HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0073.004 2012-2014 -•J�tvosp:.
cP• L,`. Walter K.M.Lau
" 4¢, Managing Director
William P.Kenoi
Mayor • -..="` _
Randall M.Kurohara
• •k74.pf w!!�`_' Deputy Managing Director
•. TH • .1�
County of Hawai`i
Office of the Mayor
25 Aupuni Street,Suite 2603 • Hilo,Hawai`i 96720 • (808)961-8211 • Fax(808)961-6553
KONA: 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy.,Bldg.C • Kailua-Kona,Hawaii 96740
(808)323-4444 • Fax(808)323-4440
July 2, 2013 0 n
Ica
J Yoshimoto, Council Chair •,)
and Members of the County Council z r
County of Hawai`i Qrn
25 Aupuni Street _�
Hilo, HI 96720 —
Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Members:
County Council Initiated (Bill No. 25, Draft 2)
Amendment to Chapter 25 of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as Amended)
Relating to Agricultural Tourism
As required by Chapter 7, Sec. 6-7.5 (a), Hawai`i County Charter, transmitted herewith for the
County Council's consideration and action are the Leeward and Windward Planning
Commissions' letters and enclosures regarding the above-referenced matter.
Sincerely,
Irak
William P. Kenoi
Mayor
Enclosures
cc: Planning Department
Comm. No.
Ref.To: PC--
Ref.Date JUL 2 4 2013
County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.
•cam° �, .
• trr�os M►+'-
•County of Hawaii
WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720
jul.{0 r2 2V13 Phone(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742
J Yoshimoto, Council Chair
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawai`i
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Council Members:
County Council Initiated (Bill No. 25, Draft 2)
Amendment to Chapter 25 of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as Amended)
Relating to Agricultural Tourism
The Windward Planning Commission, at its duly held public hearing on June 6, 2013, considered
the County Council's Bill No. 25, Draft 2, proposing an amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning
Code) of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), relating to Agricultural
Tourism. The purpose of the proposed bill is to clarify definitions, procedural guidelines and
requirements, and standards related to agricultural tourism operations. The bill specifically
amends Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 1, Section 25-1-5 relating to Definitions: Amends
Article 2, Division 7, Section 25-2-71 relating to Plan Approval applicability. Amends Section
25-2-75 relating to Plan Approval application requirements for agricultural tourism. Amends
Section 25-2-76 relating to action on Plan Approval application. Amends Article 4, Division 1,
Section 25-4-15 relating to use regulations for agricultural tourism.
The Planning Director had recommended approval of this proposal along with a recommendation
that the operational period of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily within the existing Zoning Code be left in
place rather than tied into the setting of the sun as proposed by Bill No. 25, Draft 2.
The Commission voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council as
recommended by the Planning Director on Bill No. 25, Draft 2.
Hawai`i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
J Yoshimoto, Council Chair
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawai`i
Page 2
We have enclosed a copy of the Planning Director's Background and Recommendation, the
PowerPoint presentation, and a transcript of the hearing for your information.
Sincerely,
Wallace A. Ishibashi, Jr., Chairma
Windward Planning Commission
cc: Planning Department—Kona
William Brilhante, Esq.
Enclosures
lccinitiatedBi1125AgTourismWPC
WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
JUNE 6, 2013
A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED BILL NO. 25,
DRAFT 2 REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF
THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION,AS AMENDED),RELATING TO
AGRICULTURAL TOURISM was called to order at 12:43 a.m. in the County of Hawai`i,
Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai`i, with Chairman Wallace
Ishibashi presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Wallace Ishibashi, Ronald Gonzales, Charles Heaukulani,
Gregory Henkel, Myles Miyasato, Raylene Moses, and Stephen Ono
STAFF PRESENT: Duane Kanuha(Planning Director), Ivan Torigoe(Deputy Corporation
Counsel), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Maija Cottle(Staff Planner), Jeff Darrow
(Staff Planner), and Sharon Nomura(Secretary)
INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL
Bill No. 25, Draft 2 regarding an amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawai`i
County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), relating to Agricultural Tourism. The purpose
of the proposed bill is to clarify definitions,procedural guidelines and requirements, and
standards related to agricultural tourism operations. The bill specifically: Amends Chapter 25
(Zoning Code),Article 1, Section 25-1-5 relating to Definitions. Amends Article 2, Division 7,
Section 25-2-71 relating to Plan Approval applicability. Amends Section 25-2-75 relating to
Plan Approval application requirements for agricultural tourism. Amends Section 25-2-76
relating to Action on Plan Approval application. Amends Article 4, Division 1, Section 25-4-15
relating to Use Regulations for agricultural tourism.
ISHIBASHI: Item No. 4, Bill No. 25, Draft 2. Daryn.
ARAI: Okay. If I may direct your attention to the presentation screen. Well, let me preference
all of this - is that if this sounds kind of familiar to you it's because last year a similar bill went
before you. It was Planning Director initiated at that time, and she offered a host of changes to
the Ag Tourism component of the Zoning Code. That bill went before you and it eventually
made its way up to the County Council. If you look at, on page, at your background report,
page 4, you'll see where it made its way through the County Council. And as it made its way
through the County Council there was a whole raft of proposed amendments to the bill. And
people came to realize that the bill, it went way beyond the original purpose and intent of the bill.
And as you know whenever a bill is created you cannot go beyond the Title of the Bill. That's
why we're always careful when we craft something. You cannot create one bill and then all of a
sudden it ends up doing something that no one from the public anticipated. And that is why I
think last year, I mean, I'm sorry, on January 23, 2013,just beginning of this year, the Council
1
decided to basically postpone that bill indefinitely. They sort of like tabled it because they knew
it just started evolving into something that wasn't originally intended.
The Council then crafted a new version of this bill which they submitted to you as Bill No. 25,
Draft 2, which is currently before you. It accomplished basically a lot of the things that the
Planning Director wanted to do, but there are some further refinements that the Council made to
the bill. So instead of trying to compare the two, because if you look at page 5 of your
recommendation report we tried to do a quick comparison between the old bill versus the new.
But I'm really going to try at this point to focus on what's currently before you so I don't
confuse you all too much.
The current bill includes the definition of activities that can be defined as ag tourism. It provides
additional clarifying definitions such as one's value-added agricultural products and as well as
agricultural operation, among other definitions. It defines major versus minor agricultural
tourism operations.
I should note and compare this one. I think the Director's proposed bill had it at 30,000 visitors
annually and 350 visitors max per week. The current bill basically splits it up and says,well,
major is up to 30,but there's a minor component now that says 15, I'm sorry the Director was
previously 15,000 for minor. The Council bill now drops it down to 5,000 for a minor, so kind
of a significant difference in the current version that you have before you.
It requires plan approval for new structures and additions as for major ag tourism operations.
The Planning Director's version was plan approval required for all major ag tourism operations.
Again,here is where they define the maximum number of visitors. The difference being 5,000
now versus the 15,000 originally proposed last year by the Director.
Elimination of the current restriction that limits gross revenues for ag tourism operations. That
way the tourism operation doesn't generate more revenue than the ag, you know,because the
whole point is to support ag. Right?
And, finally,to remove the need for the Planning Department to conduct a site inspection prior to
issuing plan approval.
Oh, I'm sorry, one more item, and defining the types of ag tourism transport vehicles when it is
permitted. In a nutshell that component is basically saying no more than a 15-passenger bus.
Because I think you've heard concerns about taking the big buses up narrow rural roads where a
lot of these operations occur. So it's to keep it down to just a small 15-passenger vehicle.
So the Director is recommending that the Commission send a favorable recommendation to the
County Council on Bill 25, Draft 2 regarding amendments to the Zoning Code related to ag
tourism. However, there is a component in the Council's bill that wants to limit the operational
hours of ag tourism to 20 minutes after sunset. And if you watch the calendars the time, the
official time of sunset changes by minutes every single day. So it's going to be a regulatory
nightmare for us as the Planning Department if we get a complaint. And how do visitors know
to always check every single day on when sunset is? So I think you get the message of why.
2
What we would prefer is that they keep the original 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily because it's just easy
to figure out and have the Council, encourage the Council to get rid of the 20 minutes after
sunset provision that's currently in the draft bill. So with that I stand ready to answer any
questions.
ISHIBASHI: Any questions to staff from the Commissioners?
ONO: Yeah. Mr. Chair?
ISHIBASHI: Yes.
ONO: I'm browsing through that, I don't know what I'm referring to but about three screens
back where you're saying the Planning Department, yeah, that's the one. Try go back again,
forward. Yeah, you see the second one"remove the need for", why is that, "remove the need"?
ARAI: Right. When,basically, let me see, well, during the plan approval review process we
anticipate the applicant to clearly identify on the plans they submit to us all the details of their
project,how high the building,how big, where all the uses are going to go or how the parking lot
is constructed. You know, if there, we would rather that the Depaitnient be left with the
discretion to say like you know what, maybe better we go and check this one out, instead of if
you put it in law it mandates us. In fact, you know, if an ag tourism was just in Kaumana and we
knew the area back and front, the law says you've got to conduct a site inspection. We're forced
by law to go out there, even though we probably knew that area back and front. So we'd rather
not, things like this, not be mandated by Code, but discretion be left to the Department to
determine.
ONO: But it's like the recent,previous applicant. If, you know, we were talking about his
warehouse and the construction whether, if you don't, I am not accusing the Planning
Department.
ARAI: Sure.
ONO: But if you're lax in your process, you know, on a hit and miss thing, it's not going to be
consistent. And practice becomes more, you know, from what previous people did. So I'm
concerned if not more rigid in that sense you're going to have the kind of problems we just had
with the applicant.
ARAI: That, I understand that part. But, with the previous applicant, that was something that
was established without our clear knowledge. So it's a matter of proper permitting versus
someone who actually comes in, submits a plan to us. Because bear in mind plan approval in
many instances proposes something. That's the way it should work, they propose something. So
we can do a site inspection; but for the most part we're not going to see the finished product
because they're applying for approval to build the finished product. So there are times when
Planning, you know -. Especially when we know that the land is vacant and they want to build a
brand new building, you know, again, we'd rather just have the discretion on determining when a
site inspection is warranted versus being mandated by law.
3
ONO: Thank you.
ISHIBASHI: Any further questions from the Commissioners? Thank you, Daryn.
ARAI: Sure.
ISHIBASHI: We have Lani Weigert? Come, come forward. Raise your right hand,please. Do
you swear and confirm to tell the truth before the Windward Planning Commission over this
matter?
WEIGERT: Yes, I do.
ISHIBASHI: Okay, thank you so much. Go ahead.
WEIGERT: My name is Lani Weigert; and I am the executive director of the Hawai`i Agri
Tourism Association, which is a 501(c)(3)nonprofit for the entire state of Hawai`i. Our
organization is based here in Hilo and we are in support of Bill 25 which has had, as Daryn said,
several rounds through this. So we're going through it one more time to see if maybe we can get
it passed again. When I say passed again I mean it passes always through the Planning
Commission; and it just so happened that we got a new council so they didn't know what was
going on. So then we had to throw it back to the Commission again. So, so here we are. So I'm
ready for any questions.
So let me tell you why this bill was created then,just to kind of bring you up to speed. The bill
was created so that farmers could create supplemental income, not necessarily on the tourists but
to attract people to come to their farms so they could sell their value-added products. The value-
added products are really what adds to a supplemental income. So I'll give you an example. If
somebody goes to a lilikoi farm, and when they go there they are able to buy lilikoi jam or jelly,
that jam or jelly actually profits them anywhere from six to eight times more than them just
selling the lilikoi by the pound. So this kind of supplemental income will allow a farmer,not
only to hire more labor but also to afford the food safety certification that many farmers are
trying to acquire now. Because basically they all have that type of certification. You don't get
to swim with the big fish, you know, and sell to the bigger stores. So a lot of the farmers they
don't have the wherewithal to do that.
My only thing about this current bill that's up right now is there is a stipulation that the daily
count that can go to a farm is 15 people. And I know that the reason that came up was because
the passenger vehicle is 15. But that is so stringent. I mean a lot of the farmers may get,maybe
one day they get two vans, and then the whole week they don't get anybody. And the other thing
too is a lot of farmers won't charge for admission. They just want you to buy what they have on
the farm. So if we, you know, I would rather see us go with a monthly maximum. But if, you
know, there's too much opposition on that, I'd say, I mean, base minimum weekly at least. But a
daily, that just doesn't make any sense. It's so strict that there's no farmers that are going to be
able to get out the gate.
So, the fact that the Planning Director at the time created definition of the major/minor, the
reason that was created too was because there were a lot of start-up farms that would never have
4
the wherewithal to do plan approval. In fact, when the Planning Director, Mr. Yuen, introduced
the current bill, we actually have one, an ordinance now, it requires anybody, any farm,to do
plan approval. And the number of people that are applying for that since that ordinance was
created-. Daryn, do you know how many people actually applied?
ARAI: None.
