available to all lots and would allow lot owners the opportunity to get access to irrigation and potable water throughout the year. (See the section on water for more information.) Road: Vehicular access to the subject area from Pahala is already available thorough an 18 -22 -foot wide pavement. This private road was once used by the plantation during the sugar cane era. The applicant intends to have all lots within the project serviced from this road by either a 10 -foot wide paved road or 20 -foot wide graveled roads, as the situation dictates. • Utilities: There are no electric lines to this area. The applicant currently uses solar with diesel generator backup. That will be the intended means of service. Communications will be via cellular telephone or satellite dish. Residence: Only one farm dwelling would be allowed on each of the property. Association: A cooperative association would be formed by all of the landowners for the maintenance of the road and water system. PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION AND RESUBDIVISION OF R.P. GRANT 1374:2 TO M. KEAWE AND R_P. GRAM 1370 T_� NAHALA PAUMA AND PAAUAU, KAU, HAWAII, HAWAII TMKS: (3) 9-6-5: 18 AND (3) 9-6-6: 4 OWNER E' L'S J HESIER FO 0OX }I9 IHAIR, HI 9Vll ZONE- P -]OP The applicant understands that the subdivision plan submitted herein is conceptual and may change prior to receipt of final subdivision approval to accommodate County subdivision requirements and appropriate conditions of zoning approval. C. Project Timetable and Cost The applicant hopes to secure the necessary County rezoning approval as soon as possible and begin the subdivision process immediately thereafter. Tentatively, plans call for having the land being subdivided by mid 2004. The estimated cost of infrastructure improvements would be nearly $1 million. IV. INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS A. State Land Use The subject area is designated Agriculture. Based on the size of the requested area, no State Land Use Commission action is required. The County of Hawaii can process the rezoning request. B. County General Plan The County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map designates the most of the site Intensive Agriculture. This designation refers to agricultural uses such as "Sugar, orchard, diversified agriculture, and floriculture." The proposed revision to General Plan does not recommend any change to this area. Based on the requested Agriculture Project District (APD) zoning, the project would be consistent with the General Plan LUPAG designation, and no amendments would be required. C. County Zoning The County zoning of the subject property is Agriculture (A -20a). Properties immediately to the west and south are also zoned A -20a. There are various single-family residential, commercial, and industrial zoning designations within the town of Pahala, approximately 1.5 miles makai of the subject site. If approved, the site would be subdivided in a manner that would not fully comply with the requirements of the Subdivision Code. There will be deviations relative to standard infrastructure road and water requirements. Specifically: a. Water: The Subdivision Code requires compliance with the Department of Water Supply standards, which would be connection to its system or alternatively, an approved private system. For a private system, the DWS requires a backup well. In this instance, there will be only one well. b. Road: For agricultural standard roads, the Subdivision Code requires a minimum 20 -foot pavement within a 50 -foot wide right-of-way. Although the project will have the minimum rights- of-way, some of the lots will be accessed by 10 -foot wide paved roads or 20 -foot wide graveled roads. Because of these deviations, this Agricultural Project District zoning rather than the conventional A -5a zoning is being sought. Such an approach could obviate the need for variances. Notwithstanding the deviations from the water and roadway requirements, all other requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes (such as use, lot size, minimum average width, and so forth) will be complied with. E. Relationship to SMA Obiectives and Policies The site is not located within the County Special Management Area (SMA). As such, no SMA Use Permit would be required. However, as the entire island falls within the State Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Area, some discussion of the request's relationship to the CZM Program follows. The site is not adjacent to the ocean. It is more than 5 miles from the shoreline. As such, the proposed action should not have any adverse impacts on the area's coastal recreational and marine resources nor have any impacts on beach protection. The likelihood of this improvement having any impacts to the area's historic resources is not likely. The site has been entirely cleared and planted in the past with sugar cane. In the event there are inadvertent finds, work will immediately cease and the State SHPD and County Planning Department will be notified. No work will resume in the area of the inadvertent find until appropriate clearances have been secured. 5 The proposed action will involve farm -related improvements in an agricultural setting. Accordingly, aside from a farm dwelling on each of the proposed lots, the potential visual impact to the area's scenic and open space resources should be negligible. Relative to the Coastal Ecosystems, impacts should be negligible, if at all, as the site is located well over 5 miles from the ocean. Notwithstanding the distance, the nature of the project — residential - agricultural — and the construction of cesspools or septic wastewater systems are such that potential coastal ecosystem impacts would usually not be found. The proposed action will create agricultural farm lots in this area. This should thus provide additional opportunities for farming. In so doing, the project could aid the agricultural economy and the overall economic use of this site and the area in general. Because of its distance from the shoreline, the site should not be subject to coastal hazards. Relative to the managing development objective, this function is more applicable to the "authority" or approving agencies. However, it is noted that the request would operate and be constructed within the scope of the Zoning Code. The subject site would be zoned Agricultural Project District (APD, and the proposed uses would be consistent with the requested zoning. In that regard, the project would be consistent with this policy. Finally, in terms of the public participation objective, this is generally a public agency function. This is achieved through the Marine and Coastal Zone Management Advisory Group (MACZMAG) and the public hearing process required pursuant to the Planning Commission's Rules and County Council's meetings on this application. Notices of this application will be sent by the applicant to surrounding property owners of the submittal of the application, and again, prior to the public hearing. Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that the requested improvements would be consistent with the objectives, policies and guidelines of the Coastal Zone Management Policies, as outlined in Chapter 205-A-23, HRS and Planning Commission Rule No. 9 relating to Special Management Area. 6 F. Other Permitting Requirements As noted earlier, other permits would still be required. These would be of the "ministerial" variety, such as Subdivision Approval, possible Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit, and the like. V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A. General Description The subject area is located approximately 1.5 miles mauka of the town of Pahala. This area was formerly referred to as "Meyer Camp". That camp, as well as a number of other camps in this general area, were eventually abandoned and demolished by the plantation in the 1960's. The primary access to the subject site from the town of Pahala is from Huapala Street and eventually over a road easement. Huapala Street intersects with Maile Street in the vicinity of the former mill warehouse in the town of Pahala. A good portion of the area surrounding the subject site has been converted from sugar cane to macadamia nut and eucalyptus tree farms. The subject site has a variety of farm crops spanning over 10 acres. There are residences within the town of Pahala, approximately 1.5 miles makai of the subject site. (See Figure 4) The subject parcel is located on the southeastern slope of Mauna Loa, approximately 5 miles from the ocean. The parcel is gently sloping, ranging from an elevation of 1,300 feet to 1,900 feet above mean sea level. According to the County of Hawaii Data Book, the annual rainfall in this general area ranged between 42 and 82 inches between 1993 to 1997. The wetter months tend to occur between March through September. The mean annual temperature is about -seventy-two (72) -- degrees Fahrenheit, with the warmer months during the summer. Winds tend to be light and variable. Slight easterly winds occur during the day, while westerly or mountain winds are prevalent during the evenings. The subject site is generally rectangular in shape. It is approximately 4,400 feet long (mauka/makai) and ranges between 1,591 to 1,164 feet wide. There is a 50 -foot wide cane haul road called Meyer Road 7 View of Portions of existing 10 -acre farm View of Portions of land being reclaimed that runs generally in a north/south direction leading to the heart of the site. Other roads would be created within the project site. (See Figure 3). The applicant's dwelling is located on the subject property. There are other farm -related structures on the property. The entire site was formerly planted in sugar cane. B. Soils and Topography The topography of the site slopes slightly in a mauka (north) to makai (south) direction. There is a gradual 10 to 15 percent slope running mauka-makai. According to the US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey Report, the site has several soil classifications. The Moaula Silty Clay Loam (MoC and MoD) is characterized as well - drained soils formed in volcanic ash, where the surface layer is very dark, brown silty clay loam, about 9 inches thick. This type of soil is usually found in elevations ranging between 1,300 to 1,900 feet with an annual rainfall of 60 to 90 inches. Another category was the Naalehu Silty Clay Loam (NaC and NaD). The Naalehu soil series are characterized by well -drained soils formed in volcanic ash. The soils are very dark brown silty clay loam about 20 inches deep, with 22 -inch thick subsoil. Generally, these soils are found within the 750 to 1,800 foot elevation and where the rainfall ranges between 35 to 60 inches annually. These soils are suitable for intensive agricultural uses. The Land Study Bureau Overall Master Productivity Rating for the subject area is Class "B" or Good (13147). This suggests the site has good productivity potential for agricultural crops. It is of the Pahala, Naalehu, and Kamaoa soil series. This type of soil series has deep, fine to medium, soil material. The color is very dark brown, and the soil is nonstony to slightly stony. It is very well drained and moderately suited for machine tillability. The State of Hawaii's Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) maps classify the subject area "Prime." C. Natural Hazards Drainage The US Corps of Engineers' Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designates the project site to be located in Zone X, areas outside the 500 -year flood plain. 2. Tsunami Hazard As the site is located over 7 miles from the ocean, it is located outside of the Civil Defense's Tsunami Evacuation Zone. 3. Volcanic and Earthquake Hazards The United States Geological Survey (USGS) classifies the area as Lava Flow Hazard Zone 3, on a scale of ascending risk 9 to 1. The City of Hilo is also classified Zone 3. There is very little that can be done to mitigate this situation and reflects an ongoing threat to all residents and businesses in these areas. The entire island of Hawaii falls within Earthquake Zone 4, according to the County Building Code. As such, certain structural requirements will be needed and taken during the building permit process to address this seismic hazard. D. Flora/Fauna Although there were no professional surveys conducted of the floral or faunal resources of the site, the applicant does not believe that rare or endangered floral or faunal resources are likely to be found within the subject site. The site has already been used extensively planted in sugar cane in the past. As such, for the most part, the flora of the uncultivated portions of the site is dominated by fallow sugar cane and non-native plants. None of the identified plants are listed on either considered endangered on either the National or State registers. Thus, floral impacts should be minimal. The site is not known to be a habitat for any rare or endangered animal life. Given its elevation, however, it would be possible to find the Hawaiian Hawk /'o) and the Hawaiian Owl (Pueo). Further, the surrounding macadamia nut and eucalyptus farms would make it less likely to find endangered animal life in the area. E. Historic/Cultural/Archaeological Resources As the site was formerly cultivated in sugar cane, an archaeological inventory survey of the subject site was not performed. A letter requesting a determination of "no historic properties affected" from the Department of Land and Natural Resources is found in Appendix A. Notwithstanding the above, during the course of improving the site, should any unanticipated archaeological features or sites be uncovered, work will cease and the applicant will immediately notify the Planning Department. G. Valued Cultural Resources In view of the recent Hawaii State Supreme Court's "PASH" and "Ka Pa'akai O Ka'Aina decisions, the issue relative to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights must be addressed. Specifically, there must be a discussion of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and associated tradition and customary practices of this site. In this situation, the subject site is not adjacent and/or proximate to the shoreline. As such, gathering of marine life and coastal access is not an issue. The applicant neither recall seeing any native Hawaiians using the subject or immediate surrounding area in the recent past for the gathering of plants nor learning of any information to that effect from area residents. In the unlikely event that legitimate gathering claims are made by native Hawaiians, the applicant intends to respect and honor such claims and provide the needed access within the site. Based on the above, it does not appear that the project would have any potential adverse impact relative to the cultural and historical resources of the area. H. Water and Coastal Resources The subject site is located well over 5 miles from the coastline. As such, coastal impacts resulting from discharge of wastewater systems from the site should not be significant. Further, being a non -coastal property, no coastal access will be affected. 10 Wastewater from the project will be serviced by individual sewer system meeting with the approval and requirements of the State Department of Health. This will be either be a cesspool or a septic system. I. Noise, Air Quality, and Dust The extension of Huapala Street (which in this area is referred to as Meyer Camp Road) will serve as the main access to this project. The existing ambient traffic level in this area is very low. As such, the corresponding noise level is very low. With the completion of this project, the noise level is not anticipated to increase significantly. There may, however, be short-term noise impacts associated with the construction of the on-site infrastructure (such as drainage, water and road systems) for the proposed subdivision. Contractors will be required to comply with appropriate noise and related mitigation measures of the State Department of Health. The proposed development should not generate any direct air quali impacts. The only discernible air quality impact could be associated with the vehicular traffic to and from the site as well as farm vehicles operating within the project site. While there will be an impact to the ambient air quality, the impact should not be significant. The tradewind patterns in this area should help dissipate any potential air quality impacts. Further, with higher EPA standards for automobile air emissions, the air quality impact should thus hopefully not be significant. As such, with the exception of construction dust in the beginning, long term dust generated by the project should be minimal. Construction dust, however, like construction noise will have to comply with the State Department of Health's regulations. J. Scenic and Visual Considerations In the Natural Beauty element of the General Plan, there are sites or areas listed as being a scenic resource. The subject site is not listed as a scenic site. However, there were a few examples cited in the Ka'u area. The most notable is the view of Mauna Loa from the Highway. The proposed development would not have any visual impacts on Mauna Loa. The site is located more on the lower slopes of Mauna Loa, and the normal residential height should not interfere with this view from the Highway. Then, too, although the property is located mauka of the Belt Highway, it is more than 2,000 feet from the Highway. As such, views of Mauna Loa should not be affected. VI. SOCIAL AND RELATED CONSIDERATIONS A. Surrounding Land Uses The land use in this area is generally in transition from one form to another form of agricultural use. The historical use was a single owner, large -scaled agricultural use - sugar cane. Today, the general area, has multiple owners operating a variety of crops ranging from macadamia nuts, eucalyptus trees, and other truck crops. Properties surrounding the subject site are planted in either macadamia nut or eucalyptus trees. The makai portion, however, is fallow, while the town of Pahala is less than 2 miles away. Given the existing and zoned conditions, the proposed development would not be incongruous with the emerging diversified agricultural use pattern of this area. B. Economic Impacts The requested zoning would have some measure of economic impact, as it would create farm lots for area and island residents. It would enhance the potential for the subject site to be more intensively utilized for truck crop, orchard, or ornamental farm. It is currently not being used intensively agriculturally, with the exception of the applicant's 10 -acre farm. Further, there will be some small short-term construction activity during the development of the subdivision. There will also be some mid- to long—term construction activity resulting from the gradual construction of homes on the respective lots. As such, with the added tax revenues, the project could have some positive influence on the island and area's economy. 