WEIGERT: Okay, zero. And that was passed back in 2008 or 2009, I think. So that was just an
indication that that probably wasn't a very good bill. And the plan approval requires farmers to
do drainage plans, topography, and engineering plans. I mean these farmers have no clue. I
mean they don't even have a uniform. And so this whole idea of expecting farmers to do that is
just ridiculous. So the minor and major definitions were created so that the farmers that had
really small operation start-ups would be able to start up without having a plan approval. And,
really, the kind of operation that these farmers had is they're doing educational tours. The
people that come to their farms are not only tourists. But a lot of schools are coming there and a
lot of senior citizens are coming, all of the different senior citizen groups, etc. So they are
servicing a greater part of our own communities by having this opportunity to do that. So I hope
that you will support this bill and pass it so that it can go on to the Council. And I can deal with
a whole realm of people that are not for it because it's a nuisance because of the dust.
ISHIBASHI: Questions, Commissioners? Okay, seeing none-.
ONO: I have.
ISHIBASHI: Go ahead, Commissioner Ono.
ONO: Thank you. You were saying that the size of the visitors per farming was a problem.
WEIGERT: Yeah.
ONO: And I heard you. And I don't know, I'm a school teacher so -.
WEIGERT: Yeah, 15, 15 a day.
ONO: Yeah, so -. But the school size,the class size is 25 so how do you,how do you adjust
that-? I mean are you asking us to reconsider that number and increase it per day or-?
WEIGERT: No, I'd like you to just omit.
ONO: Omit it?
WEIGERT: Yeah,just get rid of that.
ARAI: Commissioner Ono,just to let you know that 15 was, I think, something that was brought
up at the Council level on the previous bill. That 15 is not embedded in this current bill. So
basically don't worry about it.
5
ISHIBASHI: Okay,motion is in order, Commissioners.
GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to send a favorable recommendation to
the County Council on Bill No. 25-2 regarding amendment to Chapter 25 of the Zoning Code or
the Hawai`i County Code 1983 relating to agricultural tourism.
ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Commissioner Gonzales. Seconded by-?
MOSES: Second.
ISHIBASHI: Commissioner Moses. Discussion, Commissioners? Seeing none, take the roll
call. Thank you.
ARAI: Mr. Chairman, I just-. Commissioner Gonzales and Commissioner Moses, I just want to
verify the motion. It is a favorable, as recommended by the Planning Director. But it also
includes her recommendation regarding the operational hours?
GONZALES: Correct.
MOSES: Correct.
ARAI: Okay, very good. Thank you. Commissioner Gonzales?
GONZALES: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Moses?
MOSES: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Heakulani?
HEAKULANI: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Henkel?
HENKEL: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Miyasato?
MIYASATO: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Ono?
ONO: Aye.
ARAI: Mr. Chairman?
6
ISHIBASHI: Aye.
ARAI: Mr. Chairman,motion carries with seven aye votes.
ISHIBASHI: Okay, thank you.
The discussion ended at 1:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, q
Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary
Windward Planning Commission
7
ice.
*:...4 ter, :..
••,1,`t,Tf OF MF,,., ,
County of Hawaii
LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 • Hilo,Hawai`i 96720
Phone(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742
JUL 0 2 2013
J Yoshimoto, Council Chair
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawai`i
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Council Members:
County Council Initiated (Bill No. 25, Draft 2)
Amendment to Chapter 25 of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as Amended)
Relating to Agricultural Tourism
The Leeward Planning Commission, at its duly held public hearing on May 16, 2013, considered
the County Council's Bill No. 25, Draft 2,proposing an amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning
Code) of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended),relating to Agricultural
Tourism. The purpose of the proposed bill is to clarify definitions, procedural guidelines and
requirements, and standards related to agricultural tourism operations. The bill specifically
amends Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 1, Section 25-1-5 relating to Definitions: Amends
Article 2, Division 7, Section 25-2-71 relating to Plan Approval applicability. Amends Section
25-2-75 relating to Plan Approval application requirements for agricultural tourism. Amends
Section 25-2-76 relating to action on Plan Approval application. Amends Article 4, Division 1,
Section 25-4-15 relating to use regulations for agricultural tourism.
The Planning Director had recommended approval of this proposal along with a recommendation
that the operational period of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily within the existing Zoning Code be left in
place rather than tied into the setting of the sun as proposed by Bill No. 25, Draft 2.
The Commission voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council as
recommended by the Planning Director on Bill No. 25, Draft 2, with the statement that the
County Council solicit additional input from the farming and ranching communities including
organizations such as the Farm Bureau and the Hawaii Agritourism Association (HATA).
Hawai`i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
J Yoshimoto, Council Chair
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawai`i
Page 2
We have enclosed a copy of the Planning Director's Background and Recommendation, the
PowerPoint presentation, and a transcript of the hearing for your information.
Sincerely,
Azecie:e.e..)
Geraldine Giffin, Chairm.
Leeward Planning Commission
cc: Planning Department—Kona
William Brilhante, Esq.
Enclosures
lccinitiatedBill25 AgTourisrnLPC
LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
MAY 16,2013
A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED AMENDMENT TO
ZONING CODE RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL TOURISM was called to order at
10:11 a.m. in the West Hawai`i Civic Center,Community Center,Building G,74-5044 Ane
Keohokalole Highway, Kailua-Kona,Hawaii,with Chair Geraldine Giffin presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Geraldine Giffin,Brandi Beaudet,Thomas Hickcox,
Wayne Iokepa and Thomas Whittemore
ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Richard Nelson, III
ALSO PRESENT: BJ Leithead Todd(Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program
Manager),Phyllis Fujimoto(Planner),Jeff Darrow (Planner),Maija Cottle(Planner)and
Noriko Sauer(Commission Secretary)
And approximately ten people from the public in attendance.
INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL
Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code)of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition,as
amended),relating to Agricultural Tourism. The purpose of the proposed bill is to clarify
definitions,procedural guidelines and requirements,and standards related to agricultural tourism
operations. The bill specifically amends Chapter 25 (Zoning Code),Article 1,Section 25-1-5
relating to Definitions: Amends Article 2,Division 7,Section 25-2-71 relating to Plan Approval
applicability. Amends Section 25-2-75 relating to Plan Approval application requirements for
agricultural tourism. Amends Section 25-2-76 relating to Action on Plan Approval application.
Amends Article 4,Division 1, Section 25-4-15 relating to Use Regulations for agricultural tourism.
GIFFIN: We are now moving along to Agenda Item No.2. The initiator is the County Council.
We are referring to Bill No.25,Draft 2,regarding the amendment to Chapter 25,the Zoning Code,
of the Hawaii County Code,which was established in 1983,2005 Edition,as amended,relating to
Agricultural Tourism. Daryn?
ARAI: Thank you,Madam Chairwoman. Good morning. Good morning,Commissioners.
COMMISSIONERS: Good morning.
ARAI: This bill may seem very familiar to you, and it, I'm sorry,but the reason for that is because,
as you may recall, in April of last year, and May, I should say, the Planning Director actually
introduced a version similar to this bill. It was Planning Director initiated, and it offered a number
of amendments to the existing Ag Tourism section of the Zoning Code in order to better address the
needs of the ag tourism industry. The Director did meet with various representatives of the ag
tourism industry,as she worked toward developing her version of the bill. The bill did attempt
various amendments that would further define and define major versus minor agricultural tourism
operations, require plan approval for major operations,as well as eliminate the 1,000-square foot
1
V
limit on the ag tourism facility. It also defined major ag tourism as not exceeding 30,000 visitors
per year,which was in the existing code,or is in the existing code,but it also defined minor ag
tourism activities as no more than 15,000 visitors per year. And there were some other amendments
in the Director's proposed bill. As you can see on Page 4 of your background report,both Planning
Commissions,both Windward and Leeward,offered a favorable recommendation of the Director's
version of the amendments to the ag tourism bill,and that went up to the County Council in the
form of Bill 266. And as you can see, they conducted a number of meetings on Bill 266 where
various amendments were attempting to be introduced, which then created a bill that departed
greatly from the original purpose of the Planning Director initiated bill. And therefore,that
particular bill was issued an unfavorable recommendation by the Council's Planning Committee,
and on January 23r4 of this year the Council voted to postpone that Bill 266 in order to allow the
Council to come up with a more, how do I say,the current bill that's before you,Bill No. 25, Draft
2. So on Pages 4 and 5 of your background report, I kind of tried to define the differences between
Bill No.25,I mean,Bill No.25,Draft 2,which is currently before you, as well as the previous
Director initiated Bill No.266. The current bill before you,the Council's version,basically will
keep the 30,000-visitor max for major,but for minor it's actually dropping it from 15,000 down to
5,000 visitors annually. They are also requiring plan approval,as the Director bill did,but only for
new structures or additions to existing structures whereas the Director's version basically said plan
approval period for any major ag tourism operations. So in your background report we tried to
provide some highlights on what are some of the most significant changes.
Now,if I were to direct your attention to the presentation screen, I'm just going to go over briefly
some of the major points of what is being presented to you in the form of Bill No. 25, Draft 2. It is
to improve definitions of activities that can be defined as"ag tourism";provide additional clarifying
definitions,such as"value added agricultural product,""agriculturally related products"and
"agricultural operations"among other types of definitions;further refining"major"versus"minor"
agricultural tourism operations—and that's basically what I mentioned to you just a few seconds
ago where it's,minor is from 15,000 max as they are bringing it down to 5,000 max;require plan
approval for only new additions or structures to existing,I mean,for major agricultural tourism
operations;—and I'm sorry I just spoke about that—that's the 5,000 annual limit on minor;and the
elimination of the current restriction that limits gross revenues from the ag tourism operations from
exceeding the gross revenues from the agricultural activity itself. And that restriction was originally
put in to make sure that the ag tourism component doesn't exceed the revenue generated from the
actual agricultural activity,but that is being removed from the Council version. Just to let you
know,I believe the proposal to eliminate the gross revenue restriction was also in the Director's
version that you heard earlier. So in a nutshell these are the amendments being offered by Bill No.
25,Draft 2.
The Director is recommending favorable consideration of this bill,with one provision. And if you
were to look at the very end of the Director's background and recommendation report, which will
occur on Page 6, we do have one reservation; and the reservation is that the Council is wishing to
place a limit on the hours of operation 20 minutes after official sunset as determined by the National
Weather Service. As you can, as you are aware, sunset changes continuously throughout the entire
year, and I think it's going to be too difficult not only for the Planning Department as an enforcing
agency but also for the applicants, and maybe even for visitors,to figure out when sun sets and
when-.
GIFFIN: Is today,yeah.
2
I
ARAI: Right. So we felt that it's just better to call out a specific time. Our recommendation is to
keep it at 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.daily. If the Council wishes to adjust the time, we are okay with it;
we just simply want them to specify a time that can be relied on by everyone. So with that, I stand
ready to answer any questions you may have.
I'm sorry, I just remembered. There have been some recent correspondences that just came in
yesterday. And these are emails from Cory Harden, I believe her name, and Avi Okin,and I believe
that may have been it. These communications,copies have been made and distributed to you,so
you have them before you-.
GIFFIN: Louise Winn-.
ARAI: I'm sorry?
GIFFIN: Louise Winn.
ARAI: Oh,yes,I'm sorry,I missed that,Louise Winn. Thank you very much. So you have three
new communications that we just received.
GIFFIN: Commissioners,do you want some time to review the material that Daryn just referred to
from the public? No? All right. Do you have any questions of Daryn?
UNIDENTIFIED PUBLIC MEMBER: (Inaudible)right here,if you want to talk to us.
GIFFIN: Excuse me?
ARAI: I did announce earlier that anyone wishing to testify on this bill, they can sign up. So if you
do plan on testifying,by all means please feel free to sign up. At this point the Commission is
asking if there are any questions of their staff.
GIFFIN: And themselves. Any? No? Okay. There have been five people who have signed up to
testify this morning on this Agenda Item No. 2. They are Louise Winn,will you please come
forward,Barbara DeFranco,Janice Palma Glennie,John Betlach. And in a minute I will call up the
fifth person who signed up,because we only have four chairs. Will the four of you please raise
your right hands. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward
Hawaii County Planning Commission?
TESTIFIERS: I do.
GIFFIN: All right. Beginning with you, ma'am, will you please state your name and begin your
testimony.
WINN: My name is Louise Winn. I'm a coffee farmer in HOnaunau. I submitted this in writing,
but I also wanted to read it out loud because it's very important to me.
Here are my thoughts on the changes to the agricultural tourism regulations.
3
Due to the recent overreach of the County Planning Department with regard to what is acceptable in
South Kona in compliance with our Community Development Plan, I'm skeptical about what may
happen as far as unintended consequences of expanding farm tours and events. Now, I'm speaking
to minor,not the major ones.
Middle Ke`ei Road and Painted Church Road are, at best,one and a half lanes wide in many places,
and there is little roadside parking. Farms have septic systems or cesspools,uneven walking
surfaces, and no ability to accommodate ADA compliance.
The idea of having up to 100 people per week on any given farm is possibly acceptable,if all these
issues are addressed. I also worry about visitors tracking in harmful insects and plant species from
other areas. We coffee farmers have been severely impacted by Coffee Borer beetle,Coqui frogs
and all kinds of funguses. The last thing we can stand is more migration of alien stuff.
Important to me is special use permits should be required for all of these activities. Neighbor
notification should be mandatory.
It took us three and a half years to get the methamphetamine manufacturers off the Kamehameha
Schools lease land because they didn't want to do anything. I have a current neighbor with 35 old
cars on his property,which no government agencies that I've contacted seem the least bit concerned
about. I don't trust that any organizations or government entities have our best interests at heart
because they have no investment in our quality of life in a rural setting, and no abiding interest in
South Kona as the west side premier agricultural area.
The idea of an application being considered as approved if it is not acted upon in 30 days is
ludicrous. This encourages an already tardy and cumbersome system to just opt out of due
diligence.
I appreciate the educational value of farm tours and encourage visitors to learn more about our
industry,but not at the expense of peace and quiet,or our public safety,or our livelihood. Thank
you.
GIFFIN: Thank you. Commissioners,any questions of the testifier,Louise Winn? Seeing none,
thank you,ma'am. I'm sorry. Director?
LEITHEAD TODD: Ms.Winn,would you recommend that there be some type of a notification
system to neighbors before the start of agricultural tourism by a farmer,something like,well,right
now,if you were going to rezone your property, if you were going to seek a variance or something,
there would be some requirements that there be a letter going out to the neighboring properties to let
you know. So it sounded like you wanted some kind of-. So are you thinking something along
those lines?
WINN: I am, I am thinking that. I am thinking that,you know, at least the surrounding,because it
affects the road and everything else. So I think it's fair to have the neighbors notified and have
some recourse.
GIFFIN: Thank you very much. If you'll step back, I have room now to call up Nancy
Ginter-Miller. Okay, and I will swear you in in a minute.
4
GINTER-MILLER: Okay,that's fine.
GIFFIN: All right? So,do I see Barbara DeFranco?
DEFRANCO: Yes.
GIFFIN: All right.
DEFRANCO: Hi. Nice to see you all.
GIFFIN: Hi. And you may begin your testimony.
DEFRANCO: Thank you. I just want to thank you for all the work in this. And the idea of having
agri tourism is very important to South Kona for sustainability for small farmers. And I,being one
from Paleaku Peace Gardens,was here before you,too,with the special use permit,to do something
similar except in addition to the tourism I wanted also to be able to do weddings and things. So I
went through the special use permit,and it was great;the staff has been wonderful,and I learned a
lot. And I really learned more about my neighbors than I knew before, and how we have to
safeguard, you know, this. And I, I was in the midst of actually gathering together to have a
meeting at Konawaena High School,involving the Planning Department,the Mayor,Kamehameha
Schools and some of our farmers to talk about what is really allowed on Ag land and on
Kamehameha Schools land to try to get us all together talking on it,when I sort of inadvertently
came across that this was happening today. So I was just sort of,you know,I know that it's been a
long process and you've probably beat this little horse to death and now you've resurrected it again,
but I'm concerned that there aren't enough safeguards in this,only because I've been through it now
that,you know,are there fences,are there septic systems, are they,do they have ADA, are-. You
know, not everybody,without submitting the plan and having any kind of oversight, are not going
to,you know,play nice,you know,and I'm sort of concerned. And I'm here representing,because
I worked a lot with neighborhood watches,people that won't come forward to speak,and they are
afraid of even existing tourist things that are going on now,and have been intimidated by them,and
they don't want to say anything. So you have,and I know that they should,but,I mean this is,this
is another thing I'm speaking for. People are very concerned about this going through without some
more safeguards. You know,without a way for the neighbors to get back to you,you know,with-.
Telling the neighbors is one thing, and having them talk to you or have them feel empowered
enough to be able to say something that's meaningful,that they feel like their voice is heard in that
you'll do something for them,you know. People come to these farms,they want to retire,they want
their quiet,and they-. I'm just afraid that there's not enough safeguards in the way that this has
been revised. And I don't think a lot of us have had enough time to really look at it ourselves.
Thank you.
GIFFIN: Thank you. Director?
LEITHEAD TODD: This bill probably started in 2009, late 2009, when I was approached by the
Hawaii Agricultural Tourism, it's called HATA. And the concerns that they were bringing forward
really had to do with the cost of a drainage study for small farmers; that if you weren't going to
build a new building,if you weren't, you know,doing more stuff, why did you have to go and pay
five to six thousand dollars to an engineer to get a drainage study. So that was where this started
5
with was just, was there a way to take the existing law,allow the uses that were already there,
because this law was originally passed in 2008,but take away the requirement for a drainage study,
if you weren't building new structures on the land that were going to add to the runoff. So that's
what the original genesis of looking at the bill was. And then over a period of,I think,about maybe
two years I met with various large landowners like ranchers, and I also met with smaller farmers.
There were meetings with the Mayor's Agricultural Committee,as well as participating in some
statewide conference calls with HATA and their affiliates. During the process, when I looked at it,
I thought the problem,one of the problems that nobody had addressed was in fact that it was a
one-size-fits-all legislation passed in 2008,because under the 2008 legislation it just says 30,000,it
had no language about monthly counts or weekly counts or anything,it was just 30,000 a year;so it
could mean that, and I thought that the problem with that is you could have 30,000 people show up
in one month,which I thought was unlikely,but it just seemed like it didn't have enough. I didn't
want to completely rewrite the legislation,so what I was looking at was,you know,how do you
make it easier for the small guys but still have regulations for others. So I kind of did the Solomon
approach;I cut the baby in half and I hit the 15,000,and then we did, you know,a count by the
week. That was not what I was asked to do by the farmers; that was something that I thought we
could tweak and would try to address some of the other concerns. The current bill cuts that down to
5,000 per year-.
DEFRANCO: Right. But,you know, who is counting? Who is out there counting this?
LEITHEAD TODD: That's,the problem with almost anything is that enforcement is difficult.
Now,this is in response to a change in State Law. The State amended law to create agricultural
tourism, and then we adopted a bill in 2008. This is an attempt to kind of tweak it. I think that,like
anything,we are to a certain extent complaint-driven in terms of investigation,because I don't have
investigators that can go out on a regular basis. But this is also true of almost anything,you know,
you've got a special use permit,I don't go out and regularly check on you to see whether you are
abiding by those conditions;it would depend on a neighbor complaining that you weren't. So I
don't know that you get to perfect,but what is useful is, if you have specific concerns about the bill,
is to recommend changes. Like Ms. Winn,who was here talking about notice,that to me is a
positive recommendation that could be addressed. Because if you don't do anything,then what you
have is 30,000 without a distinction,and you have got some plan approval and you've got those
other requirements. But I think what you have right now is a lot of under-the-table ag tourism going
on that unless somebody complains about something,we are not going to hear about it. So just,if
you have specific recommendations,that would go up.
DEFRANCO: I had a,I had a question about what the other counties, you know,Maui and Kauai,
what are they doing about this? You said it came from the State and us sort of complying with the
State thing. What are the other counties doing to deal with this?
LEITHEAD TODD: The other counties have been waiting to see what we do with this. In all
seriousness, this is what I've heard from -.
DEFRANCO: We'd better do a good job.
LEITHEAD TODD: The other planning directors is they were initially going to take the 2008
ordinance that we had passed,and they were going to amend their codes to kind of copy what we
had done. When they saw that we were going through process of amending it, they pulled back and
6
they wanted to see what happened with our bill and what we did to tweak it,and they would then
take whatever we did,and look and see whether it fit in their counties. The concern is,though,that
if the counties don't move and do some type of legislation, then what instead will happen is,similar
to ag structures,that you will then have the State Legislature act and put something in that does not
require a county ordinance,and then it will just be State Law that regulates it. And so-.
DEFRANCO: I guess some of my concern would be also around retail,you know,a little bit,you
know,since we have nothing,no way to enforce any, you know, to be there,to have eyes
everywhere,of course,so now you are going to open up a retail,you know. I was a wholesale plant
nursery for a long time in South Kona,and I had to get a retail store in town to sell my goods. My
concern is is that you are going to allow retail,direct retail sales now even for ag goods or plants or,
you know,it just, I don't know if it's all been thought through enough for the small roads,
infrastructures,the wastewater management. And I'm sure that you've thought through it much
more than I have,so I'm a bit catching up, I'm sorry.
LEITHEAD TODD: Would you,I mean, I'm not going to recommend it at the Planning
Commission level,but would you recommend that the,perhaps, the Council before acting on the
bill when it gets back up to them,try to set up meetings, not necessarily a public hearing,but you've
got farm organizations in different parts of the island,you've got the Department of Ag, and try to
set up maybe a working group to work on the bill and address some of that?
DEFRANCO: I think that would be a good idea,because I think the idea behind the bill is
important to people, yeah. And I'd like to be part of the working group.
GIFFIN: Thank you very much. If you'll step back,there are several other people who have signed
up to testify. Thank you. The next testifier, I think,is Janice Palma Glennie.
PALMA GLENNIE: That's correct. Thank you. Am I,can you hear me?
GIFFIN: You are on.
PALMA GLENNIE: Thank you. I would,before I start, I was wondering if I could have a copy of
the testimony that you had from Cory Harden? If I could see that while I'm-. Thank you very
much.
Aloha,Commissioners,I've been—thank you—I've been attending many meetings over the last
three years regarding this issue. It's impossible to,my husband and I have lived on Ag land,
pursuing agricultural related activities in Kona for over 25 years. Not to sound too harsh,but it is
offensive that Bill 266,after over two years of public input,was remanded to this body as Bill 25,
as it is now nebulous,unenforceable. Planning Department generated bill that was stripped of
30-plus public generated amendments,many of which come from this testimony,and this testimony
that Cory sent was a compilation of comments that had been generated over that time from lots of
people that attended the hearings and, I'm sorry, are not here today. Those 30-plus public generated
amendments were added to protect farmers, Ag lands and residents from the negative effects of ag
tourism. This bill could create higher taxes and land values to where real farming is unattainable,
and also create noisy,less environmentally balanced rural areas where the backbone of our ag
industry lives and raises their keiki.
7
I have many ag tourism nightmare stories,but here is one regarding lack of enforcement,which is a
huge issue facing us with this bill. Close friends of ours bought five acres of Ag land for what
became a thriving mango farm and business. Their new off-island neighbors decided to create
events and lodging venue across the street. After following the County protocol for stopping the
illegal use of their property to no avail,my friends hired a lawyer. They knew their case was tight,
and planned to live in that land their retirement days there forever. Even though they won their case
through an appeal,no agency,including the County,stopped the operation, which continues to this
day. Feeling totally let down after four decades of residence and being fed up with the illegal daily
intrusions of their next door operation,they put their beloved home and farm up for sale.
As far as visitor count,I think this is the,something I just can't believe,because every meeting
everyone asked to have a daily visitor count as opposed to a weekly count. Even ten visitors a week
on my five-lot ag subdivision is noticeable. In fact,I had neighbors complain when three
landscapers came in one week to buy my nursery stock. All of them,people I'd known for decades,
all of it being totally legal. Ironically, these were the same neighbors who,despite it being totally
illegal,had tour buses parked on our shared substandard private driveway,noise and live music,
wafting more than a quarter mile up the hill until 11:00 p.m. and plan to continue their"garden
tours"up to five days a week. Neighbors implored them to stop, yet no one,and we called every
agency,no one,including Police or Planning,came to our rescue. Again,it took hiring a lawyer for
the parties to stop. Does this mean a resident will be forced into expensive lawsuits in order to get,
against the County, in order to get them to do their job,especially when enforcement, funds for
enforcement are so much less even now than they were then. That experience is my biggest reason
for skepticism of so-called ag tourism bill since those neighbors first of all weren't even real
farmers;they had a few pineapples. They were already very wealthy. They had no regard for their
neighbors or the law, which is why no ag visitor count can be self-policed. Nothing about this
really can be self-policed. And the worst part is that if Bill 25 becomes law,most everything my
neighbors were doing that was so annoying to everyone around them,would be legal except the
hours. And again,enforcement is such a huge issue. If that whole operation was illegal before no
one stopped it,why would the County stop the music and intrusions from going past sunset or 6:00
p.m.just because another law was added.
So my question is whether this bill is for real farmers or for people who want to cash in on tourism.
I just stop understanding why we have this, I understand that Bobby Jean was trying to in some
ways protect small ag businesses,but I think that the problems,that the ability to market and sell the
agricultural products by bona fide farmers is warranted;restrictions to stop the overreach and
insensitivity of those who don't need or deserve,the benefit of calling operations agricultural need
to be forefront in any ag tourism legislation.
And that was my testimony. But I think this list is so important. And one of the things that wasn't
addressed at all is noise. There were so many great things in Bill 266. At the end it's just, I don't
know why they were taken out,because they were supported by the public. But there was
amusement rides,ATVs, I mean,these are things that could happen on your property. People asked
there was a 30-person per day limit,rather than per week. My neighbors were bringing 200 to 300
people a day to their ag tours, garden tours they called it,you know,it's a three-acre parcel, I think
theirs is a three-acre parcel. I think removing the restrictions for revenue is also not a good idea; I
think the revenue from ag tourism should be definitely less than,we are trying to protect, if this bill
is to protect real farmers, then that should be what we are aiming at is increasing farm revenue, not
ag tourism revenue. I appreciate the idea of having meetings with farmers and farm groups; I don't
8
know why we wouldn't, see I'm afraid that whenever bill gets brought forward from this body will
end up being it for the County Council,because,you know,a lot of people took part for three years,
it's hard to get people to take, I'm missing work today,I've been to hearings all week,and I haven't
been able to go to do my work. There's a lot of people that don't have the luxury—I don't really,
either,but. Okay, there was insurances,that was one of the things Cory Harden and other people
brought up, insurances for the use of shared driveways; that's a huge thing for us, if there is
liability. Neighborhood access,I live near Walua Road, which is again it's like Middle Ke`ei Road,
it's just substandard and can't even handle more than it's got now. Automatic approval is just not
good in any situation. That's just, I just don't understand it. And complaint-driven is not the way
the County works on every thing;we have traffic laws,we have building codes,and I don't think in,
like what one of the testifiers said is that for a neighbor to complain against the neighbor is very
dangerous in many situations, and I think many of us have been threatened for what we have said in
public,and that's just,it's not up to us to have to give our names and say somebody is doing this.