12 C. Agriculturallmaacts As noted earlier, since the closure of the sugar plantation, the site has not been used intensively for agriculture. Until the applicant purchased the property, the site laid fallow. A portion is now being cultivated into a small farm. It should also be noted that from a resource perspective, the site, in spite of its Class B classification has been somewhat abused and abandoned. A good portion of the land is thus currently less than productive. The soils need to be resuscitated, which the applicant has successfully done for his 10 -acre farm site, and is in the process of doing for the entire project site. The applicant also intends to lend his expertise and resource to the ultimate lot owners to further bring the land back to its rich agricultural potential. This project, then, would result in creating and not diminishing a more productive agricultural resource. At the same time, although there are vacant lands in Pahala that are capable of being used agriculturally, most of them are large lots. There are not many lots with the appropriate infrastructure for independent subsistence farmers. Given the proposed 5+ acre lot sizes, however, the potential for small-scale orchard, ornamental, or truck crop farming activity exists. As such, having the land subdivided into 5+ acre lots would not diminish the site's agricultural potential. It would actually enhance it. The site would be more manageable and could be used more intensively from a size standpoint (5+ versus 59- 112 acres). The applicant's proposal would thus help foster the family -agricultural objectives by making available good-sized lots in this area, while increasing the resource potential of the site. VII. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS A. Road Access to the project would be via the extension of a private road known as Meyer Camp. This road has a right-of-way of 50 feet with a pavement width ranging between 18 to 22 feet. This private road was once used by the plantation during the sugar cane era. (See Figure 5) 13 Makai view of primary access road to and through site View of graveled road within portions of site TLi� are 5 As proposed, there would be a 50 -foot wide right-of-way serving each of the lots. There would be a 20 -foot wide road within the right-of- way. These roads would generally follow the existing roads created by the sugar plantation. These roads, although graveled, have been constructed with base rock and finished with gravel. The applicant may also improve certain areas with a 10 -foot wide pavement. The applicant believes that the proposed road standard would be sufficient for the intended agricultural use. A wider and/or fully improved paved road would not only increase the cost of the resultant lot but would be less congruous with the agricultural character of the area. Then, too, all roads would be kept private and maintained by the landowners association. Given that scenario, the roads could still be reasonably accessed by emergency vehicles. Additionally, there would be no obligation or burden to the County to maintain these roads. B. Water An irrigation system is in the process of being developed by the applicant. This system would be made, available to all lots and would allow lot owners the opportunity to get access to irrigation and potable water throughout the year. To date, the applicant has expended more than $400,000 to successfully drill a 1,200 -foot deep well on the subject property. A pump has been installed that will deliver approximately 200 gallons per minute. In due time, the appropriate booster pump, storage tank and water lines will be developed by the applicant to service each of the proposed lots. At the property line, each of the owners will have to provide its own hook-up with a water meter and piping to service its property. Once the system is in place, the applicant will form a cooperative water company to operate and maintain the water system. This cooperative would be proportionately owned by all lot owners. The cooperative would establish a connection fee along with a reasonable rate for water consumption. A deposit account will also be established at a local bank where moneys collected would be used to pay necessary bills and establish a reserve account for necessary repairs and maintenance of the irrigation system. 14 It should be noted that there is a County well and tank situated on the mauka portion of the subject site. As such, the site already has access to overflows from this system, which is then captured in two (2) 45,000 gallon galvanized storage tank. When these tanks are full, the excess is captured in an open reservoir. (See Figure 6) The applicant intends to use water from the 90,000 -gallon tanks for potable purposes, while the 1,200 -foot well will be used primarily for irrigation. Water from the irrigation well will also be used to supplement, if needed, the potable needs of the lot owners. Water from the open reservoir will be used only for irrigation. When completed, the cost of the private irrigation and quasi -potable water system will exceed $700,000. C. Wastewater There is no County wastewater system in this area. As such, a cesspool or septic system meeting with the approval of the Department of Health will be required. This will be done by the applicant and/or respective landowner in conjunction with the issuance of a building permit for a farm dwelling. D. Solid Waste Solid waste will be handled by the individual homeowners and hauled to authorized landfill sites or transfer stations. With the requested APD zoning, the potential for uses with toxic or related chemical waste would be minimal, if at all. It should be noted that the applicant would encourage respective homeowners to retain most of the vegetation on the site during the construction and farming phases for composting. Thus, green waste from this project would be somewhat limited. E. Other Government Services As this area is already proximate to the Pahala urban area, it is already being serviced. No significant extension of government services would be required. The nearest fire station and hospital are located in Pahala, less than 2 miles away. The Police Station is located in Naalehu, approximately 8 miles from the subject site. In this area, K-12 public schools are available at Pahala, where there are also playground and tennis courts. 15 View of County water tank and pump on site View of applicant's water tanks and reservoir maksi% of County stank JF drauxe 5 As such, the project should not result in the extension of any government services. Further, the required public facilities are located reasonably proximate to the subject site. F. Other Utilities All other utilities such as telephone, cable, and electrical services are available to the site. VIII. IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS A. Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses of Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity If the request were denied, the short-term use of the site would probably continue in low level agriculture or lay fallow. The applicant may eventually construct another dwelling on the other parcel or elect to sell the vacant lots. Given the soil's characteristics (Class B) and the absence of small- scale farm lands in this area, the provision of smaller lots could result in greater agricultural utilization of the property. Leaving the land in its large tract would make the land suitable only for large single -crop farms, such as eucalyptus tree or macadamia nut. Admittedly, those uses are agricultural. However, large lots do not provide opportunities for more agricultural diversification of the land. Thus, from a long-term productivity standpoint, the proposed 25 -lot agricultural subdivision would provide a heightened level of possibility in having the land used for more intensive agricultural activity, while addressing the potential housing and economic needs of area and island residents. B. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources The subject site is already fully disturbed. As such, the project should not result in an irreversible commitment of natural or archaeological resources. The soil on the parcel has been classified "B" or good by the Land Study Bureau, representing good agricultural potential. This is evidenced by the former sugar cane and current 10 -acre truck crop uses of the site. With stringent agricultural use controls and the irrigation water infrastructure to be provided to the site, the applicant 16 believes that the proposed 25 -lot subdivision would foster and enhance, instead of remove, this land for more intensive agricultural use. The commitment of resources would thus be consistent with the site's quality soil classification. C. Mitigative Measures To implement this project, the applicant will have to make some infrastructure improvements. There will also be improvements to the site once the land is subdivided. As such, during all construction phases of this project, contractors will be obligated to comply with appropriate State noise and air quality standards. Should further unanticipated archaeological finds be discovered in conjunction with the development of the site, work will stop (as is required by the State and County) and clearance secured before work is resumed. There is no existing drainageway on the property. Any and all required grading or grubbing work will be done in conjunction with the required permits and/or SCS Agricultural Plan. This is to assure that the development of this site does not adversely affect the drainage of the surrounding areas. Finally, there will be no person or businesses to be dislocated by this project. D. Alternatives to the Proposed Project No Proiect Under the status quo alternative, the site will continue to remain in its fallow state or limited agricultural use. It could also remain a fire hazard, during periods of drought. The site could also be developed with 1 or 2 dwellings on each of the lot. Given the soil's arable characteristics and the demand for small farm lots, the site would not be utilized to its fullest agricultural potential. 2. Alternative Densitv 17 Under this alternative, the applicants could seek a more intensive zoning, such as FA -3a zoning. This zoning would require full compliance with road and water requirements to be economical, however. Under that basis, the market price of the lots would have to be higher than the current proposal. The lots may then be less feasible for genuine agricultural use and more feasible for residential use. Such higher density would not be compatible with the policy of trying to foster more family-oriented type of agricultural activities, such as truck crops. It would encourage more rural/urban type of uses in a relatively prime agricultural area. 3. Evaluation of Alternatives The project's impacts to the area's social and physical infrastructure would not appear to be pronounced. Certain mitigative measures will be taken to address any possible impacts associated by the development of this project. Further, the project would be consistent with the land use objectives sought to be accomplished by the County General Plan LUPAG map. Under the proposal, the land would be used more intensively for agricultural pursuits. In view of the aforementioned, it would appear that none of the alternatives would be more prudent and beneficial than the requested APD alternative. IX. REGULATORY ANALYSIS A. General Plan LUPAG Map The General Plan provides for the long-range comprehensive development of the island of Hawaii. It provides direction for balanced growth in the County. The County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map designates the most of the site Intensive Agriculture. This designation refers to agricultural uses such as "Sugar, orchard, diversified agriculture, and floriculture." The proposed revision to General Plan does not recommend any change to this area. is Based on the requested Agriculture Project District (APD) zoning, the project would be consistent with the General Plan LUPAG designation, and no amendments would be required. B. General Plan Polices The requested zoning would be consistent with the goals, policies, and standards of the General Plan document. For one, it may provide limited short-term economic opportunities largely through the construction of any improvements required for the subdivision. More importantly, however, longer-term opportunities would be created largely in the form of family-oriented ornamental, orchard, and truck farms. In so doing, the resultant project should add revenues to the County and State coffers. The project intends to be energy conscious through the use and/or encouragement of solar energy and design features to take advantage of the natural elements. Maintaining and improving the quality of the environment is important to the success of this project. The General Plan identifies five (5) areas of environmental concerns - air pollution, water quality, soil pollution, solid waste disposal, and noise pollution. As proposed, the project would not be violative of any of those objectives. Aside from vehicular and farm equipment transmission, air pollution associated with the project should be negligible. All wastewater systems would be consistent with the requirement of the State Department of Health. This should be sufficient to address any potential groundwater or coastal water impacts. The applicant will have lot owners practice waste conservation measures, largely through the retention of green wastes for composting. The project will also not be a noisy one, except as may be associated with a typical residence and the agricultural operations. Any noise -generating facility - such as generators - would be carefully placed to minimize their noise impacts to adjoining properties. Then, there are no homes on the adjoining properties. Further, it is unlikely that this site would be used as a processing plant, as it would be more economical to send the grown products elsewhere. The project area is outside of any floodway. Nonetheless, a drainage system will be designed in a manner to protect the property as well as 19 to minimize the volume of surface runoff generated by this development. This may be also accomplished through having an approved SCS agricultural conservation plan. As the site has been fully improved in the past, it would not appear to have any archaeological sites. Nonetheless, work will cease if unanticipated archaeological remains are discovered while continuing its farming operations. Work will resume only after proper clearances from the State and/or County have been received. Being fully disturbed, the prospects of the site serving as a habitat for rare or endangered plant or animal life appear remote. As the APD zoning would allow a farm dwelling, the project will indirectly fulfill the objectives of the housing element by creating additional lots. The Plan also emphasizes that developments be mindful of an area's natural beauty. In this situation, the project has been used in a manner where it blends with the existing terrain. Furthermore, the project should create no adverse visual impacts to Mauna Loa from the Belt Highway. As the project site is more than 5 miles from the ocean, the usual coastal resources concern is absent or not pronounced. There will be no interference with shoreline access. Then, too, through the use of a DOH -approved wastewater system, impacts to the coastal water will be minimized. There will be little impact to public facilities. The wastewater system will be private. Although the applicant will construct the water and road systems, it will eventually be privately owned and maintained by the respective lot owners. Schools and other public facilities are also located proximate to the site, most of them being less than 2 miles away. In terms of the Land Use and Agricultural elements, the pertinent