So that,you know, I just, I really implore you to go through this list, and please,use your wisdom to
include these things to protect neighborhoods,because I think it's just going to end up being a
nightmare for the County,which is also our money. So thank you for the time that you spend. I
appreciate it. Aloha.
GIFFIN: Thank you for testifying. Bobby Jean?
LEITHEAD TODD: When I say that we are complaint-driven,it reflects the fact that I have,well,I
think the Department started a few,maybe ten years ago with one inspector for the whole island.
We are now up to four; we have two in Kona,two in Hilo. But we don't have a program where you
go out and regularly inspect anything within our Department basically because you have 4,000
square miles,we have four inspectors,and we have enough complaints that they are always busy
just following up on the complaints,rather than going out and doing inspection. I would love to be
funded to the extent that I could have people that go out and routinely check on permits that we've
issued. It may be that in the future, if the economy improves and there is more revenue to the
County,that that should be something that should be addressed. And,you know,because it's not
for lack of desire,it's just really the fact that we have four. And the other problem is is that even
when we go on an inspection,if we cannot verify that the allegations are true,we also can only go
on a property,if,if there is a no-trespassing sign,my guys cannot go on a property,because we
have to kind of go with the consent of the property owner. So the law, I know it's not strictly ag
tourism,but basically if you are going to have enforcement,then you need to give some additional
authority to the people that are going to do the enforcement,because we are limited. There are
times when we go and we are not allowed on the property;so unless we can visibly see it from the
nearest County road,we are not able to verify the complaints. And that's an ongoing problem.
But in the midst of looking at some of,like,the testimony from Cory,you have to be,I think you
have to be careful about asking for more stringent regulations on ag tourism than you would on Ag.
Like one of Cory's things that say no noise beyond the property line; agriculture has a noise go
beyond the property line. What you should be looking at instead is asking that they can generate no
more noise than agriculture,but to say that no noise goes beyond the property line is one not
enforceable and not doable. So I'm saying that sometimes when you ask for a lot of stuff, it
becomes difficult to put into law because it's beyond a zoning issue, it goes to other things.
PALMA GLENNIE: Well,Bobby Jean, I think that on Cory's about the, I think that,the thing
about Cory's list that had to do with ag tourism, I don't, I think that if someone,No. 1, I think
9
people should have to have a permit for it. And so the noise that you would be generating from ag
tourism is a different kind of noise,believe me,because I've experienced it,than you experience
from ag. I have always said the noise rules are lacking in our county across the board. So I agree
that there needs to be,that really needs to be addressed. But I think that when you look at Cory's
list,and this is not Cory's list,this is a list like,once again,that came from a lot of different
testimonies,that more stringent standards allow the neighbors to be able to go to the County and say
this specifically is happening. You can take photos,I mean, I took photos of people doing what
they are doing. And, yes, if you are not allowed to go on private property,I mean, I can't believe
that,I mean,I can believe it,but if somebody is beating their children,the,you know,the police can
come in and stop that even though, you know-. So I just think that there,I hear what you are
saying,Bobby Jean,and that makes me even more concerned that if we have this legislation,and
again, the number of people is huge on this because it's easy to tell if there's 20 or 30 people at a
place,but who can tell if it's 200 or 350 or,I mean,all that you know is it's a lot.
LEITHEAD TODD: What if you made a requirement that you in addition to this,and I'm not
talking about going through like a special use permit because it's a permitted use under State Law,
but something like you have to file at least a permit application with the County,so that if you've
got activity going on next door,you can make a call and find out whether somebody has filed
application or permit or whatever you want to call it,so that you can determine if the activity next
door is under a permit,and then if there is something going on and they haven't filed some kind of
permit or notice with the County,then you can base the inquiry to the Planning Department of the
fact that"hey,there is this activity going on, I don't think they are permitted," and then that would
give the Department a basis for going and doing an investigation. Something,and it says whether
you are minor or major or,and what's your expected count is and expected activities you have on
the property.
PALMA GLENNIE: Well,Bobby Jean, I mean,yes, yes,yes,yes, I think a permit has to be
required. But then again,what's allowed by the permit is what I'm concerned about. Yes,a permit
is I don't even think there should be a question of that,I don't understand why there wouldn't be,
but what's allowed is huge. And I don't think,you know, if I hear an ATV running around,which I
do,and as it's running around,round and round,and people are yelling and screaming,"Ah hah,"
you know,and I call and,yes,they have a permit. Is that,how much better do I feel? I feel like that
isn't an ag activity,I feel like the County has let me down, I feel like the County has let a huge area
of the law down really.
LEITHEAD TODD: Part of the problem is ATVs is that State Law allows open area recreational
use on Ag land. And it's the same reason why you've got Zipline tours on Ag land because it's an
open area recreational use. I'm not,I think they were trying to protect maybe horse rides,trails,
hiking,that kind of thing. But the other thing with ATVs is,where we had difficulty is there are
ranchers and others who are actually using ATVs to access part of their property, and so it became
very difficult for us to,we did have complaints, and so unless we see like a track, you know, and
they are inviting guys to come in,it's very difficult for us to enforce because there can be legitimate
uses. So we've been able to shut down where there has been like an ATV track and they've invited
guys to come and race,but beyond that it's been very difficult because it's difficult for us to,if
somebody says, "Well, I'm using this so I can go check my fence lines"or"I use it to get to the
remote part." And I recognize that it's a noise issue for neighbors. But the other problem is that
whether you are allowed the kind of private enjoyment of your property,like, if you live on the
10
property and it's your property,can you own an ATV and use it on your property to ride around on
it,and we had a case,and it becomes very difficult to regulate that.
PALMA GLENNIE: And I appreciate,again, I appreciate what you are saying. The difference I
think is that here we are talking about an ag tourism activity,and I don't, I mean,is there a place in
the ag tourism bill, the new one,that says ATVs are not part of that? I mean,that's what I'm,I'm
saying there is two different things going on here. There is people just owning property and I,like,
I don't have a desire to do ag tourism-related activities on my property, I will follow the law for
whatever and have whatever I can do. But if I asked for a permit to do ag tourism activities,isn't
that different,and doesn't that require different,have different requirements? That's what I'm
saying. I just think that if ATVs are being used for a ride,a recreational ride for commercial
reasons,getting money,that's different than my neighbor, you know, kids running around and
having fun.
LEITI-IEAD TODD: I guess the difficulty for the Department,and this is just,I thought we had
discussion, is that when the State says that it is a permitted use on Ag land,it becomes difficult for
us to take the position that we have to treat that permitted use significantly differently than other
permitted uses. And that's the difficulty for us is we have a laundry list of things that the State says,
solar farms,alternative energy, there is a whole bunch of stuff that the State,every year they go in
and amend the law, and then if they say it's permitted,then how do I treat this permitted use
differently than this other permitted use. And it's a quandary for us because some of these things
raise greater issues in terms of the use of the roads, greater issues about impact on neighbors,
greater issues about impact on farmers. But I'm going to tell you that we are having some of those
same discussions on legitimate agricultural uses, as they start, if sugar were to come back and you
had big trucks and dirt and everything,you'd have legitimate agriculture,but you'd have the same
discussion about the impact on the community. And that's where we are having some difficulty in
terms of the fact that it's permitted under State Law.
PALMA GLENNIE: Well,that,and that would be major ag,which is also a different thing than
minor ag. I mean,I think the whole,I think it's obvious from this discussion that even this bill,it's
just not ready for prime time. I mean, I don't know,I mean,maybe this is a better time to create a
bill that has the input from small farmers. I just,again,fear that going,taking this to the County
Council,they are going to feel like,"Okay, it's already been reviewed,there has been public input."
I mean I know this is an important step,and you folks are,your, you know, what you put or don't
put into this bill is going to really mean a lot,and I just have this fear that the residents of the county
are going to end up being liable for all these thing that haven't been able to be resolved. And I
don't want to see my neighbors and I don't want everyone to be in lawsuits.
GIFFIN: Though I appreciate you being here and your comments are truly well taken-.
PALMA GLENNIE: Yeah, that's fine-.
GIFFIN: Thank you very much.
PALMA GLENNIE: Thank you. I really, I really appreciate the time(inaudible).
GIFFIN: You're welcome. Commissioners,before she goes,did you have any other questions of
her? Thank you again.
1 I
PALMA GLENNIE: I really appreciate it.
GIFFIN: You're welcome. Sir,John Betlach?
BETLACH: Yes. Good morning,everyone.
GIFFIN: Good morning. You may begin your testimony.
BETLACH: Okay. I'm sorry,did you,were you thinking about,oh. I guess I just want to tell you
a little bit about where I'm coming from. I went to a public administration school and got my
MBA,so I could come and do a small farm here on the island,and then it quickly became the
reality that I had to do an ag tourism thing to make it successful in a small scale,less than 100 acres.
Even a lot of my farm friends have said,"You've got less than 100 acres, you know,you've got to
be resourceful, you've got to do some,even if it's value-added offsite, you've got to do something."
But I don't see myself as an extremist. I'd say that,this last lady,she was so courageous to come
up here and say stuff. I know,actually know the two people very well that,well,not very well,but
I know them both, and I was surprised to see them at odds,because I thought they were on the same
team,you know. Like,the person with the ag crops could sell to the person that was doing the ag
tourism like that was a perfect marriage. But what I've found is that it's hard for people to come
together and talk. Even in my own situation things I've done to try to help people, my neighbors,
the thing I thought where I was putting out a big mahalo was the exact opposite where I took it the
wrong way and I did exactly the wrong thing that got them upset by building,putting a barrier so
they couldn't see my place. And I had contacted them eight or nine times to get their input,and
then I put a barrier in,thinking I was doing the good thing. So it's difficult;getting people to talk is
a challenging thing. And I,but I think that's what needs to happen more with this is that I really
agree with the Planning Director's assessment on a lot of the things, it's,the one-size-fits-all thing,
that's a real big challenge. And then I also see the danger of getting things so regulated. People
might not be able to fly to the island,if we let that happen with the airline industry because of the
deregulation that that's why they are able to actually carry passengers now,and that they can make
their own airfares,although maybe it was better when the government set the airfares,being that
$1,000 each for my family members to go to the mainland. But,so, I guess,you know,I don't have
an extreme thing,I just have some concerns. One is I think that there needs to be more
communication,the Hawaiian tradition of ho'oponopono,you know,public discussions amongst
the stakeholders,because with these people that talked,I was really surprised that,you know,I
would think they were pro ag tourism,and that they were raising some real nuisance things. So I
think for me the greater issue of the nuisance thing,even from my own perspective being,I consider
myself very pro ag tourism, the nuisance thing is big,even in regular rentals;if you have just a
regular rental thing,the nuisance to your neighbor is big,regular residential,if you have someone
that is not watching, they are not respectful to the neighbors with the noise thing,that's an issue. So
I think that there is,something needs to be done about the nuisance thing so that people can work
something out so that, you know, that people aren't overburdened with the noise. But at the same
time,maybe they could have worked together. I'm kind of reminded of some of the elders in the
county who talk about, you know,how you deal with a problem to find your character. Maybe if
people got together,and instead of putting it off on the County,got together and there were talks
about how can we as a community solve these problems without finger pointing or getting
galvanized to work together so that there is something to deal with the noise level. I was going to
say that there's problems on all sides of the thing. One of the things that I've tried to do as a,in the
12
large event category,having, you know,I have actually organized events where 450,000 people
showed up,not here on the island. And there were problems;it shut down the Bay Bridge and the
Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. So, yeah,there are challenges. And from that,from learning
from those situations,or those events I put on,I try to educate people that are event planners here
for large events on the island that they wouldn't do on small properties,and they don't get, they
always get the understanding for a need to have more portable toilets. I really like,I would say that
there is a big hoo-hah a while back about the putting an extra turnabout for one Ag property in one
instance I saw a number of years ago, that was an incredible suggestion,maybe it was even
required. Sometimes we need,people need to have more parking, and they need to have more
latrines. And to work with your neighbors like,you know,if they are going to have a big event like
that, we equip the neighbor to have,want the next door neighbor's place to be where the parking is,
not on the road,you know,work with the neighbors in advance. There is a big problem with the
events on the island in that a lot of the events themselves are having a hard time communicating
with the other events in that they may all do their event on the same day, maybe four or five really
good events on the same day,and they need to only have one really good event on each day just
because it hurts the events. So there is a need for everybody to work together and talk more as well.
I'm sorry, you had a question?
GIFFIN: No,I don't have a question. I'm just going to ask you to please summarize,you know,
just summarize your comments because we do have other people who would like to testify as well.
BETLACH: Okay. Well,I think the greater issue here is just that we need to have things that deal
with the nuisances that legitimate ag tourism establishments are going to be very concerned about
what they can do to make the guests,as well as their neighbors, very comfortable,and,but it's,
again,it's coming together in talking and spending the time rather than just crying wolf and putting
the owners on the complaint-driven system or,you know,trying to get the one-size-fits-all. So,
that's just, I'm going to leave it at that.
GIFFIN: Thank you. Thank you very much.
BETLACH: Yeah,thank you.
GIFFIN: Commissioners,do you have any questions of the testifier? Hearing none,thank you,sir.
I know Nancy Ginter-Miller is already up here. Lani Weigert and Brian Lievens—I hope I
pronounced your names correctly. Will the three of you please raise your right hand. Do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Hawaii County Planning
Commission?
TESTIFIERS: Yes,I do.
GIFFIN: Thank you. Nancy Ginter-Miller, please begin your testimony.
GINTER-MILLER: Yes, Aloha and good morning. Just a quick background. I am a little sad that
some of the people that testified earlier aren't here to listen to the rest of this as well. I started with
agricultural tourism in 2006, and I have been diligently working on this for many,many years;so I
am aware of all of the transitions. And I do think that people did need to understand where the
Hawaii State agricultural law sits and then where the County sits. For those of you in the room that
don't know, the Hawai`i State has regulations of the uses of agricultural land. They don't allow
13
some of these things that people are talking about;however, I want them to understand that you can
apply for a special use permit,and these things become right on the agricultural land. So that's why
some of these things are going on,and I don't think some people understood that.
We started in 2006. We came up with Bill 148, which is our existing agricultural tourism ordinance
right now. To the best of my knowledge there are about eleven of those permits out here. So there
are people that are trying to do agricultural tourism on a legal upstanding basis based on those rules
and guidelines that is plan approval,and like I said,people can do these various thing with that.
Now,we've gone down,and it was a great idea that not everybody fit into this large picture of Bill
148,and we are trying to create something for minor agricultural tourism. And another background
information is that all of this is allowed as long as you say it's educational,you know;so any of
these tours that are out there,all we have to do is say we are doing educational tours,and we can do
all of this stuff. So there are things, there is the right to farm,that's 24 hours a day we can make as
much noise as we want. The current County ordinance with noise is from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m..
I have put up with that next door to my residential house in the White Sands Subdivision since the
day before Thanksgiving,and that includes Thanksgiving,Christmas and New Year's,where I have
a guy remodeling a house,and he doesn't care about the rest of us,so we in residence also have to
put up with that.
As far as comments regarding septic tanks,ADA and things like that,that is controlled by the feds,
the federal government,and right now there are laws that say that if you have so much use,you
have to change over your cesspool to a septic tank, and that is required based on the number of
people that come into your property everyday. So those things,I think,are already covered by the
federal rules,and so I'm not sure why those are being brought up on the County level. So just so
eliminate that part. And then like I said,the right to farm is 24 hours a day. Trucks on farms make
more noise than a small car coming into a farm. It is a policy of those of us who deal with
agricultural tourism that we always notify the neighbors;so whether that's in there or not as a
specific,we don't have a problem with that,those people that I work with. As far as sales from the
farm,retail sales have always been allowed from the farm as long as you just had a roadside stand
and you did not process those products to a value-added product. And that knowledge for me was
given to me by Chris Yuen who was the previous planning director,and we went through what is an
allowable roadside stand,and it is literally a stand like this with no roof on it,and if I want to put
that down on the side of my road,I can sell fruit off of my trees at retail. Where this came in with
value-added is that we are limiting what value-added products could be sold and what proportion of
those could be sold versus the farm product direct;so whether we were selling the bananas or
whether we were selling banana bread. And that's where we came from on these percentages as to
what should be and what shouldn't be.
As far as the noise and the dirt and things like that,that's farming. You farm without water,now
you are going to have dirt,you are going to have dust,we are going to have noise, you know. It's
what it is. It would be nice if we all had peace and quiet,but, like I said, your next door neighbor
can go get a special use permit and do a lot of more things than what's allowed in this Bill 25.
Uh,quickly, I know we are running out of time. As far as the insects and things like that, if you
want to prevent those, you do that yourself. I have taken an agricultural tourism tour out at
NELHA, and I've had to wipe my shoes down with a solution and we were not allowed in there
beforehand. So if want to control that, you can control that.
14
The complaints about driveways and things like that,it's required that you have access,ingress and
egress,to your property;if you don't have that,then that's consideration for what the Planning
Department takes into consideration whether they are going to approve the permit or not. So I think
that's already included in some of the prefacing.
As far as ATV and horse rides and Zipline, that's another thing the special use permit you can go
and do that anywhere;that's not what we stand for an agricultural tourism. But I just want people
to understand that it's out there. Also,I have a farm that uses an ATV to be able to transport ADA
people around our agricultural tours. So please remember that not everybody is using an ATV to
have fun with. We actually do that because once the person is out of the bus,we are on a farm and
it's an uneven surface;if they can't walk or they are ADA, we have the ability to take them on a
golf cart or an ATV vehicle and take them around. So for us that's just helping the disabled people.
And I do think we already have rules in place about what major and minor ag is. If I'm incorrect in
all of this, please correct me at the end. And then,like I said,for us if we don't allow people onto
these farms,where are our future farmers going to come from? If we cannot entice a young farmer
to get excited about seeing something growing,or what is a dragon fruit—and they come up and
they go, "Oh my gosh,what is that thing,"and you can tell them how it got there and how it has to
be hand-pollinated and it actually comes from this cactus plant and—if it entices them to become a
farmer, we need to continue to do this. We have to be sustainable. We have to feed ourselves. We
are the most isolated archipelago in the world. We cannot continue to depend on this fruit and these
vegetables coming in from other areas,and we have to encourage people to become farmers. Thank
you very much.
GINr1N: You're welcome. Commissioners,any questions? Hearing none,thank you very much.
Lani Weigert? Please begin your testimony.
WEIGERT: Aloha. My name is Lani Weigert,and I am the executive director of the Hawaii Agri
Tourism Association,which is a statewide non-profit organization,which was created back in 2007;
actually,it was initiated here out of Kealakekua. I'm here to testify that I am in complete support of
Bill 25,and I want to bring out that in listening to a lot of the issues here,obviously they are very
real for the people who bring them forward because it has happened to them specifically. The issue
for ag tourism with regard to our non-profit organization is it's an economic issue. So if we cannot,
let me explain that further,many farmers do ag tourism just to support their habit of farming,to
support their love and need to farm,and many,with the rising cost of fertilizer and all these other
expenses,it's just impossible for them to continue to do this. The other thing is we are very lucky
to have multi-generational farms where the farmer doesn't have anything else to pass on to his
college-educated son and daughter other than an ag tourism part of their business,which can
continue to excel through technology and many other educational avenues. Economic sustainability
is huge with regard to ag tourism,and to have comments that may sit across the board on,well, this
is a nuisance and that's a nuisance, sadly, communication,open communication, respect and
responsibility has not been addressed. And coming from the organization in which I represent, I
offer today, as well as any day after this, to have our organization collaborate and be open to
discussions to be a vehicle in trying to bridge some of these issues of nuisance,because it's really
difficult to tell a farmer, "Well,I don't like the noise and the dust that you are doing because it's
inconvenient and a nuisance to me, however I really don't care if you feed your family," you know,
I mean it really does come down to that as well. So I do appreciate people coming forward and
saying, you know, "this is a nuisance to me,"etc. because it's obviously happening to them. But
15
that does not mean that that exists on every farm and every area on this island. Because many of the
farmers,our farmers are born and raised here,and they come with a certain level of values with
regard to respect,responsibility,and the fact that there isn't any open communication could be that
there are differing values because people maybe come from different places so do not understand
what we are talking about. I personally myself own an ag tourism venue; it does not have any of
those nuisances that have been shared with today, so I have a very different view of ag tourism. I
also work with many ag tourism venues here on this island, and I found that those who had to go
after special use permits had to spend anywhere from thirty to forty thousand dollars in getting the
engineers and all of the different plans that were required by the special use permit. That in many
cases almost took them down just to get the permit. So I am a huge advocate for this bill,because if
we can get some of those smaller farmers out of the gate and they can survive so they can continue
supporting their habit called farming,I think we should try to really look carefully at this and not
just blanket some, "oh,these nuisances are too much for us so we should not continue on." And I,
too,like Nancy,have been following this for years,so,yes,it is an inconvenience for everybody to
come out here and say their testimony again year after year,but we will not give up until this goes
through because this county is going to set the precedent for all counties throughout the state of
Hawai`i, and by all means we need to get it out of the gate. Thank you.
GIFFIN: Thank you. Director?
LEITHEAD TODD: Lani,you are involved in Maui with the lavender industry.
WEIGERT: Yes, that's correct.
LEITHEAD TODD: Was that through a special use permit or just farm tours?
WEIGERT: Yes,yes,that was a special use permit. And the reason that we decided to go with a
special use permit there was because there were other things on the property,such as weddings and
special events that were going there,and we wanted to set the example to other agricultural tourism
venues that if you are going to go outside of simply bringing people and doing educational tours,
selling your value-add,then you need to go this other route. And that's why I am a real advocate
for this particular bill,because I think it should be watched on both sides,meaning when people
start to do more and abuse what this is,an organization, such as Hawaii Agri Tourism could be a
major advocate for the county as well in making sure that people are self-policed,because it is very
difficult for the county to have their resources to go out and do this,you know,for the
neighborhoods. But I want you to know that it affects ag tourism overall when there is one player
that's not playing nicely. So the organization needs to go out there and police them as well and say,
"Hey,knock that off,because you are going to hurt us as an industry." And this is the position in
which we are taking statewide.
GIFFIN: Any other questions of the testifier. Thank you. Sir? Brian Lievens?
LIEVENS: Yes. Brian Lievens. I'm president of the West Hawaii Fruit Growers Association,
also on the board of the Hawaii Tropical Fruit Growers for the State. I'm a small farmer here in
Kona,and I have some land in Honomu that I'm considering for an agri tourist business, so I'm
concerned about the bill, and in our organization as well because we represent so many small
farmers. An example of the agri tourism with our organization is every year we have a statewide
conference, usually on a different island. This year we are having our statewide conference on all
16
four major islands;we would be touring farms on every single island. And we so far have 100
people signed up from all around the world. Now,I've been in other countries and seen agri
tourism as a major industry. And I've seen a large agri tourist business,like the Maui Plantation
and,of course,we are all familiar with Napa Valley and what a success that's been. So I'm very
bullish on the industry,and I find it strange that for instance revenue would be limited relative to,
you know, the sales of actual fruit or whatever you are growing on the thing;it just seems Alice in
Wonderland,Through the Looking Glass type logic. But I think we can,we are working with a
bunch of different problems. I wanted to talk about,oh,Janice's mention of her neighbor bringing
in busloads of people and what a problem it was;she didn't mention that the chocolate operation
just up the street from her has done very well,and been very low-key,very successful,and it has
promoted a whole new industry for West Hawaii. Some of the other things I wanted to talk about
were addressed by the two speakers ahead of me,so I'll skip over those. And it really kind of boils
down to a definition,or debate about what really ag is. Okay. Thank you.
GIFFIN: You're welcome. Any other comments or questions of the testifier? Did you want to add
something? All right,Lani.
WEIGERT: I wanted to add that it is really difficult to put a daily limit,too,on it. I understand that
there is a cry out for a limit of some type. And a daily limit is really difficult;I'd rather go with a
weekly,if we even had to do that, I mean,a monthly would be even preferred. But a daily,say,if
you put a daily limit of 30 people,I mean,the farmer has gone through all this to get everything
ready so that they can make sales from their farm and,they are,they are only going to make such a
small percentage on their admission, if they even charge that. Most farmers don't charge that;they
just want you to come and,you know,buy their produce and their other value-add. And with 30
people, I mean, you are lucky,if you can pay your daughter to come to work. I mean,please really
listen to the economic driver on it,too. I understand there's concerns with regard to the nuisance.
But really,just like the gentleman next to me said,the chocolate company up the street has done
well and it has been very low-key. I'd have to say that's probably the majority of the farmers;that's
what's their impact's going to be. So just really listen to this,because there are definitely these
screwballs that come out and they make it bad for everybody,but it doesn't mean that everybody is
doing it incorrectly. Thank you.
GIFFIN: Director.
LEITHEAD TODD: Lani,are you familiar with the vanilla bean operation? Because I was
surprised,because I thought that that was a fairly lucrative product,because I was being told
something like$30,000 per acre. And then yet they came in and got a special use permit so they
could serve meals,because they were saying that their bottom lime,even with the high value
product,like vanilla beans. So I was wondering if you knew a little bit more about them.
WEIGERT: Yes, I actually work with them. So this is something that's really important for
everybody to understand that the crop itself yields a very, very small return; when I say small
return,it could be five percent or less. It's the value-add that they bring in that actually sustains
them and allows them to continue to do this thing that they love called farming. So that's why
people do ag tourism. It's strongly driven by their value-add, which in the case of the vanilla farm
they had to create other value-added products, as well as services,for them to survive. So that's
really critical in this.
17
GIFFIN: All right. Thank you. Commissioners? Once again,members of the public,thank you
very much for taking your time this morning. I appreciate it. (There was another person signing up
to testify.) Good morning. Will you please sit down and raise your right hand. Do you swear or
affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Hawaii County Planning
Commission?
ROY: I do.