goals, policies, and standards of the General Plan note the following: • Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County • Protect and encourage the intensive utilization of the County's limited prime agricultural land 20 • The County shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment • Zoning requests shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation, district goals, regional plans, State Land Use District, compatibility with adjacent zoned uses, availability of public services and utilities, access, and public need • The compatibility of agricultural and non-agricultural uses should be carefully reviewed and where appropriate, buffers required • Rural -style residential -agricultural developments, such as new small-scale rural communities or extensions of existing rural communities, shall be encouraged in appropriate locations • The county shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment • Agricultural land shall be used as one form of open space or green belt. Finally, the General Plan's Courses of Action for the District of Ka'u, notes the following: Economic • The County shall assist the further development of agriculture in the area Land Use — Agriculture Encourage and support the expansion of diversified agriculture and the macadamia nut industry in the district In view of the foregoing goals, policies, and courses of action, it is noted that the requested zoning would be consistent with the Intensive Agriculture designation of the LUPAG map. It would also be compatible with the surrounding area There are agriculturally zoned properties adjacent and proximate to the subject site. The project 21 would still maintain the agricultural character of this general area, albeit in a more intensive manner. Although the soil of the site is classified "B" or good, it has been somewhat abused in the past. As such, the project will result in the resuscitation of the site's agricultural resource and its eventual productive agricultural uses. This project should thus result in the more intensive agricultural use of the site. This lot size would be beneficial to not only the applicant but also to those who wish to do engage in family -agricultural activities on the site. The property has no severe topographic or geologic problems that would render the land unusable for the proposed subdivision and activity. Most critically, the project would be helping to resuscitate or reclaim valuable agricultural lands and then put them into its intended use. C. Zoning and Subdivision The designated zoning of the site is A -20a. Should the APA zoning be approved, the requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes would be complied, including use and related development standards. However, through the APD rezoning process, certain deviations from the water and road requirements are being proposed, and if approved, may avoid the necessity of a variance. D. State Land Use Agricultural Standards As the requested lots will be more than 1 -acre, the request would not in principle violate the minimum lot size standards of the State Land Use law. All of the applicable use guidelines of said law would be adhered to. However, the site has soils that are classified "B" by the Land Study Bureau. As such, there are added use restrictions, as outlined in Chapter 205-4-5(a). The applicant is aware of and can comply with these use restrictions. 22 SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant Mae 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996 November 11, 2003 Ms. Maryanne Maigret Historic Preservation Division — Hawaii District Department of Land & Natural Resources 74-383 Kealakehe Parkway Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Dear Ms. Maigret: Planning . Variance • Zoning Subdivision • Land Use Permtls Environmental Reports Subject: Request for "No Historic Properties Affected" Determination Pahala, Ka'u, Hawai i, TMK: 9-6-05.18 & 9-6-06.04 As part of the permit submittal requirements, the County Planning Department is requesting either an archaeological inventory survey or a letter to your office requesting a "No Historic Properties Affected" determination. In this situation, on behalf of the affected property owner, Hester Fanning Co., LLC., I am requesting such a determination of the subject property. For your information, I am enclosing pertinent portions of a planning and environmental report prepared for the project. This report should provide you with information such as the project site, nature of the project, and general ground conditions. I trust that the information is sufficient for you to make such a determination. Alternatively, if you need more information or have questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. S'nce�rel \U " SIDNEY M. FUKE Planning Consultant APPENDIX A Division 5. Agricultural Project Districts (APD) Section 25-6-50. Purpose and applicability. The agricultural project district (APD) development is intended to provide a flexible and creative planning approach for developments within the agricultural zoning districts, in lieu of specific land use designations. It will allow for flexibility in the location of specific types of agricultural uses and variations in lot sizes. Under this planning approach, opportunities will be provided for a mix of small scale agricultural activities and associated residential uses, as well as larger agricultural projects. This district will also provide a vehicle to satisfy the demand for a rural lifestyle on marginal agricultural land, while decreasing the pressure to develop important agricultural land for this purpose. The planning approach would establish a continuity in land uses and designs, while providing for the needed infrastructural facilities and systems to support the various types of agricultural developments. An agricultural project district is an amendment to this chapter which changes the district boundaries in accordance with the individual agricultural project district. Section 25-6-51. Criteria for establishing a project district. An agricultural project district may be established as an amendment to this chapter whenever the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare require that a comprehensive planning approach for an agricultural area should be adopted in order to establish a continuity in land uses while providing the required infrastructural facilities and systems. In addition, an agricultural project district may only be established if the proposed district: (1) Is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter and the County general plan; and (2) Will not result in a substantial adverse impact upon the surrounding area, community or region. Section 25-6-52. Minimum land area required. The minimum land area required for an agricultural project district shall be five acres. Section 25-6-53. Permitted uses; overall density. Any uses permitted either directly or conditionally in the A or IA districts shall be permitted in an agricultural project district, and the overall density permitted in an agricultural project district shall not be greater than one acre per building site. Each of the proposed uses and the overall densities for dwelling uses shall be contained in a master conceptual plan for the agricultural project district and in the agricultural project district enabling ordinance. Section 25-6-54. Application for agricultural project district; requirements. (a) An application for an agricultural project district may be filed by a property owner or any other person with the property owner's consent. The application shall be on a form prescribed for this purpose by the director and shall be accompanied by: (1) A filing fee of $100 per acre up to a maximum filing fee of $5,000. (2) A description of the property in sufficient detail to determine its precise location. (3) A master conceptual plan of the property, showing the agricultural project district boundaries and the land uses and acreage of land involved. (4) A description of the proposed agricultural project district, including land uses, densities, infrastructural requirements, and development standards. (5) A description of each of the open space areas proposed for the agricultural project district for cultural and/or environmental purposes, including those open space areas preserved because of natural hazards. EXHIBIT 101 (6) A metes and bounds description of the property prepared by a surveyor. (7) A list of the names, addresses and tax map key numbers for those property owners and lessees of record of surrounding properties who are required to receive notice under section 25-2-4. (8) A county environmental report; provided that a county environmental report shall not be required where an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment and negative declaration have been prepared and issued in compliance with chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended. (9) Any other plans or information required by rules adopted by the director in accordance with chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes. (b) Within ten days after filing an application for an agricultural project district, the applicant shall serve notice of the application on surrounding owners and lessees of record as provided by section 25-2-4. (c) Within one hundred twenty days after an agricultural project district application has been accepted by the director, the director shall forward the application to the commission, together with the director's recommendation on the proposed agricultural project district, and together with a proposed agricultural project district ordinance which establishes the agricultural project district and provides standards and conditions for the district, including permitted land uses, accessory uses, densities, heights, setbacks, and variances from the requirements of this chapter, and from chapter 23 (subdivision control), if applicable, as contained in the master conceptual plan for the agricultural project district. (d) The commission shall review any agricultural project district application and shall forward its recommendation on the application to the council through the mayor for the council's consideration and action. (1) In reviewing the application, the commission shall hold at least one public hearing in the council district in which the proposed agricultural project district is located. The commission shall provide reasonable notice of the date of the hearing to the applicant. The commission shall also publish notice of the hearing in accordance with the requirements of this chapter. (2) Within ten days after receiving notice of the date of the public hearing, the applicant shall serve notice of the hearing on surrounding owners and lessees of record as provided by section 25-2-4. The applicant shall also serve notice on owners and lessees of record of interests in other properties which the commission may find to be directly affected by the proposed agricultural project district. (3) Within ninety days after receipt of the application from the director, unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant, the commission shall transmit the proposed agricultural project district ordinance together with its recommendation thereon through the mayor to the council. The commission shall recommend approval in whole or in part, with or without modifications, or rejection of such proposal. Section 25-6-55. Conditions imposed on agricultural project district. (a) The council may impose conditions on the use of the property subject to the agricultural project district, provided the council finds that the conditions are: (1) Necessary to prevent circumstances which may be adverse to the public health, safety and welfare; or 102 (2) Reasonably conceived to fulfill needs directly emanating from the land uses proposed with respect to protection of the public from the potentially deleterious effects of the proposed uses, or fulfillment of the need for public service demands created by the proposed uses. (b) In addition to the conditions described in subsection (a), the council shall include the following conditions in any agricultural project district ordinance: (1) A description of each of the uses proposed in the agricultural project district; (2) The overall and average densities for dwelling uses established in the agricultural project district; (3) Any infrastructure requirements for the agricultural project district; and (4) Any open space requc-�:::ents for the agricultural project district. Section 25-6-56. Review and approval of site plans. (a) After adoption of an agricultural project district enabling ordinance, the applicant shall submit to the director detailed site plans for the agricultural project district development. The site plans shall conform to the agricultural project district enabling ordinance and shall include the following: (1) Plans for required infrastructure improvements; (2) All items required for a plan approval application, as provided by section 25-2-72; and (3) Any other information required by rules adopted by the director in accordance with chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes. (b) Within sixty days after acceptance of the site plans, the director shall either deny or approve the plans. (c) The director may approve site plans for an agricultural project district only if the applicant has complied with all of the conditions contained in the agricultural project district enabling ordinance and the site plans conform to the standards contained in the agricultural project district enabling ordinance. The director may approve the site plans subject to conditions, or the director may approve the site plans subject to certain changes in the proposed site plans when, in the director's opinion, such conditions or changes are necessary to carry out the purposes of the agricultural project district, this chapter and the considerations contained in section 25-6-57. (d) If the director fails to render a decision on the site plans within the prescribed period, the site plans shall be considered approved without further certification by the director. Section 25-6-57. Review criteria and conditions of approval. In reviewing site plans for an agricultural project district, the director shall consider the proposed development and uses in relation to the surrounding properties, improvements, streets, traffic, community characteristics, and natural features, and to the agricultural and accessory residential uses contemplated, and may require conditions or changes to assure: (1) Adequate light and air, proper siting and arrangements of all structures and improvements are provided; (2) Existing and prospective traffic movements will not be hindered; (3) Adequate off-street parking is provided to serve the development or use; (4) Access to the parking areas will not create potential accident hazards; and (5) Within reasonable limits, any natural and man-made features of community value are preserved. 103 Section 25-6-5$. Construction in conformity with approved site plans. Every structure, development and use contained in site plans for an agricultural project district approved by the director shall be constructed and developed in accordance with the terms, specifications and conditions of approval for those site plans. Section 25-6-59. Plan approval issued by approval of site plans. Plan approval shall be considered issued when site plans for an agricultural project district are approved by the director, as provided by sections 25-6-56 and 25-6-57, and no further action is required for the issuance of plan approval under this chapter. Section 25-6-59.1. Amendments. Any amendment to the conditions and standards contained in an agricultural project district enabling ordinance shall be processed in the same manner as the agricultural project district enabling ordinance, unless the council in the agricultural project district enabling ordinance a, thorizes the amendments to be made by the director. A request requiring an amendment of the enabling ordinance shall be submitted in writing to the director, in lieu of the application required for an agricultural project district. The request shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $250. Section 25-6-59.2. Appeal of director's actions on agricultural project district site plans. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the director in the issuance of a decision regarding agricultural project district site plans may appeal the director's action to the board of appeals, in accordance with this chapter, within thirty days after the written decision is issued by the director. 104 Hawaii County Code §25-5-70 dwelling agreement, and the County. The agreement shall require the dwelling to be used for farm -related purposes. (2) The applicant shall submit an agricultural development and use program, farm plan or other evidence of the applicant's continual agricultural productivity or farming operation within the County to the director. Such plan shall also show how the farm dwelling will be utilized for farm- related purposes. (d) An ohana dwelling may be located on any building site in the FA district, as permitted under article 6, division 3 of this chapter. (e) Exceptions to the regulations for the FA district regarding heights, building site areas, building site average widths and yards, may be approved by the director within a planned unit develop- ment. (f) Plan approval shall be required prior to the construction or installation of any new structure or development, or of any addition to an existing structure or development which is used for minor agricultural products processing. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, see. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Division 7. A, Agricultural Districts. Section 25-5-70. Purpose and applicability. The A (agricultural) district provides for agricul- tural and very low density agriculturally -based residential use, encompassing rural areas of good to marginal agricultural and grazing land, forest land, game habitats, and areas where urbanization is not found to be appropriate. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, see. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-71. Designation of A districts. Each A (agricultural) district shall be designated on the zoning map by the symbol "A" followed by a number together with the lower case letter "a" which indicates the required or minimum number of acres for each building site. For example, A- I Oa means an agricultural district with a minimum building site area of ten acres. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, see. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-72. Permitted uses. (a) The following uses shall be permitted in the A district: (1) Agricultural parks. (2) Agricultural products processing, major and minor. (3) Animal hospitals. (4) Aquaculture. (5) Botanical gardens, nurseries and greenhouses, seed farms, plant experimental stations, arboretums, floriculture, and similar uses dealing with the growing of plants. (6) Campgrounds, parks, playgrounds, tennis courts, swimming pools, and other similar open area recreational facilities, where none of the recreational features are entirely enclosed in a building. (7) Cemeteries and mausoleums, as permitted under Chapter 6, article 1 of this Code. (8) Crop production. (9) Dwelling, single-family, as permitted under chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes and as permitted under section 25-5-77(b). (10) Farm dwellings, as permitted under section 25-5-77(b) and (c). (11) Fertilizer yards utilizing only manure and soil, for commercial use. (12) Forestry. (13) Game and fish propagation. Unofficial Planning Department version (7128103) 25-62 Hawaii County Code §25-5-72 (14) Group livingfacilities. (15) Kennels. (16) Livestock production, provided that piggeries, apiaries, and pen feeding of livestock shall only be located on sites approved by the State department of health and the direc- tor, and must be located no closer than one thousand feet away from any major public street or from any other zoning district. (17) Public uses and structures which are necessary for agricultural practices. (18) Retention, restoration, rehabilitation, or improvement of building or sites of historic or scenic interest. (19) Riding academies, and rental or boarding stables. (20) Roadside stands for the sale of agricultural products grown on the premises. (21) Telecommunication antennas, as permitted under section 25-4-12. (22) Utility substations, as permitted under section 25-4-11 (23) Vehicle and equipment storage areas that are directly accessory to aquaculture, crop production, game and fish propagation, livestock grazing and livestock production. (24) Veterinary establishments. (25) Wind energy facilities. (b) The following use may be permitted in the A district, provided that a use permit is issued for each use: (1) Golf courses and related golf course uses, including golf driving ranges, golf mainte- nance buildings and golf club houses. (c) The following uses may be permitted in the A district, provided that a special permit is obtained for such use if the building site is located within the State land use agricultural dis- trict: (1) Adult day care homes. (2) Airfields, heliports, and private landing strips. (3) Bed and breakfast establishments, as permitted under section 25-4-7. (4) Community buildings, as permitted under section 25-4-11. (5) Excavation or removal of natural building material or minerals, for commercial use. (6) Family child care homes_ (7) Guest ranches. (8) Home occupations, as permitted under section 25-4-13. (9) Lodges. (10) Meetingfacilities. (11) Model homes, as permitted under section 25-4-8. (12) Public dumps. (13) Public uses and structures, other than those necessary for agricultural practices, as pro- vided under section 25-4-I1. (14) Temporary real estate offices, as permitted under section 25-4-8. (15) Trailer parks with density of three thousand five hundred square feet of land area per trailer, provided that plan approval is secured prior to commencing such use. (16) Uses, other than those specifically listed in this section, which meet the standards for a special permit under chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes. (d) The following uses may be permitted in the A district, provided that a use permit is issued for each use if the building site is outside of the State land use agricultural district or a special per- mit is issued for each use if the building site is within the State land use agricultural district: (1) Crematoriums. UnoffLral Planning Department venvlon (2/28/03) 25-63 Hawaii County Code §25-5-73 (2) Churches, temples and synagogues. (3) Day care centers. (4) Hospitals, sanitariums, old age, convalescent, nursing and rest homes. (5) Major outdoor amusement and recreation facilities. (6) Mortuaries. (7) Schools. (e) Buildings and uses accessory to the uses permitted in this section shall also be permitted in the A district. (f) No building site shall be established after December 1, 1996 which shall in any way restrict or limit aquaculture, horticulture, production of crops, keeping of livestock, game and fish prop- agation, or the processing, sale or other commercial use of the products of such uses. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified and amended April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-73. Height limit. The height limit in the A district shall be thirty-five feet for any residential structure, including any single family dwelling, orArm dwelling, and forty-five feet for all other structures. The director may, however, permit by plan approval, any nonresidential agricultural structures to be constructed to a height of one hundred feet, if the director determines that the additional height above the forty-five foot height limit is necessary. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-74. Minimum building site area. The minimum building site area in the A district shall be five acres. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-75. Minimum building site average width. Each building site in the A district shall have a minimum average width of two hundred feet for the fust five acres of required area plus twenty feet for each additional acre of required area. Provided that no building site shall be required to have an average width greater than one thousand feet. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, see. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-76. Minimum yards. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the minimum yards in the A district shall be thirty feet for front and rear yards, and twenty feet for side yards. (b) For accessory uses such as shade cloth structures used in controlling the amount of sunlight in the raising of plants and flowers, rear, side and front yards in the A district shall be at least ten feet, except where the A district shares common boundaries with urban zones and main gov- ernment roads. (c) For accessory uses such as plastic roofed and shade cloth wooden or metal framed structures used in controlling the amount of sunlight, rainfall, wind and other elements of nature in the raising of fruits, vegetables and similar agricultural products, rear, side and front yards shall be at least ten feet except where: (1) Exterior walls of any type other than shade cloth are added to the wooden or metal framed structure; (2) The specific use allowed is abandoned; and (3) The A district shares common boundaries with urban zones and main government roads. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999; Am. 1999, Ord. No. 99-110, sec. 1.) Section 25-5-77. Other regulations. (a) If any legal building site in the A district has an area of less than five acres, then the yard, min- imum building site average width and height requirements for the building site shall be the Un.Ifl, al Planning Department version (2/28/21) 25-64 Hawaii County Code §25-5-80 same as the yard and height requirements in the FA district. (b) One single-family dwelling or one farm dwelling shall be permitted on any building site in the A district. Afarm dwelling is a single-family dwelling that is located on or used in connection with a farm or if the agricultural activity provides income to the family occupying the dwell- ing. (c) Additional farm dwellings may be permitted in the A district only upon the following condi- tions: (1) A farm dwelling agreement for each additional farm dwelling, on a form prepared by the director, shall be executed between the owner of the building site, any lessee having a lease on the building site with a term exceeding one year from the date of the./arm dwelling agreement, and the County. The agreement shall require the dwelling to be used for farm -related purposes. (2) The applicant shall submit an agricultural development and use program, farm plan or other evidence of the applicant's continual agricultural productivity or farming operation within the County to the director. Such plan shall also show how the farm dwelling will be utilized forfarm-related purposes. (d) An ohana dwelling may be located on any building site in the A district, as permitted under article 6, division 3 of this chapter. (e) Exceptions to the regulations for the A district regarding heights, building site areas, building site average widths and yards, may be approved by the director within a planned unit develop- ment. (1996, Ord. No_ 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Division 8. IA, Intensive Agricultural Districts. Section 25-5-80. Purpose and applicability. The IA (intensive agricultural) district provides for the preservation of important agricultural lands as provided for in the general plan and character- ized by a mix of small and large scale commercial farms and other agricultural operations which may include residential use in the form offarm dwellings closely tied to intensive agricultural use. The lands in the IA district are those lands which have the soil, quality, growing season, and mois- ture supply needed to sustain high yields of crops generally or of specific crops of statewide or local importance when managed according to modem farming methods. All IA districts shall be located within the State land use agricultural or conservation district. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-81. Designation of IA districts. The IA (intensive agricultural) district shall be designated by the symbol "IA" followed by a number together with the lower case letter "a" which indicates the required or minimum number of acres for each building site. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-82. Permitted uses. (a) The following uses shall be permitted in the IA district: (1) Agricultural parks. (2) Agricultural products processing, major and minor. (3) Aquaculture. (4) Cemeteries, as permitted under chapter 6, article 1 of this Code. (5) Crop production. (6) Farm dwellings, as permitted under section 25-5-87(b) and (c). (7) Forestry. Unofficial Planning Department version (228103) 25-65 Hawaii County Code §25-5-83 (8) Livestock production, provided that piggeries, apiaries and pen feeding of livestock shall not be closer than one thousand feet to any major road or to any district other than the A district on building sites approved by the State department of health and the director. (9) Public uses and structures which are necessary for agricultural practices. (10) Telecommunication antennas, as permitted under section 25-4-12. (11) Utility substations, as permitted under section 25-4-11. (b) The following uses may be permitted in the IA districts, provided that a special permit is obtained for such use: (1) Crematoriums. (2) Churches. (3) Community buildings as permitted under section 25-4-11. (4) Day care centers. (5) Hospitals. (6) Public uses and structures, other than those necessary for agricultural purposes, as per- mitted under section 25-4-11. (7) Uses other than those specifically listed in this section, which meet the standards for a special permit under chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes. (c) In IA districts in areas with over thirty percent slope, in gullies, and where rough terrain dis- courages intensive agricultural uses, the director may approve any other uses which are per- mitted in the RA, FA or A districts. (d) Buildings and uses accessory to the uses permitted in this section shall also be permitted in the IA district. (f) No building site shall be established in the IA district which shall in any way restrict or limit the uses permitted under this section. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-83. Height limit. The height limit in the IA district shall be thirty-five feet for any residential structure, including any farm dwelling, and forty-five feet for all other structures. The director may, however, permit by plan approval, any nonresidential agricultural structures to be constructed to a height of one hundred feet, if the director determines that the additional height above the forty-five foot height limit is necessary. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-84. Minimum building site area. The minimum building site area in the IA district shall be five acres. (1996, Ord. No_ 96-160, see. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-85. Minimum building site average width. Each building site in the IA district shall have a minimum average width of two hundred feet for the first five acres of required area, plus twenty feet for each additional acre of required area. Provided that no building site shall be required to have an average width greater than one thousand feet. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-86. Minimum yards. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the minimum yards required in the IA district shall be thirty feet for front and rear yards, and twenty feet for side yards. (b) For accessory uses such as shade cloth structures used in controlling the amount of sunlight in the raising of plants and flowers, rear, side and front yards in the IA district shall be at least ten feet, except where the IA district shares common boundaries with urban zones and main Unnffirfal Planning Department version (2128/03) 25-66 Hawaii County Code §25-5-87 government roads. (c) For accessory uses such as plastic roofed and shade cloth wooden or metal framed structures used in controlling the amount of sunlight, rainfall, wind and other elements of nature in the raising of fruits, vegetables and similar agricultural products, rear, side and front yards shall be at least ten feet except where: (1) Exterior walls of any type other than shade cloth are added to the wooden or metal framed structure; (2) The specific use allowed is abandoned; and (3) The IA district shares common boundaries with urban zones and main government roads. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999; Am. 1999, Ord. No. 99-110, see. 2.) Section 25-5-87. Other regulations. (a) If any building site in the IA district has an area of less than five acres, then the minimum yards shall be the same as the yards in an FA district having an area requirement nearest to that of the subject building site in the TA district. (b) One farm dwelling shall be permitted on any building site in the IA district, if it is located on or used in connection with a farm or if the agricultural activity provides income to the family occupying the dwelling. In the case where agricultural activity has not been established, a farm dwelling agreement shall be entered into with the County to insure that agricultural activity will be established by the applicant within three years from the date that the building permit for the farm dwelling is issued. (c) Additional farm dwellings may be permitted in the IA district only upon the following condi- tions: (1) A farm dwelling agreement for each additional farm dwelling, on a form prepared by the director, shall be executed between the owner of the building site, any lessee having a lease on the building site with a term exceeding one year from the date of the farm dwelling agreement, and the County. The agreement shall require the dwelling to be used for farm -related purposes. (2) The applicant shall submit an agricultural development and use program, farm plan or other evidence of the applicant's continual agricultural productivity or farming operation within the County to the director. Such plan shall also show how the farm dwelling will be utilized forfarm-related purposes. (d) Exceptions to the regulations for the IA district regarding heights, building site areas, building site average widths and yards, may be approved by the director within a planned unit develop- ment. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Division 9. V, Resort -Hotel Districts. Section 25-5-90. Purpose and applicability. The V (resort -hotel) district applies to areas to accommodate the needs and desires of visitors, tourists and transient guests. It applies to specific areas where public roads and public utilities are available or where suitable alternate private facil- ities are assured. It may apply to a single isolated hotel or resort with or without a commercial mall or shopping section. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999) Section 25-5-91. Designation and density of V districts. (a) Each V (resort -hotel) district shall be designated on the zoning map by the symbol "V" fol- UnoJ%idal Planning Depurrmen( versmrz (2118103) 25-67 Hawaii County Code §25-5-92 lowed by a number which indicates the required land area, in thousands of square feet, for each dwelling unit or for each separate rentable unit in the case of hotels, resorts, inns, lodges, motels, motor hotels, motor lodges, or other similar rentable units. (b) In case any of the permitted uses have dormitories, two beds shall be equivalent to one sepa- rate rentable unit for purposes related to the required land area in the V district. (c) Maximum density designation in the V district shall be .75 or seven hundred fifty square feet of land area for each dwelling unit or separate rentable unit. (d) In the V district, no limitation shall be placed on the increments used between the various den- sity designations; however, the recommended incremental density designations are: .75, 1, 1.25, 1.5 and upward in 0.25 increments. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-92. Permitted uses. (a) The following uses shall be permitted in the V district: (1) Adult day care homes. (2) Amusement and recreational facilities, indoor. (3) Art galleries, museums. (4) Automobile service stations. (5) Bars, night clubs and cabarets. (6) Bed and breakfast establishments, as permitted under section 25-4-7. (7) Business services. (8) Cemeteries and mausoleums, as permitted under chapter 6, article 1 of this Code. (9) Churches, temples, and synagogues. (10) Commercial parking lots and garages. (11) Community buildings, as permitted under section 25-4-11. (12) Day care centers. (13) Dwellings, double -family or duplex. (14) Dwellings, multiple family. (15) Dwellings, single-family. (16) Family child care homes. (17) Financial institutions. (18) Group living facilities. (19) Home occupations, as permitted under section 25-4-13. (20) Hotels. (21) Lodges. (22) Medical clinics. (23) Meetingfacilities. (24) Major outdoor amusement and recreation facilities. (25) Model homes, as permitted under section 25-4-8. (26) Parks, playgrounds, tennis courts, swimming pools, and other similar open area recre- ational facilities. (27) Personal services. (28) Photography studios. (29) Public uses and structures, as permitted under section 25-4-11. (30) Restaurants. (31) Retail establishments. (32) Telecommunication antennas, as permitted under section 25-4-12. (33) Temporary real estate offices, as permitted under section 25-4-8. Un.flk,al Planning Department vereinn (2/28/0.1) 25-68 Hawaii County Code §25-5-93 (34) Theaters. (35) Timeshare units. (36) Utility substations, as permitted under Section 25-4-11. (37) Visitor information centers. (b) In addition to those uses permitted under subsection (a) above, the following uses may be per- mitted in the V district, provided that a use permit is issued for each use: (1) Crematoriums. (2) Golf courses and related golf course uses, including golf driving ranges, golf mainte- nance buildings and golf club houses. (3) Hospitals, sanitariums, old age, convalescent, nursing and rest homes. (4) Yacht harbors and boating facilities. (c) Buildings and uses normally considered directly accessory to the uses permitted in this section shall also be permitted in the V district. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-93. Height limit. (a) The height limit in the V district shall be forty-five feet, except in those areas designated in subsections (b) and (c) below. (b) The height limit in the V district in the City of Hilo shall be one hundred twenty feet. (c) The height limit in the V district at Keauhou Bay and Kahaluu Bay shall be ninety feet. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-94. Minimum building site area. The minimum buildingsite in the V district shall be fifteen thousand square feet. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-95. Minimum building site average width. Each building site in the V district shall have a minimum average width of ninety feet. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-96. Minimum yards. The minimum yards in the V district shall be as follows: (1) Front and rear yards, twenty feet; and (2) Side yards, eight feet for one story, and an additional two feet for each additional story. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-97. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be provided on a minimum of twenty percent of the total land area of any building site in the V district. Parking areas shall not be included within the area required for landscaping on any building site. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-98. Other regulations. (a) More than one main building may be situated on any building site in the V district. (b) The distance between main buildings on one building site in the V district shall be at least fif- teen feet. (c) Plan approval shall be required for all new structures and additions to existing structures in the V district. (d) Exceptions to the regulations for the V district regarding heights, building site areas, building site average widths and yards, may be approved by the director within a planned unit develop- ment. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) UnaJj4 ial Planning Deparmreni version (212810,o 25-69 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WOkrnS COUNTY OF HAWAII HILO, HAWAII P TO: Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director FROM: Department of Public Works DATE: December 19, 2003 SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 03-030) Applicant: Hester Farming Co., LLC Request: A -20a to Agricultural Project District TMK: 9-6-05: 018 and 9-6-06: 004 We have reviewed the subject application forwarded by your memo dated November 26, 2003 and offer the following comments for your consideration. 1. All development generated runoff shall be disposed of on site. A drainage study should be prepared and the recommended drainage system constructed meeting the approval of the DPW. 2. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designates the subject property as Zone X, areas determined to be outside the 500 - year flood plain. 3. All earthwork activity, including grading and grubbing, shall conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, of the Hawaii County Code. The County shall promote participation in the Soil and Water Conservation District's conservation programs for agricultural developments (GP - Ord. No. 89-142). 4. Based on the intended use, provide minimum 20 -ft wide agricultural pavement within a minimum 50 -ft wide right-of-way conforming to Std. Det. R-39. Where grades are 8% or greater, the roadway section should be paved as shown in Std. Det. R-34. Questions may be referred to Kelly Gomes of our Engineering Division at ext. 8327. KG EXHIBIT G DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS COUNTY OF HAWAII HILO, HAWAII 50 DATE: December 16, 2003 Memorandum F. TO Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Planning Department FROM Galen M. Kuba, Division Chief 9,u Engineering Division SUBJECT Change of Zone Application (REZ 03-030) Applicant: Hestor Farming Co.; LLC Location: Palima and Paauau, Kau, HI TMK: 3 / 9-6-05:018 & (3) 9-6-006:004 We reviewed the subject application and our comments are as follows: 1. All development generated runoff shall be disposed of on-site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties. 2. A drainage study shall be prepared, and the recommended drainage system shall be constructed meeting with the approval of DPW. 4. All earthwork and grading shall conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sediment Control, of the Hawaii County Code. 5. All existing and proposed roads within the subdivision are private and should be constructed and/or improved in conformance with the Subdivision Code. Should there be any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Kiran Emler of our Kona Engineering Division office at 327-3530. KE copy: ENG-HILO/KONA PLNG-KONA +3 i 5'0e-'! SldneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephones (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996 December 31, 2003 Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: n Subject: Rezoning (REZ 03 030) - Hester Farming Co., LLC TMK: 9-6-05: 18 & 9-6-06: 04 This in response to additional agency comments regarding the subject applications. Thank you for providing me with a copy. • Planning • Variance • Zoning • Subdivision • Land Use Perm • Environmental Reports Relative to the two (2) comments of the Department of Public Works (which are generally similar), we note the following: a. Please note that the principal objective of this project was to provide farm lots at reasonable cost. That was the reason for submitting an Agricultural Project District (APD) instead of the standard A -5a rezoning request. The APD could allow for some infrastructure relief that would be codified as conditions of the APD ordinance. In that regard, in terms of the roadway, access to all lots will be designed and constructed in a manner that would allow emergency vehicles to gain reasonable access. As noted in the application, the principal access to the subdivision will be via an 18-22 foot paved road within a 50 -foot wide right-of-way. Within the project itself, the road will have a 50 -foot wide right-of-way with 20+ foot wide graveled roads with a solid base rock foundation. These roads were formerly used by the sugar plantation. Having a fully paved 20 -foot wide roadway, even using the agricultural standard, would regrettably increase the cost of the farm lots. The applicant would be willing to pave and/or solidify the road in areas where the grades exceed 8%. Again, the applicant's proposal is designed to reduce cost without significantly compromising public safety. b. During the course of the subdivision review process, drainage and related considerations will be taken into account. A drainage plan will have to be developed and implemented in conjunction with the subdivision review process. This system will reflect all on-site generated water to be disposed off on site. �� Mr. Christopher Yuen December 31, 2003 Page 2 C. The applicant would encourage respective lot owners to participate in the Soil and Water Conservation District's conservation program. All requirements, including any NPDES general permit, as outlined by the State Department of Health, if needed, will be complied with during the construction phase of this project. Finally, in relation to the comments of Na Ala Hele, the applicant believes that the subject roads are private. Visually, the road is improved with either pavement or hard packed graveled, as it was used as a cane haul road by the sugar plantation. Nonetheless, we will still arrange for a meeting with said entity. In the event the road is determined to be a state-owned trail, the applicant will comply with the recommendations of the State. I trust that this information adequately addresses the aforementioned agencies' comments. If not or if there are more comments or questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. �incerel , SIDNEY M. FUKE Planning Consultant Copy — Department of Public Works Na Ala Hele Hester Farming Co., LLC, w/ enclosures Harry Kim Mayor Barbara Bell Director 11IIUTIfv III �Aaail DVP- , 2TMFNT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 25 Aupuni Street, Room 208 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 (808) 961-8083 • Fax (808) 961-8086 MEMORANDUM Date . November 26, 2003 To CHRISTOPHER YUEN, PlanningDirector From BARBARA BELL, Director Y Y SUBJECT: Change of Zone Application (REZ 03-030) Applicant: Hester Farming Co., LLC Request: A -20a to Agricultural Project District TMK: 9-6-5:18 and 9-6-6:4 We have reviewed the subject application and offer the following recommendations: DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: WASTEWATER DIVISION: N/A ( ) No comments ( ) Require connection of existing and/or proposed structures to the public sewer in accordance with Section 21-5 of the Hawaii County Code. ( ) Require extension of the sewer system to service the proposed subdivision in accordance with Section 23-85 of the Hawaii County Code. ( ) Other: SOLID WASTE DIVISION: ( ) No comments (�) Commercial operations may not use transfer stations for disposal. O Aggregates and any other construction/demolition waste should be reused to its fullest extent. ( 1�) Ample room should be provided for recycling. O Greenwaste may be disposed of only at the drop sites located at the Kailua and Hilo transfer stations. ( ) Other: cc: swD EXHIBIT 4385r�:r 7 DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY • COUNTY ®F" f,4A) jAll 345 KEKUANAOA STREET, SUITE 20 • HILO, HAW16 96720 '?6 TELEPHONE (808) 961-8050 ° rAx(808 ),961-8657 . January 14, 2004 TO: Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Planning Department FROM: Milton D. Pavao, Manager SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 03-021) APPLICANT — HESTER FARMING COMPANY, LLC REQUEST A -20A TO AGRICULTURAL PROJECT DISTRICT TAX MAP KEY 9-6-005:018 AND 9-6-006:004 We have reviewed the subject application and have the following comments and conditions. The applicant is indicating that a private water system will be installed to provide irrigation water but at the same time is pointing to existing County facilities as a source for potable water. These facilities, which belong to the Department of Water Supply (Department), cannot support the subdivision. The Department, to comply with requirements of the State of Hawaii Department of Health, is discontinuing use of most of its surface water sources to provide potable water to its customers. The County is, however, reserving these sources as backup supply in the event of an emergency. Water from these surface sources will not be treated except during use as emergency backup. Therefore, the Department cannot provide any assurance of safety, quality, quantity, or regular maintenance of the facilities and is not able to permit any dependency by the proposed subdivision on these facilities. Furthermore, the Department does not have the infrastructure for distributing the water or accounting for customer usage in the subject area. We do not object to the application being granted. However, please be informed that the Department's existing water system facilities cannot support the proposed subdivision at this time. Extensive improvements and additions, including source, storage, transmission, booster pumps, and distribution facilities, must be constructed. Currently, sufficient funding is not available and no time schedule is set. Should there be any questions, please contact Mr. Lawrence Beck of our Water Resources and Planning Branch at 961-8070. Sincerely yours, Milton D. Pavao, P.E. Manager EXHIPIT LEBaco �/�� v ;��G�� ... VVateN �rivzyrd PrOVVCJ9... �""'�"� SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahl Street, Suite 212 • Fiio, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 969-1522 - Fax: (808) 969-7996 February 10, 2004 Mr. Milton Pavao, Manager Department of Water Supply 345 Kekuanaoa.Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Pavao: 'II Subject: Agricultural Project District Request (REZ 03-021) Hester Farming Company, LLC, TMK: 9-6-5. 