GIFFIN: Please state your name,and you may begin your testimony.
ROY: Aloha,Members of the Commission. My name is Mikahala Roy. It's my pleasure to see
many of you in the audience and the members of the Commission this morning again. Aloha.
GIFFIN: Aloha.
ROY: I'm here,my name is Mikahala Roy. Do you need my address,Ms.Giffin?
GIFFIN: No,thank you.
ROY: Thank you.
GIFFIN: We used to.
ROY: Okay. I appreciate the comments and the presence of many people from the community,as I
always do. This is an important matter. Ag lands and all lands in Hawaii are important. I give
testimony today as kahu of Ahu'ena Heiau. It is the sacred site of sacred sites in Hawaii because
this is the kingdom's capital as left to us by Kamehameha the Great. I testify before the Royal
Commission in Hawaii to say that as a result of the capital being established there,it is evidence
that the kingdom exists. And so I give testimony today to this body that I respect in history for its
presence in the flow of history,but I have to give testimony to say that I speak for the unborn of the
future. The agricultural lands in Hawaii,like many other places of the world,bear history of yet
unknown vital importance,and I speak for them,I speak for us,but I speak for my children and
their children,and I definitely speak for the unborn. And so I remind us all that the Hawaiian
people are still giving their cumulative voice on an occupied kingdom. And I must say to you that I
speak for the importance of respect to the sacred lands. I speak of Waipi`o,I speak of Mauna Kea
the expanse;we don't farm at the top,but we certainly have an expanse that goes down to all six
districts. That is called mana. And it comes from the very core of mother earth to us,guarded and
kept by Pele Honua Mea. So today,my testimony covers a great expanse,really all of the
archipelago Hawaii. And I must say these things,not with any disrespect personally to anyone
who has testified or the farmers today,because we all live in the present,but I must,as you can
hear,give ways to an ancient thing that comes forward that stays with us until these things are
resolved;they are not resolved. Thank you.
GIFFIN: You're welcome. Thank you. Any questions,Commissioners?
ROY: So,on the record I am against the bill.
GIFFIN: Yeah, I gathered this much.
18
ROY: And this aspect of regulation of visitations to lands. You are not covering the aspects of
sacred lands. The issues are too large for this bill to encompass basically.
GIFFIN: Thank you,Mikahala. Aloha. And at this point I would like to close public testimony on
this agenda item. Commissioners,any discussion after hearing eight different speakers from the
public? Director,as the applicant, would you like to have some sort of summary?
ARAI: Madam Chairwoman,just to,this is a Council initiated action,so the bill was introduced by
the Council, not the Director.
GIFFIN: Sorry. Yes, yes,yes, you are right. But nonetheless,Bobby Jean,would you like to add a
few comments in closing?
LEITHEAD TODD: I think,one,we have 120 days to move this; I don't think we can punt it down
the road.
ARAI: That is correct. We also have this scheduled at the next Windward Planning Commission at
the beginning of June, and that would just give us enough time to consolidate the recommendations
and send it up to Council within the 120-day period. An option is a special meeting,if it needs to be
kicked down,but it has to occur before the,by the first week in June somewhere, I would think;so
that's going to be somewhat difficult to coordinate.
GIFFIN: Director.
LEITHEAD TODD: I was going to say that I think you should move this up to Council. If you
have specific concerns or recommendations,not necessarily amendments,but you want to raise
issues,then you could do that in your letter to the Council that you might want them to do some
public outreach or,you know,take a look at certain issues that were raised here,that's up to you as
Commissioners. I gave a favorable recommendation,and part of it is that,one,we were adding
additional definitions,we were trying to distinguish between major and minor,and this is in the
same vein as the bill that I had originally started with,and so it's very consistent. It's more
stringent than the bill that I had started with,because it has 5,000. But it has some of the elements
that I thought were important,which is that for the minor tourism we limit it to passenger vehicles,
you know,up to a 15-passenger vehicle,you can't take a full-on bus to the smaller operations, and
that was to lessen the impact on the road infrastructure. It has a weekly count, and that's I think
because it's difficult,if you say that it's,you know, 30 people today,what happens,if 31 comes in,
and a weekly count seems to give a little more flexibility,and I like that. And that was a concession
to the fact that on smaller operations you were trying to lessen the impact. And if you wanted to go
bigger, then you needed to come in and do the plan approval and do that. I like the fact that, I think
you want, the biggest concern I had was trying to eliminate having to go hire an engineer to do it,
because part of the problem was that there had been language in the plan approval section of the
County Code that basically said if you were going to do plan approval, you had to do a drainage
study. And so we were trying to tweak this,because if you are not building any additional buildings
besides what you already have,if you are not doing, you are basically inviting people to come in at
your existing farm operation, at your existing barn or storage sheds or whatever, and then just doing
a little bit of tour,why should we force people to go and pay five or six thousand dollars to get an
engineering study that says that they are not generating any more water than they were previously
19
with their farm operations. And that was one of the important things was to try and take care of the
smaller operator because,you know, I'm personally struggling to come up with the$2,000 to tent
my house for termites,I can't imagine what a farmer has to go through to come up with five or six
thousand dollars to pay an engineer to go do a drainage study,and he's saying,"Hey, this is no
different than my existing operation." So those are some of the considerations. I think that,I'm
sure the same discussion that we've had here today will occur at the Council,so I would
recommend moving up,and then if you have recommendations,including it in your comments.
GIFFIN: And I think I understood you correctly,Bobby Jean,when you suggested,like you did to
the second testifier,Barbara DeFranco,that maybe there can be more discussion just prior to the
Council's decision. Any other comments? Seeing none or hearing none,do I hear a motion?
Commissioner Beaudet.
BEAUDET: I would like to move for a favorable recommendation to the County Council for the
amendment to Chapter 25,Zoning Code,of the Hawai`i County Code 1983,2005 Edition,as
amended,relating to Agricultural Tourism, along with a recommendation that the operational period
of 8:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.daily within the existing Zoning Code be left in place rather than tied into
the setting of the sun as proposed by Bill 25,Draft 2.
GIFFIN: Do I hear a second?
JOKEPA: Madam Chair,second.
GIFFIN: It's been moved by Commissioner Beaudet and seconded by Commissioner Iokepa that
we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council for the amendment to Chapter 25 of the
Hawaii County Code,the 2005 Edition,as amended,relating to Ag Tourism,along with a
recommendation that the operational period of 8:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.daily within the existing
Zoning Code be left in place rather than tied into the setting of the sun as proposed by Bill No.25,
Draft 2. Any discussion? Daryn?
ARAI: Commissioner Beaudet?
BEAUDET: Aye.
HICKCOX: Pardon me,I didn't react quick enough. I have a question.
GIFFIN: Oh, I'm sorry,sure.
HICKCOX: Would we be within our parameters,if we also included the recommendations be
made to the Council that more public input be sought after in reference to this?
GIFFIN: I think that that should be addressed to either Daryn or to the Director.
ARAI: Because your actions today will be forwarded to the County Council and the Council itself
will conduct a hearing before its Planning Committee and then at a minimum have two reads before
the full Council,I think it's a given matter of fact that additional opportunities will be provided for
public discussion. Now, if you are talking about something more specific,well-.
20
HICKCOX: Because of the topics covered in testimony today,it, I understand that it does not really
fall under our purview as the Commission is concerned,however,being able to voice public
testimony presented today in some manner that would alert the Council to the fact that more public
input is needed before final preparation of this,or acceptance of this bill.
GIFFIN. Director.
LEITHEAD TODD: I think it's entirely within your prerogative,if you wish to make,you know,
an amendment to the motion to include a recommendation to the Council that they actively seek
additional public input,including input from various agriculturally related organizations is what I
was thinking that you've got the Farm Bureau, you've got the Hawaii Agricultural Tourism
Association,not just,you've got the Fruit Growers Organization,because they are actual groups
that represent hundreds of farmers that regularly meet,regularly seek input. And so perhaps not
just,you know,doing a public hearing of individual people who have the ability to show up,but
organizations that routinely meet and may have some input,because they have discussed these
issues with their members.
GIFFIN: Commissioner?
HICKCOX: I'd like to make an amendment and to echo Commissioner Beaudet's motion-.
GIFFIN: Hang on. Daryn,did you want to say something?
ARAI: We have a motion on the floor right now,so I'm wondering if it's best to maybe withdraw
the motion on the floor,if it's something,or can you just do it as a separate amendment?
LEITHEAD TODD: You can make an amendment to the motion on the floor. You then vote on
the amendment first, and then you would vote on the main motion as amended,if the motion to
amend is passed.
GIFFIN: Commissioner Hickcox?
HICKCOX: I move that we amend the initial recommendation,and include that,what Bobby Jean
said. How's that one? All kidding aside,I,she does this so much better than we can. Madam?
GIFFIN: Director,did you want to come up with some verbiage,please?
LEITHEAD TODD: If I understand Commissioner Hickcox's motion,and we don't have a second
yet,so,but if my understanding is correct,what,Commissioner Hickcox is proposing to amend the
main motion with a recommendation that the County Council solicit input from the farming and
ranching community, including current organizations, such as the Farm Bureau and HATA, which
is the Hawaii Agricultural Tourism Association, in order to solicit additional input on the bill and
recommendations, as to what should or should not be included in the bill.
GIFFIN: Thank you. Daryn,did you get that verbiage?
ARAI: I believe I did-.
21
GIFFIN: Good.
ARAI: But don't ask me to repeat it.
GIFFIN: Okay. Do I hear a second to Commissioner Hickcox's amended motion?
IOKEPA: Yeah,I second the motion,Madam Chair.
GIFFIN: Okay. It's been moved by Commissioner Hickcox and seconded by Commissioner
Iokepa that an amendment to the original motion be considered. Do you want to repeat it,Daryn,or
no?
ARAI: The amendment is to the main motion to afford a favorable recommendation,as
recommended by the Planning Director,with a request that the Council solicit additional input from
the farming and ranching community, including specific organizations,like the Farm Bureau and
the Hawaii Agricultural Tourism Association,to seek additional input on the bill and any
additional amendments.
GIFFIN: All right.
ARAI: Not bad,huh?
GIFFIN: Not bad. So, if I'm not mistaken,we should vote on this proposed amendment.
ARAI: Yes,and then we go back to the main motion.
GIFFIN: Okay. Now,do you need to do a roll call or it's voice vote?
ARAI: I'd rather do a roll call.
GIFFIN: Roll call? Okay. Then,Daryn?
ARAI: Commissioner Hickcox?
HICKCOX: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Iokepa?
IOKEPA: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Beaudet?
BEAUDET: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Whittemore?
WHITTEMORE: Aye.
22
ARAI: Madam Chairwoman?
GIFFIN: Aye.
ARAI: Madam Chairwoman,amended motion, amendment to the main motion carries with five
aye votes.
GIFFIN: Okay,so then we go back to the original motion,right?
LEITHEAD TODD: As amended.
ARAI: Correct,as amended.
GIFFIN: As amended,okay.
UNIDENTIFIED PUBLIC MEMBER: It has no second.
GIFFIN: Sorry?
UNIDENTIFIED PUBLIC MEMBER: It has no second.
GIFFIN: Yes, we did.
LEITHEAD TODD: Mr. Hickcox made the motion and Mr. Iokepa seconded.
GIFFIN: Excuse me. Yes,we do. So, Daryn, I think we are ready for a roll call.
ARAI: Okay. So the main motion as amended, and again just to clarify,it was,the main motion
was moved by Commissioner Beaudet, seconded by Commissioner Iokepa. Commissioner
Beaudet?
BEAUDET: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Iokepa?
IOKEPA: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Hickcox?
HICKCOX: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Whittemore?
WHTTTEMORE: Aye.
ARAI: Madam Chairwoman?
GIFFIN: Aye.
23
ARAI: Madam Chairwoman,motion as amended carries with five aye votes.
GIFFIN: Thank you. And thank you,members of the public.
The discussion ended at 11:40 a.m.
Respectfully submitted, �
Noriko Sauer, Secretary
Leeward Planning Commission
24
t
BRCouncillnit-ZCode-AgriculturalTourism-Bil125Dft2.doc-dsa-5/7/13
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND AND RECOMMENDATION
INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL
BILL NO. 25, DRAFT 2 REGARDING AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 (ZONING
CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION,AS AMENDED)
RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL TOURISM
The Hawai`i County Council has transmitted Bill No. 25, Draft 2,regarding an
amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as
amended) relating Agricultural Tourism. Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the
Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), relating to Agricultural Tourism. The
purpose of the proposed bill is to clarify definitions,procedural guidelines and requirements, and
standards related to agricultural tourism operations. The bill specifically amends Chapter 25
(Zoning Code), Article 1, Section 25-1-5 relating to Definitions: Amends Article 2, Division 7,
Section 25-2-71 relating to Plan Approval applicability. Amends Section 25-2-75 relating to
Plan Approval application requirements for agricultural tourism. Amends Section 25-2-76
relating to Action on Plan Approval application. Amends Article 4, Division 1, Section 25-4-15
relating to Use Regulations for agricultural tourism.
BACKGROUND
In 2008, the Hawai`i County Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-155, a copy of which is
attached to this report as Exhibit A,to define and regulate agricultural tourism in Hawaii County.