18 & 9-6-6.4 Our meeting with you and your deputy, Mr. Quinine, Antonio, was quite informative. Thank you very much for the courtesies and insights extended to Mr. Hester and me. Planning • Variance • Zoning Subdivision - Land Use Perm Environmental Repo.. The County presently has a tank site (identified by TMK: 9-6-05: 047) on the lower portion of the applicant's property that is serviced by an easement. There is also another tank and related facility on the mauka portion of the applicant's property (identified by TMK: 9-6-06: 021). This water system is referred to as yourAlili water system and supplements your potable service for the town of Pahala. However, this water source is considered by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State Department of Health (DOH) to be under the influence of surface water. As such, its continued use would require the construction of a treatment plant to comply with EPA/DOH requirements. Instead of constructing a treatment plant, your office has to construct a deep well located between near the town of Pahala. You expect to terminate the use of the Alili water system within the next 2 years upon completion of the construction of the deep well. When the Alili system is terminated, the control of the water will revert to the State Water Commission. At that time, should the applicant wish to utilize this water for irrigation or potable purposes, it must secure the approval of the State Water Commission. Use of this water for potable purposes, however, would require compliance with the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Although the applicant's well looks quite promising, both in terms of quality and quantity, you noted that it would not be fiscally prudent to utilize it. This is due in part to its location. The site of your existing well — where you intend to drill another well — is located mauki of the applicant's well and closer to the town of Pahala. As such, use of the applicant's well would still require the installation of transmission, storage tanks and related appurtenances to properly service the town of Pahala. Mr. Milton Pavao, Manager February 10, 2004 Page 2 However, you would entertain the thought of using the applicant's well as a possible "back lip" or in times of emergency. The details of tills concept, however, still need to be worked out. Given the above information, please be informed that the applicant's proposed water system would consist of the following: Use of the Alili system for irrigation purposes. Presently, the applicant captures excess (overflow) water from this system into two (2) 45,000 gallon galvanized storage tanks. Further excesses are then captured in an open reservoir that has a holding capacity of about 1.5 million gallons. Collectively, then, this system could provide over 2 million gallons of irrigation water for the project. When the County terminates use of this system, the applicant intends to request a water allocation from this system from the State Water Commission for irrigation purposes. Irrigation lines from this system are currently under construction to service the proposed lots. The on-site deep well will be used for potable purposes. If appropriate, there will be compliance with the Federal Safe and Clean Water Act relative to testing and monitoring of this system. The well will be cased with an 8 -inch line capable of providing over 200 gallons per minute. The applicant also intends to construct two (2) 100,00 -gallon steel tanks at the appropriate pressure zone. PVC or comparable transmission lines to each of the proposed lots would be provided. As such, this private potable system — while deem sufficient for the applicant's project — would not comply with your requirements in several regards. For one, there will be no back up well. However, with the storage tanks and alternative means — such as bottled water or even the interim use of the water from the Alili system, a system which has serviced the potable needs of this area for many, many years, are still interim options. Then, too, the storage tanks will be constructed out of galvanized steel instead of the required concrete. Finally, the transmission lines will be PVC or its equivalent in lieu of the required galvanized pipes. It is mr. Milton Pavao, Manager February 10, 2004 Page 3 anticipated, however, that other technical and/or engineering requirements — such as pressure — will be met. We realize that the proposed system does not meet your normal standards. However, the applicant continues to believe that it will be providing the needed irrigation and potable water needs for this agricultural project. As such, the applicant is requesting an Agricultural Project District (APD) zoning, which would enable the County Council to consider relief from standard requirements through conditions of approval. Again, thank you very much for your time and guidance on this matter. Sincrerely, S ty M. FUKE Planning Consultant Copy — Planning Director Mr. Ellis Hester Harry Kim Maynr 3 n 'in t� December 9, 2003 ?tt County of Hawaii POLICE DEPARTMENT 349 Kapiolani Street . Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3998 (808) 935-3311 . Fax(808)961-2399 TO CHRI OPHER(J. !/ NING DIRECTOR FROM THOMAS J. HICP COX,`ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF, AREA II OPERATIONS SUBJECT CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 03-030) APPLICANT: HESTER FARMING CO., LLC REQUEST: AGRICULTURAL (A -20a) TO AGRICULTURAL PROJECT DISTRICT - TAX MAP KEY: 9-6-5:18 AND 9-6-6:4 Lawrence K. Mahm Police Chief Staff has reviewed the above -referenced application. This request should have no significant impact on Police or traffic services. TJH:dmv EXHIBIT Harry S. Kubojir Deputy Police Chief Harry Kim Mayor 33 i_ n 9J( oiNP� Countp Dt'abiaCi FIRE DEPARTMENT 25 Aupuni Street • Suite 103 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 (808) 961-8297 • Fax (808) 961-8296 December 11, 2003 TO CHRISTOPHER J. YUEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM DARRYL OLIVEIRA, FIRE CHIEF SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 03-030) APPLICANT: HESTER FARMING CO., LLC REQUEST: A -20a TO AGRICULTURAL PROJECT DISTRICT TAX MAP KEY: 9-6-5:18 AND 9-6-6:4 Fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.207: "Fire Apparatus Access Roads Darryl J. Oliveira Fw Chief Desmond K. Wery D,pwy Fire Ciif "Sec. 10.207. (a) General. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of this section. "(b) Where Required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be required for every building hereafter constructed when any portion of an exterior wall of the first story is located more than 150 feet from fire department vehicle access as measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. "EXCEPTIONS: 1. When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this section may be modified. 'T. When access roadways cannot be installed due to topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, the chief may require additional fire protection as specified in Section 10.301 (b). "3. When there are not more than two Group R, Division 3 or Group M Occupancies, the requirements of this section may be modified, provided, in the opinion of the chief, fire -fighting or rescue operations would not be impaired. = P\1 Coo y< EXH//IBI�f \ a�RE o� Christopher .i. Yuen Page 2 December 11, 2003 "More than one fire apparatus road may be required when it is determined by the chief that access by a single road may be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access. "For high -piled combustible storage, see Section 81.109. "(c) Width. The unobstructed width of a fire apparatus access road shall meet the requirements of the appropriate county jurisdiction. "(d) Vertical Clearance. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. "EXCEPTION: Upon approval vertical clearance may be reduced, provided such reduction does not impair access by fire apparatus and approved signs are installed and maintained indicating the established vertical clearance. "(e) Permissible Modifications. Vertical clearances or widths required by this section may be increased when, in the opinion of the chief, vertical clearances or widths are not adequate to provide fire apparatus access. "(f) Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities." (20 tons) "(g) Turning Radius. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be as approved by the chief." (45 feet) "(h) Turnarounds. All dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. "(i) Bridges. When a bridge is required to be used as access under this section, it shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable sections of the Building Code and using designed live loading sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire apparatus. "(j) Grade. The gradient for a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed the maximum approved by the chief." (15%) Christopher J. Yuen Page 3 December 11, 2003 "(k) Obstruction. The required width of any fire apparatus access road shall not be obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and clearances established under this section shall be maintained at all times. "(1) Signs. When required by the fire chief, approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided and maintained for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads and prohibit the obstruction thereof or both." Water supply shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.301: "(c) Water Supply. An approved water supply capable of supplying required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to all premises upon which buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed, in accordance with the respective county water requirements. There shall be provided, when required by the chief, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow. 'Water supply may consist of reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tanks, water mains or other fixed systems capable of providing the required fire flow. "The location, number and type of fire hydrants connected to a water supply capable of delivering the required fire flow shall be protected as set forth by the respective county water requirements. All hydrants shall be accessible to the fire department apparatus by roadways meeting the requirements of Section 10.207." A4RRL &OLIVEIRA Fire Chief 1:42051 SldneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax (808) 969-7996 December 26. 2(A) r,Fn ; ^ pr j Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAFI t. 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: Subject: Rezoning (REZ 03 030) - Hester Farming Co., LLC TMK: 9-6-05: 18 & 9-6-06: 04 Planning • Variance -Zoning Subdivision • Land Use permi Enwronmental Reports Thank you for providing me with a copy of agency comments to date regarding the subject matter. We note that neither the Police Department nor the State Department of Transportation had any objections to the request. Relative to the comments of the Fire Department, access to all lots will be designed and constructed in a manner that would allow emergency vehicles to gain reasonable access. As noted in the application, the principal access to the subdivision will be via an 18-22 foot paved road within a 50 -foot wide right-of-way. Within the project itself, the road will have a 50 -foot wide right-of-way with 20+ foot wide graveled roads with a solid base rock foundation. These roads were formerly used by the sugar plantation. Furthermore, there are 90,000 -gallon tanks for potable purposes, plus an irrigation well. Collectively, they will be used to provide the required fire protection. If needed, the respective lot owners can also construct on-site water storage tanks, and these tanks can provide fire protection that would be greater than the standards used for dwellings on catchment system. I trust that this information adequately addresses the aforementioned agency's comments. If not or if there are more comments or questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. incerely, 4NV DNEY M.FU Planning Consultant Copy — Fire Department Hester Farming Co., LLC, w/ enclosure LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII r - January 20, 2004 1Q STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OP.,LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION KAKUHIHEWA BUILDING, ROOM 555 601 KAMOKILA BOULEVARD KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707 Mr. Sidney Fuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Fuke: PETER T. YOUNG CHAERSON BOARD OF LAND ANDNATURALRESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DAN DAVIDSON DEPUTY DIRECTOR. LAND ERNEST Y.W. LAU DEPUTY DIRECTOR - WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION BUREAU OF COMMISSION ON WATER CONVEYANCES MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND COASTAL "NOS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION KAHOOLAW E ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION LAND STATE PARKS LOG NO: 2004.0182 DOC NO: 0401JK13 SUBJECT: Chapter 6E-42 Review - Request for "No Historic Properties Affected" Determination for Hester Farming Co., LLC Palima and Paauau, Ka'u, Hawaii Island TMK:(3)9-6-005:018 & 9-6-006.004 Thank you for submitting your letter requesting a "No Historic Properties Affected" determination for our review and comment. The request was received in our Kona office November 13, 2003. We apologize for the late delay and hope that this has not been an inconvenience to you or your client, Hester Farming Co., LLC. We understand that the property consists of 177+ acres of land within two contiguous parcels approximately 1.5 miles mauka of the town ofPahala, which the owner plans on subdividing into smaller parcels. A search of our records indicates that an archaeological inventory survey has not been conducted of the subject area. Although the majority of the property has a history of agricultural sugar cane use, past and present maps of the area show a flume, a ditch, and a trail that may still exist. It is also possible that habitation sites associated with their use could remain intact. The location of Meyer Camp, associated with early plantation use, although no longer in existence, is plotted along the western boundary of the project area. We understand that the camp was abandoned and demolished in the 1960's. This, however, does not preclude the possibility of remnants of early habitation in this area. There is also the possibility that the remains of a graveyard associated with the plantation camp may still exist in this area Therefore, in order to determine the effects of the proposed undertaking on historic sites, we recommend that an archaeological inventory survey be conducted on the subject properties to determine if there are significant historic sites remaining. An acceptable report documenting the findings of the survey will need to be submitted to this office for review, EXHIBIT Mr. Sidney Fuke Page 2 If significant historic sites are identified, a mitigation plan may need to be developed, in consultation with this office, and executed. If any questions should arise about this project in the future, please contact our Hawaii Island archaeologist, Patrick McCoy at (808) 692-8029. Aloha, P. Holly McEldowney, Administrator State Historic Preservation Division c. Chris Yuen, County of Hawaii Planning Department Kai Emler, County of Hawaii Department of Public Works JK:ak LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR l!1 MEMORANDUM DATE: December 19, 2003 OF g e"9 viID QS '4b.e i PaP�n STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PO. BOX 916 HILO, HAWAII 96721-0916 TO: Christopher J. Yuen Planning Director, County of Hawaii FROM:!n Aaron A. Ueno 1)4 "V District Environmental Health Program Chief SUBJECT: Change of Zone Application (REZ 03-030) Applicant: Hester Farming co., LLC Request: A -20a to Agricultural Project District Tax Map Key: 9-6-5:18 and 9-6-6:4 CHIYOME L. FDKINO, M -D. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH The Army Corps of Engineers should be contacted at (808) 438-9258 to identify whether a Federal license or permit (including a Department of Army permit) is required for this project. Pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Act (commonly known as the "Clean Water Act'), a Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required for "[a]ny applicant for Federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters...." A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit coverage is required for the following activities: a. Storm water associated with industrial activities, as define in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 122.26(b)(14)(i) through 122.26(b)(14)(ix) and 122.26(b)(14)(xi); b. Construction activities, including clearing, grading, and excavations, that result in the disturbance of equal to or greater than one (1) acre of total land area. The total land area includes a contiguous area where multiple separate and distinct EXHIBIT __S.____ ;I .IIs3W6 Christopher J. Yuen December 19, 2003 Page 2 construction activities may be taking place at different times on different schedules under a larger common plan of development or sale. An NPDES permit is required before the commencement of the construction activities. C. Discharge of treated effluent from leaking underground storage tank remedial activities; d. Discharge of once through cooling water less than one (1) million gallons per day; e. Discharge of hydrotesting water; f Discharge of construction dewatering effluent; g. Discharge of treated effluent from petroleum bulk stations and terminals; h. Discharge of treated effluent from well drilling activities; i. Discharge of treated effluent from recycled water distribution systems; j. Discharges of storm water from a small municipal separate storm sewer system; k. Discharge of circulation water from decorative ponds or tanks. The Clean Water Branch (CWB) requires that a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be covered by a NPDES general permit for any of the above activities be submitted at least 30 days before the commencement of the respective activities. The NOI forms may be picked up at our office or downloaded from our website at http7Hwww.state.lii.us/doli/eii/cwb/forms/gcnl-index.htm1. The applicant may be required to apply for an individual NPDES permit if there is any type of activity in which wastewater is discharged from the project into State waters and/or coverage of the discharge(s) under the NPDES general permit(s) is not permissible. An application for the NPDES permit is to be submitted at least 180 days before the commencement of the respective activities. The NPDES application forms may also be picked up at our office or downloaded from website at ham -//www state hi us/doh/ch/cwb/forms/indiv-index.htm1. Hawaii Administrative Rules, Section 11-55-38, also requires the owner to either submit a copy of the new NOI or NPDES permit application to the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) or demonstrate to the satisfaction of the DOH that the project, activity, or site covered by the NOI or application has been or is being reviewed by SHPD. Please submit a copy of the request for review by SHPD or SHPD's determination letter for the project. If you have any questions, please contact the CWB at 586-4309. Underground Injection Systems (Ph. 586-4258) which receive wastewater or storm run-offs from the proposed development need to address the requirements of Chapter 23, Hawaii State Department of Health Administrative Rules, Title 11, "Underground Injection Control." WORDAEZ03-030.my LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR Mr. Christopher J. Yuen Director Planning Department County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 Dear Mr. Yuen: ' . I-. E.......... RODNEY K. HARAGA 'e�ase' v DIRECTOR Deputy Director c3 BRUCE V. MATSUI o LINDEN H. JOESTING BRIAN H. SEKIGUCHI 91, STATE OF HAWAII IN REPLY REFER TO. `DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET STP 8.0962 N (HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813-5097 December 8, 2003 Subject: Hester Farming Co., LLC Change of Zone Application (REZ 03-030) TMK: 9-6-5: 18 and 9-6-6: 4 In reply to your request for our review of the subject application, this is to advise you that the proposed zoning change and subdivision in the application is not expected to have a direct impact on our highway facilities. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments. Very truly yours, It0DNEl iH Ga Director of Transportairon EXHIBIT NA ALA HELE Hawaii Trail & Access System December 17, 2003'4 MEMORANDUM TO: Christopher J. Yuen Planning Director FROM: Ill Kawashima, Na Ala Hele 1 rails & Access Specialist SUBJECT: Comments for Change of Zone Application (REZ 03-030) Applicant: Hester Farming Co., LLC Request: A -20a to Agricultural Project District Tax Map Key: 9-6-5-:18 and 9-6-6:4 'Che Na Ala Hele Trails and Access Program has identified a road between the 2 subject parcels that may be subject to the Highways Act of 1892. We are still continuing our research; therefore, no determination has been made yet. We would like to request that the developer work with our Hawaii Island Advisory Council until this matter is resolved. The Highways Act of 1892 states that if the State can document the existence of a trail prior to 1892, and the feature has not been disposed of, it is a state owned trail. The council meets once a month and can be arranged by calling Irving Kawashima at 974-4217. EXHIBIT E, Division of Forestry & Wildlife • Dept- of Land & Natural Resources • R.Q, Box 4849 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-0849 7 Milli ARPOMW SldneyFUke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone- (808) 969-1522 • Fax (808) 969-7996 -a , January 7, 2004 Mr. Irving Kawashima NA ALA HELE TRAILS & ACCESS PROGRAM Division of Forestry State Department of Land & Natural Resources P.O. Box 4849 Hilo, HI 96720-0849 • Planning • Variance • Zoning • Subdivision • Land Use Permit; p nm • Environmental Reports f � Dear Mr. Kawashima: Subject: Rezoning (REZ 03 030) - Hester Farming Co., LLC TMK: 9-6-05: IS & 9-6-06: 04 Thank you very much for your time today to discuss the matter of the potential "trail" on the subject property. As discussed, your office will be reviewing this matter with your abstractor to determine its existence. This should be completed within the next six months. Given the processing time of this rezoning application, you had no objection to the continued processing of this application with the understanding that should the State establish the existence of a trail within the next 6 months: a. The trail would have to be reflected on the subdivision map and be accessible to the public; and b. The location of the trail within the boundaries of the subject property could be changed, subject to your office's further review and approval. Under that basis, there would be no changes to where the trail enters and exits the property. I trust that this accurately captures our meeting. If not, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. incerely, SIDNEY FUKE Planning Consultant Copy — Planning Department Hester Farming Co., LLC RHesterREZAPDYuen.doc-2/3/04 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT DRAFT RECOMMENDATION HESTER FARMING CO., LLC CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 03-030) Please note that this recommendation is for discussion purposes only, as the Planning Director is requesting a deferral due to comments received from the DLNR- HPD. Although the historic sites issues seem relatively minor in this case, DLNR- HPD has recommended that an archaeological inventory survey be conducted on the subject site. However, this recommendation is issued to give the Planning Commission and members of the public an indication of the Planning Director's final position. At this point, the Planning Director is recommending that a favorable recommendation for an Agricultural Project District request be forwarded to the County Council, with a limitation to seventeen (17) lots (average 10 acre per lots) rather than twenty-five (25) as requested by the applicant, with conditions. This recommendation does not however, sanction the plans submitted with the application as they may be subject to change given the specific code and regulatory requirements of the affected agencies. Since this recommendation is made without the benefit of public testimony, the Director reserves the right to modify and/or alter this position based on additional information presented at the public hearing. This favorable recommendation is based on the following findings: The applicant is requesting a change of zone from Agricultural (A -20a) to Agricultural Project District to subdivide the 171.577 -acre site into twenty-five 5 to 12 -acre lots. The objective is to provide smaller, more manageable farming acreage from land that was formerly devoted only to sugar cane. The applicant intends to retain at least 75 acres for their own operation. The properties are proposed to be subdivided by mid -2004. The estimated cost of infrastructure improvements is approximately $1,000,000.00. The applicant is seeking an Agricultural Project District instead of a change of zone to allow deviations from the standard infrastructure and water requirements normally required with a r - S (o / (6"11 414 9) PC change of zone. Specifically, these deviations are: • Water - the Subdivision Code requires compliance with the Department of Water Supply standards, which could require connection to a water system or an approved private system. For a private system, the Department of Water Supply requires a backup well. There will be only one well on the property. • Roads - for agricultural standard roads, the Subdivision Code requires a minimum 20 -foot pavement within a 50 -foot wide right- of-way. Although the project will have the minimum right-of-way of 50 feet, some of the proposed lots have access from 10 -foot wide paved roads or 20 -foot wide graveled roads. The Agricultural Project District (APD) is intended to provide a flexible and creative planning approach for developments within the agricultural zoning districts, in lieu of specific land use designations. It will allow for flexibility in the location of specific types of agricultural uses and variations in lot sizes. Under this planning approach, opportunities will be provided for a mix of small scale agricultural activities and associated residential uses, as well as larger agricultural projects. This district will also provide a vehicle to satisfy the demand for a rural lifestyle on marginal agricultural land, while decreasing the pressure to develop important agricultural land for this purpose. (This area, however, is not marginal agricultural land. It is prime agricultural land.) The planning approach would establish a continuity in land uses and designs, while providing for the needed infrastructural facilities and systems to support the various types of agricultural developments. An Agricultural Project District may be established as an amendment to the Zoning Code whenever the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare require that a comprehensive planning approach for an area should be adopted in order to establish a continuity in land uses while providing the required infrastructural facilities and systems. In addition, an Agricultural Project District may only be established if the proposed district: -2- (1) is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter and the County General Plan; and (2) will not result in a substantial adverse impact upon the surrounding area, community or region. Any uses permitted either directly or conditionally in the Agricultural or Intensive Agricultural districts are permitted in an APD and the overall density permitted in an APD shall not be greater than one acre per building site. Each of the proposed uses and the overall densities for dwelling uses must be included in a master conceptual plan for the APD and in the APD enabling ordinance. The minimum land area required for an Agricultural Project District is five acres. The project site consists of two contiguous parcels located approximately .6 miles mauka of Pahala in an area formerly known as Meyer Camp. The camp, as well as other camps in the general area, were abandoned and demolished by the plantation in the 1960's. According to Real Property Tax Office records, the applicant's dwelling and equipment storage building are located on TMK: 9-6-5: 18. The properties are located approximately five (5) miles from the ocean at an elevation of 1,300 - 1,900 feet. The subject site has a variety of farm crops on approximately ten acres. The entire site was formerly planted in sugar cane. There is a gradual 10 to 15 percent slope towards the ocean in the lower parcel, TMK: 9-6-5:18. The upper parcel, TMK 9-6-6: 4, is steeper, with slopes from 15 to 21 percent. Located within TMK: 9-6-5: 18 is parcel 47, a County -owned parcel approximately 4,487 -square feet in size. Located within TMK: 9-6-6: 4 is parcel 21, another County -owned parcel approximately 871 square -feet in size. These two County -owned parcels are not part of this application. The Change of Zone request from Agricultural (A -20a) to an Agricultural Project District is consistent with the intent and purpose of the General Plan and the Zoning Code. The requested change of zone to a Agricultural Project District would conform to the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map, which designates the property as Intensive Agriculture and Extensive Agriculture. Intensive Agriculture includes lands used -3- for sugar, orchard, diversified agriculture, and floriculture, and Extensive Agriculture includes pasturage and range lands. Soils on the site are classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service as Moaula (MoC and MoE) and Naalehu Series (NaQ. The Moaula and Naalehu series consists of well -drained silty clay loams. For the Moaula series, permeability is moderately rapid, runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is slight. For the Naalehu Series, permeability is moderately rapid, runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is moderate. Soils within the properties are classified as "B" or "Good" and "C" or "Fair" for agricultural productivity by the Land Study Bureau's Detailed Land Classification System. Most of TMK 9-6-5: 18 (the lower parcel) is classified as "B" soil. This is unusual. By way of comparison, only about 5 percent of the agricultural lands on Hawaii Island are classified as "B". (There are no "A" classified soils). The Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) system designates the property as Prime Agricultural Land and Other Important Agricultural Lands. The requested Agricultural Project District will continue to encourage agricultural activities or the utilization of the lands within the proposed subdivision in a manner consistent with the Intensive Agriculture and Extensive Agriculture designation by the General Plan LUPAG Map. The major concern in allowing a rezoning of agricultural land that creates smaller lot sizes is that this will reduce the potential use of the land for commercial agriculture by fragmenting the land into areas too small to be farmed on a commercial scale. While a few crops can be intensively cultivated on small acreages, these crops usually have a very limited market. Reducing the size of the lots can greatly reduce the range of potential agricultural uses. At the same time, a strong demand exists in the real estate market for lots in agricultural areas by purchasers who are interested in large -lot residential home sites or for speculation. The desire for these "gentleman's estates" tends to drive up the price of agricultural land making it less affordable for commercial farmers. Most agricultural rezonings in Hawaii County in the last twenty years have resulted in subdivisions where the primary use is residential, not agricultural. For the most part, these rezonings did not occur on prime agricultural land. The -4- predominant zoning in the former sugar lands north of Hilo and in Ka'u is A -20a. There will be considerable interest by the new owners to rezone to reduce the minimum lot sizes because the biggest component to value is the ability to build a home. The per -acre price is therefore higher if the property can be sold in smaller lots. This desire to create smaller lots must be handled very carefully because of the possible carving up of the land into uneconomical units, and the increasing per -acre price. The issue of the optimal lot size for agriculture is difficult because with the end of sugar, agriculture is in flux. No one crop, or even type of crop, has emerged as a probable economic mainstay, so it is difficult to determine an optimal size of lot. The proposed rezoning has the potential to increase the agricultural productivity of the area by providing water. For that reason, the Director is willing to recommend approval of an Agricultural Project District, but with a limit of 17 lots (10 acre average) rather than the 25 proposed by the applicant. This will allow an experiment with a mix of lot sizes, rather than having a predominantly 5 -acre lot project. The Zoning Code is one of the tools to implement the General Plan and is one of the County's primary land use control mechanisms. The Zoning Code sets out the various types of uses allowed by providing for certain zoning districts. In this particular case, the applicant proposes to establish an Agricultural Project District to provide flexibility in the location of these land uses without specifically identifying where these uses should be located on the property. This method or concept of identifying varying land use designations would be consistent with the intent of establishing an Agricultural Project District within the Zoning Code. This proposed development is consistent with the Land Use and Economic Element of the General Plan in that the proposed request will provide additional and expanded agricultural opportunities for the residents of the area as well as the entire island, in keeping with the course of action for Ka'u that states, "the County shall assist the further development of agriculture in the area." The applicant proposes to subdivide the project area to create smaller agricultural lots to support small, family-oriented farms. The applicant believes that the proposed lots would -5- enable local residents to own and farm their own land, and thus become more economically self-sufficient. The proposed Agricultural Project District and subdivision into 17 lots ranging in size from five acres and larger would be compatible with the agricultural/rural character of the surrounding lands in the area and provide opportunities for agricultural activities on lands that are well suited for agricultural pursuits. The subject site and surrounding area has been converted from sugar cane to macadamia nut and eucalyptus tree farms and there are a variety of farm crops covering over ten acres. The proposed agricultural community will provide for the establishment of farm dwellings and protective covenants for the maintenance of necessary accessory uses to support agricultural operations. Lands surrounding the site are zoned Agricultural (A -20a) and in various agricultural uses. A variety of agricultural crops are near the site, including macadamia nuts, eucalyptus trees and various truck crops. Thus, the proposed development would not be incongruous with the emerging diversified agricultural land use pattern of the area. There are residences in the town of Pahala, approximately .6 miles from the site. The Agricultural Project District will result in maintaining the existing uses and the integrity of the Ka'u area while providing opportunities for residential uses. The proposed agricultural/residential community would be an extension of the existing surrounding agricultural community. There are no electric lines in this area. The applicant currently uses solar with diesel generator backup. Communications will be via cellular phone. From the comments received from agencies, various improvements would be required for the development of this project. Therefore, conditions will be included to assure that these services and infrastructure are provided in a timely manner to accommodate the uses proposed in this Agricultural Project District. With the requirement that the applicant provide these essential services and infrastructure, the granting of this change of zone would not unreasonably burden the public -6- agencies to provide roads and streets, sewer, water, drainage improvements and police and fire protection to accommodate the development of this project. The request for an Agricultural Project District will not result in a substantial adverse impact upon the surrounding area, community or region. The project site consists of two contiguous parcels located approximately .6 miles mauka of Pahala in an area formerly known as Meyer Camp. The camp, as well as other camps in the general area, were abandoned and demolished by the plantation in the 1960's. The subject site has a variety of farm crops on approximately ten acres. The entire site was formerly planted in sugar cane. By letter dated November 11, 2003 (Appendix A of the application), the applicant has requested a "no effect" letter from the Department of Land and Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-HPD). As the site was formerly cultivated in sugar cane, an archaeological inventory survey of the site was not conducted. By letter dated January 20, 2004, the DLNR-HPD has confirmed that no archaeological inventory survey has been conducted of the subject area. While the majority of the property has a history of agricultural usage, maps of the area flume, ditch and trail may still exist. The DLNR-HPD also states that there may be habitation sites as well as a graveyard associated with the plantation camp located in the area. Therefore, the DLNR-HPD recommends that an archaeological inventory survey be conducted for their review and approval. If significant historical sites are identified, a mitigation plan may be required. As such, the Planning Director is recommending a deferral on this application until such time an archaeological inventory survey is completed and reviewed by DLNR-HPD. The applicant has stated that work will cease and the applicant will notify the Planning Department should any unanticipated archaeological features or sites are discovered during the course of improving the site. The subject site is not adjacent or proximate to the shoreline. As such, gathering of marine life and coastal access is not an issue. The applicant states that no Native Hawaiians have used the subject or immediate surrounding area in the recent past for the gathering of plants. Thus, it is believed that the project would have no adverse impact relative to the cultural and historical resources of 7- the area. To the extent to which traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights are exercised, the proposed action will not affect traditional Hawaiian rights and no action is necessary to protect those rights. There were no professional surveys conducted of the floral or faunal resources of the site, as the site was extensively planted in sugar cane in the past. The flora of the uncultivated portions of the site is dominated by fallow sugar cane and non-native plants. According to the applicant, there are no known federally listed or endangered flora species at the site. No known federally listed threatened or endangered faunal species are known to nest at or inhabit the project site. There is no record of a designated public access to the shoreline or mountain areas that traverses the property Access to the site is via the extension of a private road known as Meyer Camp Road, an extension of Huapala Street. Meyer Camp Road has a right-of- way of approximately 50 feet with a pavement width ranging between 18 and 22 feet, and was used by the plantation during the sugar cane era. The applicant intends to have all lots within the project serviced from this road by either a 10 - foot wide paved road or 20 -foot wide graveled roads. The Department of Public Works has requested that the applicant: • provide a minimum 20 -foot wide agricultural pavement within a minimum 50 -foot wide right-of-way conforming to Standard Detail R- 39. • In addition, where grades are 8% or greater, the roadway section should be paved as shown in Standard Detail R-34. • All existing and proposed private roads within the subdivision shall be constructed and/or improved in conformance with the Subdivision Code. Upon completion of the archaeological inventory survey and acceptance by the DLNR-HPD, the Planning Director will recommend some variation from the Department of Public Works' standards, given that some may not be necessary for a low-density agricultural use. The full standards would require a 20 -foot -8- wide paved road, with 15 -foot paved shoulders and swales on each side, for a total of 50 feet of pavement, where grades exceed eight percent. Meyer Road, the primary access, has about 20 feet of pavement on a heavily built sub -base. This should be adequate for a relatively low density development involving only 17 lots. The other roads should be adequate with a 16 -foot wide pavement, or built to "private road standards" in the subdivision code: 8 -foot wide pavement if it serves only one lot, 12 feet for two lots, 14 feet for three lots, or 16 feet for four to six lots. The applicant has stated that only one farm dwelling would be allowed on each proposed lot. Although the Planning Director supports this rezoning request to allow a 17 -lot subdivision with one dwelling on each lot, the potential to allow additional dwellings may contribute to a cumulative burden on the existing infrastructure which cannot be supported. Therefore, a condition will be included in the ordinance to prohibit a second dwelling unit on each lot. In addition, a condition will be included to place restrictive covenants in the deeds of all the proposed lots for the subdivision prohibiting second farm dwellings to preserve the residential -agricultural ambience of the area. According to the applicant, an irrigation system is in the process of being developed by the applicant. The system would be made available to all lots and allow lot owners the opportunity to gain access to irrigation and potable water throughout the year. The applicant has expended more than $400,000.00 to drill a 1,200 -foot deep well on the site. A pump has been installed to deliver approximately 200 gallons per minute. The appropriate booster pump, storage tank and water lines will be developed to service each of the proposed lots. At the property line, each lot owner will have to provide its own hook-up with a water meter and piping to service its property. Once the system is in place, the applicant will form a cooperative water company to operate and maintain the water system. The cooperative will be proportionately owned by all lot owners and would establish a connection fee along with a reasonable rate for water consumption. There is a County water tank and well located on the mauka portion of the site. As such, the site already has access to overflows from this -9- system, which is then captured in two 45,000 gallon storage tanks. When the tanks are full, the excess is captured in an open reservoir. The applicant intends to use water from the 90,000 -gallon tanks for potable purposes, while the 1,200 - foot well will be used primarily for irrigation. Water from the irrigation well will also be used to supplement the potable needs of the lot owners. Water from the open reservoir will be used only for irrigation. When completed, the cost of the private irrigation and quasi -potable water system will exceed $700,000.00. According to the Department of Water Supply, the County's existing water system facilities cannot support the proposed subdivision at this time. Extensive improvements and additions, including source, storage, transmission, booster pumps, and distribution facilities must be constructed. Currently, sufficient funding is not available and no time schedule is set. In view of the recent Hawaii State Supreme Court's "PASH" and "Ka Pa'akai O KA'Aina" decisions, the issue relative to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights must be addressed in terms of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and the associated traditional and customary practices of the site: Investigation of valued resources: No formal archaeological reconnaissance survey, oral history of kamaaina accounts of the area, historical survey of documentary records, botanical and/or fauna study was submitted. The valuable cultural, historical, and natural resources found in the rezoning area: As the site was formerly cultivated in sugar cane, an archaeological inventory survey of the site was not conducted. By letter dated November 11, 2003 (Appendix A of the application), the applicant has requested a "no effect" letter from the State Historic Preservation Division. The DLNR-HPD has confirmed that no archaeological inventory survey has been conducted of the subject area and recommends that an archaeological inventory survey be conducted for their review and approval. As such, the Planning Director is recommending a deferral on this application until such time an archaeological inventory survey is completed and reviewed by DLNR-HPD. If significant historical sites are identified, a mitigation plan may be required. The applicant F12 has stated that work will cease and the applicant will notify the Planning Department if any unanticipated archaeological features or sites are discovered during the course of improving the site. A condition will be included to require the submittal of a "no effect" letter from DLNR-HPD as well as the completion of an archaeological inventory survey and acceptance by the DLNR-HPD. As the agency has indicated that their maps show the possible presence of a trail on the subject site, a condition will be included to require the applicant to obtain a determination from the DLNR-HPD to ascertain the presence of any State-owned trails on the property, and if so, that there shall be no disturbance or alteration of such trails without the agency's written approval. Possible adverse effect or impairment of valued resources: Native plants could be destroyed by construction and ground alteration. The subject property does not abut the shoreline, therefore Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights is not an issue. Feasible actions to protect native Hawaiian rights: Conditions of approval will be included to require the applicant to notify the Department of Land and Natural Resources - Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-HPD) should any unidentified sites or remains be encountered, and proceed only upon an archaeological clearance from the DLNR-HPD. The applicant has stated that no Native Hawaiians have used the subject or immediate surrounding area in the recent past for gathering of plants. Thus, it is believed that the project would have no adverse impact relative to the cultural and historical resources of the area. To the extent to which traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights are exercised, the proposed action will not affect traditional Hawaiian rights and no action is necessary to protect these rights. The accompanying draft bill to amend Section 25-8-28 (Ka'u District Zone Map) is provided for your favorable consideration. Please note the proposed conditions of approval attached to the draft bill. CI IesterREZAPDYuen. doo-2/3/04 Please note — the following Draft Conditions ofApproval are contingent upon the completion Of an archaeological inventory survey and review and acceptance by the DLNR-HPD. HESTER FARMING CO., LLC CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 03-030) DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. The applicant, successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all of the stated conditions of approval. B. The applicant, successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all requirements of Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statues, relating to permissible uses within the State Land Use Agricultural District. C. All uses permitted directly or indirectly in the Agricultural and Intensive Agricultural districts shall be permitted in the Agricultural Project District. D. Prior to filing an application for Subdivision, the applicant shall submit documentation to the Planning Department indicating the availability of sufficient water for the project site and proposed development. E. A detailed site plan of the Agricultural Project District, which includes the location and number of lots and other related improvements on the property, shall be submitted to the Planning Director within one year from the effective date of the Agricultural Project District ordinance or prior to submission of plans for subdivision approval, whichever occurs first. F. Final Subdivision Approval of the proposed Agricultural Project District (APD) area shall be secured from the Planning Director within five (5) years from the effective date of this ordinance. The minimum lot size shall be no less than five (5) acres and shall not exceed seventeen (17) lots. G. The primary access road, Meyer Road, shall be constructed to a 20 -Foot wide pavement, on a 50 -foot wide right-of-way. The other project access roads shall be paved per the "private road standards" of the subdivision code, if they serve fewer than four lots, or 16 feet wide, if more than four lots. The project engineer shall certify the stability of the road shoulders and drainage system. H. A drainage study of the subject property, if required, shall be prepared for review and approval by the Department of Public Works, prior to submittal of plans for subdivision review. Drainage improvements, if required, shall be constructed, meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. I. Restrictive covenant(s) in the deeds of all the proposed agricultural lots within the subject property shall include the following: (1) As contained in the master conceptual plan, the APD for the subject property shall be subdivided into no more than seventeen (17) lots. With the consent of a majority of the landowners within the APD, any further subdivision or increase in density will require an amendment to this ordinance. (2) Only one farm dwelling will be permitted on each proposed lot. A recorded covenant shall give notice of the restriction, which may be removed by amendment to this ordinance. J. An archaeological inventory survey shall be submitted to the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources -Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-HPD) for acceptance. The applicant shall obtain approval of a Preservation and Mitigation Plan, which shall include a Burial Treatment Plan, from the DLNR-HPD. The applicant shall include all of the DLNR-HPD mitigation measures and conditions specified in the Preservation and Mitigation Plan, including the Burial Treatment Plan, into the plans for the project, which shall be conditions of subdivision approval. In lieu thereof, the applicant can satisfy this condition by a "no effect' letter from the DLNR-HPD. K. Should any unidentified sites or remains such as artifacts, shell, bone, or charcoal deposits, human burials, rock or coral alignments, pavings or walls be encountered, work in the immediate area shall cease and the Department of Land and Natural Resources -Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-HPD) shall be immediately notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an archaeological -2- clearance from the DLNR-HPD when it is found that sufficient mitigation measures have been taken. L. The applicant shall obtain a determination from the DLNR-HPD as to the presence of any State-owned trails on the subject site. There shall be no disturbance or alteration of such trails without written approval of the DLNR- HPD. M. Should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for imposition of exactions or the assessment of impact fees, conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the Unified Impact Fees Ordinance. Covenants in the deeds shall give notice to the purchasers of the private roads and water systems and that these were not constructed to County standards and are not maintained by the County. N. Comply with all other applicable laws, rules, regulations and requirements of other affected agencies. O. An annual progress report shall be submitted to the Planning Director prior to the anniversary date of the approval of this Agricultural Project District Ordinance. The report shall include, but not be limited to, the status of the development and the extent to which the conditions of approval are being satisfied. This condition shall remain in effect until all of the conditions of approval have been satisfied and the Director acknowledges that further reports are not required. P. An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within the ordinance may be granted by the Planning Director upon the following circumstances. (I) The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. (2) Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code. (3) Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the Project District. -3- (4) The time extension granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i.e., a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional year). (5) If the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Department shall submit the applicant's request to the County Council for appropriate action. Q. Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Planning Director may initiate rezoning of the subject area to its original or more appropriate designation. -4-