Following the demise of the sugar plantations and mills, a more diversified agricultural base
consisting of smaller agribusiness and family operated farms,ranches, and agricultural products
processing facilities is evolving in the County of Hawaii. These operations are offering a wide
variety of specialized products,produce and exotic flowers via local vending opportunities as
well as through regional, national, and international wholesale distributors and the Internet. To
supplement their agricultural activities and in response to the growing visitor industry, a market
has developed for tours and activities showcasing the uniqueness of farming, ranching and
agricultural products processing in Hawaii. However, the growth of the agricultural tourism
market has sometimes resulted in adverse impact on surrounding properties and resources.
-1-
The Council, in adopting Ordinance No. 08-155,recognized agricultural tourism as a
viable element of the visitor industry and as an expanding alternate income resource for local
farmers and ranchers, while also finding it necessary and appropriate to define agricultural
tourism and to establish guidelines to manage its impacts in a manner consistent with the social,
environmental,physical, and economic goals and policies of the General Plan for the County of
Hawaii. Therefore, Ordinance No. 08-155 established standards and guidelines such as:
• Parking is specified at one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area principally used
for agricultural tourism, with a minimum of three spaces;
• The applicant must state whether or not buses are allowed. If they are, the applicant must
show a bus parking and unloading area on the plans;
• The Planning Department must do a site inspection before issuing plan approval, and the
Department will have 60 days to approve or reject the plan approval application;
• Parking areas are not included in the limit of 1,000 square feet principally used for the
agricultural tourism operation.
• The sale of agricultural products grown on the island of Hawai'i, and processed
agricultural products where the main ingredient was grown on the island of Hawai'i,is
allowed;
• The Planning Director may use observation of traffic to estimate whether or not the
agricultural tourism operation is exceeding the 30,000 visitor per year limit.
• If an agricultural tourism operation receives plan approval,but then exceeds the
30,000/year limit, it must apply for a special permit,but it can operate until the final
decision on the special permit.
In April 2012, the Planning Director introduced proposed amendments to Ordinance No.
08-155 to provide clarity to the adopted standards and guidelines for agricultural tourism
operations that have encountered some challenges by not addressing the needs of the agricultural
tourism industry. The Planning Department has been meeting with members of the Hawaii
Agritourism Association (HATA) to discuss the requirements of Ordinance No. 08-155 and its
implications and impacts upon those who have existing agricultural tourism operations and those
who are contemplating such operations. Such meetings were facilitated by the Department of
Research and Development who also provided valuable insight and recommendations on how to
-2-
C
improve the agricultural tourism requirements. The 2012 proposed amendments were the result
of these meetings and represented an attempt to provide better clarity, applicability and
accommodation to a segment of the agricultural and tourism industries that continues to grow.
The Planning Director's amendments in 2012 included:
• Improved definition of activities that can be defined as"agricultural tourism";
• Define"major"verses "minor" agricultural tourism operations;
• Definitions regarding various standards that define components of agricultural tourism,
such as a definition for"agricultural product", "related uses", "farm market", and other
uses.
• Require Plan Approval only for "major" agricultural tourism operations, rather than for
all agricultural tourism operations as currently required by the Zoning Code.
• For"major" agricultural tourism operations, eliminate 1,000 square foot limit and rely on
maximum annual visitor count of 30,000;
• Eliminate 60-day review for plan approval of"major" agricultural tourism operations so
that it follows the same 30-day processing timeframe afforded to any other use;
• Eliminate the need for a site inspection prior to the issuance of final plan approval for a
"major" agricultural tourism operation.
• Revise maximum number of visitors for agricultural tourism-minor operations from a
yearly maximum of 30,000 to 15,000 and to also establish a weekly maximum of 350
visitors.
• Eliminate maximum limit of gross revenue generated by agricultural tourism operation;
• Eliminate one year"grace period"for existing agricultural tourism facilities to secure
final plan approval. Instead, agricultural tourism operations shall conform immediately
to the revised standards and guidelines, should this bill be adopted by the Council;
Previous Planning Commission actions regarding previous, Director-Initiated bill:
The Leeward and Windward Planning Commissions, at its meetings held on April 19 and
May 3, 2012, respectively, forwarded a favorable recommendation of the Planning Director's
recommended amendments to the Zoning Code relating to Agricultural Tourism to the Hawai`i
County Council for its consideration and appropriate action.
-3-
C.)
County Council actions regarding previous Director-initiated bill:
On July 18,2012,the Council's Planning Committee voted to forward a favorable
recommendation of the Director's agricultural tourism amendment bill (Bill No. 266, Draft 2)to
the full Council. Draft 2 included clarifying revisions to definition of"Agricultural Tourism,
major", when Plan Approval will be required, and other relatively minor clarifying language.
On August 1, 2012, the Council voted to pass first reading on Bill No. 266, Draft 3.
On August 15,2012, the Council voted to conduct a public hearing on Bill No. 266,
Draft 3 at the call of the Council Chairman.
On October 17,2012, the Council held over Bill No. 266, Draft 4 until its next meeting.
On November 9, 2012, the Council postponed Bill No. 266, Draft 5 until its next
meeting.
On November 21, 2012, the County Council referred Bill No. 266, Draft 5 back to the
Council's Planning Committee for further review and comments due to the substantive nature of
the amendments when compared with the original Bill No. 266.
On December 18, 2012, the Council's Planning Committee voted to postpone discussion
on Bill No. 266, Draft 5 to its January 8, 2013 meeting.
On January 8,2013, the Council's Planning Committee voted to forward a negative
recommendation on Bill No. 266, Draft 5. Some of the concerns were based on substantive
revisions to Bill No. 266 that extends beyond the original purpose of the bill, like restricting farm
markets and roadside stands,both currently permitted under State law and not directly linked to
agricultural tourism operations.
On January 23,2013, the County Council voted to postpone indefinitely Bill No. 266,
Draft 5 in order to allow the Council to introduce its alternative Bill No. 25,Draft 2 which
presently sits before the Planning Commissions.
COUNTY COUNCIL BILL No. 25,Draft 2 regarding Agricultural Tourism
The basic differences between Council Bill No. 25, Draft 2 versus the Director's version
(Bill No. 266) originally presented to the Planning Commission in the Spring of 2012 is limited
to fine tuning the standards that define"major" versus "minor" agricultural tourism operations
and the standards the define both uses.
Examples of differences between the Council and Director versions of this amendment:
-4-
0
Council Bill 25,Draft 2
"Agricultural Tourism, major",means an agricultural tourism operation which shall have
a maximum of thirty thousand visitors annually.
Planning Director (Bill 266)
"Agricultural Tourism, major",means an agricultural tourism operation that exceeds
fifteen thousand visitors annually with a maximum of thirty thousand visitors annually.
Another example:
Council Bill 25, Draft 2
Agricultural tourism, minor"means an agricultural tourism operation which shall have a
maximum of five thousand visitors annually,but not to exceed one hundred visitors per
week, that access the activity via passenger vehicles that carry no more than fifteen
people per vehicle.
Planning Director (Bill 266)
Agricultural tourism, minor"means an agricultural tourism operation which shall have a
maximum of three hundred fifty visitors per week for a total not to exceed fifteen
thousand visitors annually that access the activity via passenger vehicles that carry no
more than fifteen people per vehicle
And finally:
Council Bill 25, Draft 2
(g) 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 to be used for major agricultural tourism
activity, as permitted under section 25-4-15(b).
Planning Director (Bill 266)
(g) Plan approval shall be required for the establishment of any major agricultural
tourism activity, as permitted under section 25-4-15(b).
Note: On July 26, 2012, the Planning Director recommended to the Council the
following revision to Section 25-2-71(g) within Bill No. 266, Draft 2 to real as follows:
(g) Plan approval shall be required [ : - _ . ; ' - -- -- ; :,- ] prior to the
construction or installation of any new structure or development, or of any addition
-5-
o
to an existing structure or development which is to be used for major agricultural
tourism activity, as permitted under section 25-[2]4-15(b).
(material deleted is bracketed and struck-out, material added is underscored)
AREA OF CONCERN REGARDING BILL NO.25, DRAFT 2
Section 25-4-15(d)(2), on Page 6 of Bill No. 25, Draft 2, specifies that agricultural tourism
activities not continue past 20 minutes after sunset as forecasted for each day by the National
Weather Service(NES). We recommend that the existing operational period of 8:00am to
6:00pm daily be left in place. As written, it places the burden on the agricultural tourism
operator and the general public to know, precisely, the NWS forecast sunset time each and every
single day. It is simply more manageable to stick with a specific closing time of 6:00pm daily.
If Council would prefer a later closing time, we would not have a strong objection as long as a
specific time is cited.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons cited above, the Planning Director recommends that the Planning
Commission send a favorable recommendation to the County Council for the amendment to
Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended)
relating to Agricultural Tourism, along with a recommendation that the operational period of
8:00am to 6:00pm daily within the existing Zoning Code be left in place rather than tied into the
setting of the sun as proposed by Bill No. 25, Draft 2.
-6-
Zendo Kern - o;_ Phone: (808) 961-8263
• `►
Council Member /e ''' � • Fax: (808)961-8912
Council District 5
E» il: zkern@co.hawaii.hi.us
-t
Mailing Address: 01 3 , ,.„ nPllzr�ing Committee Chair•Hawai'i County Building : ■ 0
25 Aupuni Street °e �'
Environmental Management
Hilo,Hawai'i 96720 Committee Chair
Hawai`i County Council
County of Hawai
TO: Bobby Jean Leithead Todd, Director
Planning Department
FROM: Zendo Kern, Chair
Committee on Planning
DATE: February 21, 2013
SUBJECT: Referral of Bill No. 25, Draft 2 for Review and Recommendation by the Planning
Director and Leeward and Windward Planning Commissions
Pursuant to Section 25-2-43 of the Hawai`i County Code, I am submitting Bill No. 25, Draft 2, for
your comments and recommendations and request that you forward the attached bill to the Leeward
and Windward Planning Commissions for their respective comments and recommendations, as also
required by the aforementioned section of the County Code.
Bill No. 25, which amends Chapter 25 of the Hawaii County Code relating to agricultural tourism,
was introduced during this council term and subsequently amended by the Planning Committee on
February 19,2013.
Upon its return, Bill No. 25, Draft 2, will be placed back before the Committee on Planning for further
action.
Thank you.
ZK/bl
att
Thank you.
083670
Serving the Interests of the People of Our Island
Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
t.„
... .
COUNTY OF HAWAII '---
" STATE OF HAWAI I
s •_.
BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII
COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO
AGRICULTURAL TOURISM.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. Chapter 25, article 1, section 25-1-5, subsection (b) of the Hawai`i County
Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), is amended by amending the definition of"Agricultural
tourism"to read as follows:
""Agricultural tourism" means [ ' ' . - . . _ . ._ ' - _ ._ .. _ .-. .
•-• - - -- - - --- • •- ' .] the practice of visiting an agribusiness, horticultural,
aquacultural or agricultural operation, including but not limited to, a farm, orchard, winery,
greenhouse, hunting preserve, an agricultural products processing facility, a companion animal
or livestock show, for the purpose of recreation, education, or active involvement in the
operation, other than as a contractor or employee of the operation,"
SECTION 2. Chapter 25, article 1, section 25-1-5, subsection(b)of the Hawaii County
Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), is amended by adding the following definitions to be
appropriately inserted and to read as follows:
'Value-added agricultural product,"means the enhancement or improvement of the
overall value of an agricultural commodity or of an animal or plant product to a higher value.
The enhancement or improvement includes, but is not limited to, marketing,agricultural
processing, transforming,packaging, education presentation, activities, and tours.
"Agricultural products," includes, but is not limited to, crops, fruit,juice, vegetables,
floriculture, herbs, honey, forestry,husbandry, livestock and livestock products (cattle, sheep,
hogs, horses,poultry,milk, eggs, etc.), aquaculture products (fish, fish products, algae/limu,
water plants, and shellfish), and horticultural specialties(nursery stock, ornamental shrubs,
flowers, and Christmas trees).
"Agriculturally related products"means items sold at a farm market to attract customers
and promote the sale of agricultural products. Such items include, but are not limited to, all
agricultural and horticultural products,animal feed, baked goods, ice cream and ice cream based
desserts and beverages,jams, gift items, food stuffs, clothing, coffee mugs,tee shirts, and other
items promoting the farm and agriculture in Hawaii and value-added agricultural products and
production on site;
"Non-agriculturally related products"means those items not connected to farming or the
farm operation, such as novelty tee shirts or other clothing, crafts and knick-knacks imported
from other states or countries, etc.
"Agricultural operation" means any operationproducing agricultural products.
"Agriculturally related uses"means those activities that predominantly use agricultural
products, buildings or equipment, such as rodeos, horse or pony rides,plant mazes, barn dances,
sleigh/hay rides, and educational events, such as farming cooking and food preserving classes,
etc.
"Non-agriculturally related uses"means activities that are part of an agricultural tourism
operation's total offerings, but not tied to farming or the farm's buildings, equipment,fields, etc.
Such non-agriculturally related uses include amusement rides, concerts, etc., and are subject to
either special use permits or use permits.
"Farm market/on farm market/roadside stand"means the sale of agricultural products or
value-added agricultural products, directly to the consumer from a site on a working_farm or any
agricultural, horticultural, or agribusiness operation on agricultural land.
"Agricultural tourism, major"means an agriculture tourism operation which shall have a
maximum of thirty thousand visitors annually.
"Agricultural tourism, minor"means an agricultural tourism operation which shall have a
maximum of five thousand visitors annually, but not to exceed one hundred visitors per week,
that access the activity via passenger vehicles that carry no more than fifteen people per vehicle."
2
SECTION 3. Chapter 25, article 2, division 7, section 25-2-71 of the Hawaii County
Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), is amended to read as follows:
"Section 25-2-71. Applicability; plan approval required.
(a) Plan approval shall be required prior to the construction or installation of any new
structure or development or any addition to an existing structure or development in all
districts except in the RS, RA, FA,A and IA districts, and except for the construction
of one single-family dwelling and any accessory buildings per lot.
(b) Plan approval shall be required in all districts prior to the change of the following
uses in existing buildings:
(1) Residential to commercial use;
(2) Warehouse and manufacturing to retail use.
(c) Plan approval shall be required in all applicable districts prior to the construction or
establishment of the following improvements and uses:
(1) Public uses, structures and buildings and community buildings, as permitted
under section 25-4-11.
(2) Telecommunication antennas and towers, as permitted under section 25-4-12.
(3) Temporary real estate offices and model homes, as permitted under section 25-
4-8.
(4) Utility substations, as authorized under section 25-4-11.
(d) Plan approval shall be required in the RA and FA district prior to the construction or
installation of any new structure or development, or of any addition to an existing
structure or development which is to be used for minor agricultural products
processing.
(e) Plan approval shall be required in the A district prior to the development of any trailer
park or major agricultural products processing facility. The director shall determine
whether an agricultural products processing facility shall be considered major or
minor at the time of building permit review, or earlier at the applicant's request.
(f) Plan approval may be required as a condition of approval of any use permit, variance,
or other action relating to a specific use, in which case the use or development so
conditioned may not be established until plan approval has been secured.
3
(g) 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 to be used for major agricultural tourism activity,
as permitted under section 25-4-15(b)."
SECTION 4. Chapter 25, article 2, division 7, section 25-2-75 of the Hawai`i County
Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), is amended to read as follows:
"Section 25-2-75. Plan approval application requirements for major agricultural
tourism.
In addition to the application requirements for plan approval contained in section 25-2-72,
an application for plan approval for major agricultural tourism operations shall include sufficient
information to ensure the following provisions are met:
(1) A statement whether the operation will allow visits by buses;
(2) Adequate off street parking, loading/unloading, and turn-around space to
accommodate all specified tour transportation modes, including buses, if they are
allowed, shall be provided and shown on the site plan;
(3) The subject property must have an existing legal access to a public highway, which
may be via a private road or easement, and new driveways shall meet applicable
county or state standards;
(4) New and existing facilities to be utilized principally for the agricultural tourism
activity shall be clearly indicated on the plot plan [:.-: : - __ : _ , ._
_ . .•-_ .., _ .. . . ___ -]; and
(5) Proof, acceptable to the director, of income from agricultural activities and/or
agricultural products processing, or investment, as required under section 25-4-
15(d)(1)."
4
SECTION 5. Chapter 25, article 2,division 7, section 25-2-76 of the Hawaii County
Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), is amended to read as follows:
"Section 25-2-76. Action on plan approval application.
(a) The director may issue plan approval subject to conditions or changes in the proposal
which, in the director's opinion, are necessary to carry out and further the purposes of
this chapter and the considerations contained in section 25-2-77.
(b) The director may only issue plan approval for a telecommunication antenna or tower
if the proposed use meets all of the conditions contained in sections 25-2-77 and
25-4-12, and if the applicant provides all verification required under section 25-2-74.
(c) The director may only issue plan approval for a temporary model home or real estate
office if the proposed use meets all of the conditions in section 25-2-77 and 25-4-8.
(d) The director shall render a decision to either approve or deny a plan approval
application[, . . : _ '.- . . -- .-' • ,1 within thirty days after
acceptance of the application. If the director fails to render a decision within the
thirty-day period, the application shall be considered approved without further
certification by the director. [- . : _ '_. .. . . . • -• . • , -- -- . , - _
- - -• - , .1„
SECTION 6. Chapter 25, article 4, division 1, section 25-4-15 of the Hawai`i County
Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), is amended to read as follows:
"Section 25-4-15.Agricultural tourism.
(a) Agricultural tourism is permitted as an accessory use to agricultural processing
facilities in the CG, CDH, CV, CN, ML, MG, and MCX districts.
(b) Agricultural tourism is permitted as an accessory use to agricultural activities and
agricultural processing facilities in the A, FA, IA, RA, and APD districts, subject to
plan approval for major agricultural tourism and in conformance with section 25-4-
15(d).
5
(c) Agricultural tourism activities in A, FA, IA, RA, and APD districts that do not
conform to section 25-4-15(d) shall obtain a special permit in the state land use
agricultural or rural districts, or a use permit in the state land use urban district.
(d) Agricultural tourism operations shall comply with the following regulations:
(1) [ -- - -- : -• -- . _ -- - ] Major•
agricultural tourism operations must have a minimum of$10,000 in verifiable
gross sales, exclusive of any income from agricultural tourism activities or any
other non-agricultural activities, for the year preceding the commencement of
the agricultural tourism activity or, in the case of a new agricultural activity or
agricultural products processing facility, provide evidence to the director's
satisfaction that sufficient investment has been made in the planting of crops,
acquisition of livestock, or construction of agricultural products processing
facilities, that the agricultural activity or agricultural processing facility will
achieve the minimum required gross sales;
(2) Agricultural tourism activities shall not commence prior to 8:00 a.m. or
continue past [6:00 p.m. daily;] twenty minutes after sunset as forecasted for
each day by the National Weather Service, and shall comply with chapter 14,
article 3 of this Code and chapter 342F of the Hawai`i Revised Statutes,relating
to noise;
(3) [The] A minor agricultural tourism operation shall have a maximum of[thirty
;] five thousand visitors annually, but not to exceed
one hundred visitors per week,that access the activity via passenger vehicles
that carry no more than fifteen people per vehicle. Major agricultural tourism
operations shall have a maximum of thirty thousand visitors annually;
(4) All visitor and employee parking, loading/unloading, and vehicular turn-around
areas shall be located [off street;] on-site;
[(5) The total area of spaces, including covered decks, lanais, tents or canopies, and
_ - - -- • . - . -
_ _ . _ -- ;]
6
(NI
• . -. .. . • .. .. - .-_. - _
• •• - . . . . . '« .. • ;1
(5) For major agricultural tourism operations, buses transporting fifteen or more
passengers shall be allowed,provided access to the major agricultural tourism
site is available from a State or County road, or upon approval of the planning
director;
[9)](6) Sales of agricultural products grown on the island of Hawaii,and
processed agricultural products where the main ingredient was grown on the
island of Hawai`i shall be allowed as part of the agricultural tourism operation.
Incidental sales of non-agricultural promotional items, including but not limited
to, coffee mugs, tee shirts, etc., shall be permitted provided:
(A) The items are specifically promotional to the site's agricultural activities
and/or product; and
(B) The gross revenues from the sale of non-agricultural promotional items
shall be included with the gross revenues from the agricultural tourism
activities;
[(Sj]CII Agricultural tourism in the A, FA, IA, and RA districts shall not include
weddings, parties, restaurants, schools, catered events, or overnight
accommodations, unless allowed by special permit or use permit; and
7
[(-94]) Annual events that promote an agricultural industry or agricultural area,
and organized on a not-for-profit basis,are permitted in the A,FA, IA, RA, and
APD districts without plan approval.
(e) Any agricultural tourism activity that is not in compliance with the regulations under
section 25-4-15(d)or appropriately permitted as provided by section 25-4-15(c) shall
be considered illegal under this chapter, unless otherwise noted herein.
(f) Any major agricultural tourism activity in the A, IA, FA, RA, or APD districts,
existing prior to the effective date of this section and conforming to the standards
contained in section 25-4-15(d) and that has not received plan approval, may continue
[ - . - I I _ - -• . - • . . -
• • . -- -- - - - •• - - • - = .] subject to providing
proof of compliance with this chapter.
(g) Any agricultural tourism activity in the A, IA, FA, RA, or APD districts, that does not
conform to the standards in section 25-4-15(d), and which has not previously received
a special permit or use permit for such activity, may continue such use until May 20,
2010, and, if an application for a special permit or a use permit has been received and
accepted by May 20, 2010, may continue such use until final action has been taken on
the application. After May 20, 2010, or denial of the application,whichever occurs
later,continued use shall be considered illegal under this chapter.
(h) Any agricultural tourism activity that is currently operated under a special permit may
continue to operate under the terms and conditions of the special permit, or apply to
void the special permit and,if the permit is voided, operate under the standards of
section 25-4-15(d).
(i) An agricultural tourism activity that [ ] becomes non-
compliant with the standards of section 25-4-15(d) because of an increase in the
number of visitors, shall apply for plan approval or a special permit, but may continue
to operate until a final decision is made on the plan approval or special permit
application.
(j) An agricultural tourism activity [ - - - - -_ -. . . . . . . : ] shall submit
financial records to the director on request to verify compliance and shall maintain a
count of visitors which shall be furnished to the director on request.
8
•
A 4
(k) The director may use observations of visitor arrivals, including bus traffic, in
estimating whether an agricultural tourism activity complies with section 25-4-
15(d)(3), and may require that an activity [allowed--with] be required to obtain plan
approval or apply for a special permit based on such observations. In that case,the
activity may continue until a final decision is made on the 1p an approval or special
permit."
SECTION 7. Material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New material is
underscored. In printing this ordinance, the brackets, bracketed material, and underscoring need
not be included.
SECTION 8. If any provision of this ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance, is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of
the ordinance, which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this
end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable.
SECTION 9. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval.
INTRODUCED BY:
COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII
, Hawai`i
Date of Introduction:
Date of 1st Reading:
Date of 2nd Reading:
Effective Date:
9
M �
Lf1 •
N
W
H
V m
O 00
F- r
ZW
W
V
W Z l�Il
Q O
V 0
Z -
H
ce 5 0 Q
• • Q Q
L■L IL = w �>.
N ~ <
Fammiaoie U" Ou� F Q Q l7 z 0 W , Q
z"
O
i•-• N Ov �_
.�. zzLE
-
Z O
W
N
k
CO■
di (N1
O
N
d)
N.--
43
•. V1
y.. >` ° s
..Q +� C
Q 'C to ca aJ 0
D " : in E
V1 +0,, 0 C i e. 0 4-0 LO u .-
�^
. 0 0 0 E W
0
Q 'L •L (0 L M 00 ° a 0- C vi
C10 'CB E CM 4- p E L
O u ° 0 0 O a, C
a)
� L E � a,
r" •01 73ra E `Oc Ci
-- Cu -p 3 •- >` V1 p > 0 u rs
'� IV ro— I- C .L +r cu LA -d N
L in O p 0 O ra 1- O -0 a
aJ
O•,u-„ +' C +°+ a` VUiC1 0 u
a 4.1 N C1 p 70 Q. p aJ u .L
D 'ra C 0
0 " -C rd .- 'g..1 .E la a.)cn Q c vi +' m N cu E � u C
y1 u ai L V_1 � 2
.L 2 O— 0 01 '�
am
13 E
CU C Vii 4='C . . u`a•' C D
in vi �^ 'C in 0
4-0 aJ 0 W a1 cu 3 C O �, C j. C 4,,,
'(5 '•tt$ > o- a) 0 6' a, O m o 2
.? C aJ a, Ca=+ 0 u � +. > — L L-It
N " i �° fl. alz sQ u
ta O ro ,� .� r� 0 E'O
L. 0 2 C 'C
ca "C3 0 " mac E of c (S " E ? �° `—° r�
L O c a 4" = o_•L E?` s'�- u �a ra o
Ci
{� C O'%� O1 � > >70 ++ O'C a) 01 V1
47_ }► 01 O C
E ° o +, al C a) ro
14. C71 di 0
NI
• •0
>
. Dc s '-u a) 0 0M Cv'u 04°-+ '- '
Z N Q. 00 ° t o'L 4- LAC E 'L0 Eo v- ,.
E i i. E 0 w 01 0 0 C — 0)C W 'C W y
..... a Q. Q. r0 Li- W r0 LS +•+ ra W r0 ru tX Q. CI Q.
—03
t
i 0 •
,
C
.
cry co
O
N
O
(1.3 > of
—-0 Qt To •7,
C.
N > O a)
vl N L r6 c tjl
C 4-) D° Q. (1)9 .... O
L- V v1 ... O
E N 12 o -o
o - 03 — E v
lJ ° _ (1) "4,
pn Z a) D O c
C 7= ±2 O r6
E 0°o a_ °�°
L ° CO
CO
0 Z o O 'a) a
O °- v
1 0 (DUC n3N
w 1-
Ln
Ce <
E aJ L -C O Q1 N
Z v o U a CO 0 m
0 W 0 . 0 � C71
Z 2 V re (n o c = .E. -0
a) ID 4--, O O c' -O
o a) a) f ra N (^
z 2 cr) E E C
C E ° 0
Z 0 O a) 0 E v,
U 0_ " C o a)
a C71 u - C
W _c .a ._ rn v
a) (13 =
all et
0 rB -0 _c
> Ol O 4_
4- CL) U 0