Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-06 TWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 20, 2003 A regularly advertised public hearing on the application of VERNE A. WOOD & MELODY LYNN WOOD (SPP NO. 870) was called to order at 9:09 a.m. in the County Building, Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Second Vice- Chairperson Hannah Springer presiding. PRESENT:Hannah SpringerABSENT & EXCUSED: Fred Galdones William Graham Earl Fujikawa Florence Kubota Francis Smith Jeffrey McCall Aurelio Mina, Jr. Bill Thibadeau Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Roy Takemoto, Deputy Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And 3 people from the public in attendance APPLICANTS: VERNE A. WOOD AND MELODY LYNN WOOD (SSP NO. 870) Continued hearing on the request to amend Special Permit No. 870 by including the adjoining one-acre parcel of land, and to amend Condition No. 4 (complete construction) for the establishment of the Orchidland Trade Center in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The request is to also amend Condition No. 8 by increasing the hours of operation from "daylight hours" to "6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m." and to allow the addition of "food service uses." The properties are located in Orchidland Estates Subdivision at the th northwest corner of Orchidland Drive and 34 Street, approximately 1,600 feet west (mauka) of Keaau-Pahoa Road, in the vicinity of the Orchidland W Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-6-10:82 and 83. SPRINGER:The first item of business regards Applicant Verne A. W Melody Lynn Wood (SSP No. 870). ItÓs a continued hearing on the request to amend Special Permit No. 870 by including the adjoining one-acre parcel of land, and to amend Condition No. 4 (complete construction) for the establishment of the Orchidland Trade Center in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The request is to also amend Condition No. 8 by increasing the hours of operation from Ðdaylight hoursÑ to Ð6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.Ñ and to allow the addition of Ðfood service uses.Ñ The properties are located th in Orchidland Estates Subdivision at the northwest corner of Orchidland Drive and 34 Street, approximately 1,600 feet west (mauka) of Keaau-Pahoa Road, in the vicinity of the Orchidland Wiki Wiki Mart, Keaau, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-6-10:82 and 83. Norman? 1 HAYASHI:Thank you, Madam Chair. Before we go into the actual he portion, as you would recall there were two individuals that, or parties that requested or filed a Petition for Standing. One was Michael and Kimberly Lacates and the second was Orchidland GulsonÓs LLC. On, I believe it was July 19, 2002 the Commission granted standing to these individuals. However, on October 26, 2002, both parties requested that they be allowed to withdraw their Petition for Standing. So, at this point in time, itÓs, I think, in order for the Commission to act on the request for withdrawal. SPRINGER:Thank you, Norman. Can you continue with your presentation now, then? HAYASHI:Yes. With that, as you recall at the last meeting in Hilo, we had requested that this application be continued. And the reason for that was that in reviewing the petition that was submitted or amended request that was submitted by the Applicant, they also requested that the Condition 8 be amended. And Condition 8 was basically to, well, currently, Condition 8 states that the operation of this, the uses within this facility would be limited to daylight hours. And the Applicant is requesting that the operation begin, or the facility be, the uses within this facility begin at 6:00 a.m. up until 9:00 p.m. in the evening. And, secondly, in that Condition 8, it also restricts, or it was granted with certain uses allowed. One of the uses that theyÓre proposing is a restaurant or food service uses, and that was not included in the original request; therefore, the Applicant is requesting that those food service uses be also be part of this particular permit. Also, at the last meeting, there was an individual that spoke, one of the adjoining property owners, who indicated that there was some, excuse me, some grubbing activity that occurred on the subject property. We went back after that meeting and checked with the Department of Public Works as to whether a grubbing permit or gr issued for that particular property. We were informed that no grading permit was, or grubbing permit was issued. However, it could have been that the individual -. I mean, the grubbing was consisting of less than one acre; therefore, no grubbing permit would be required. A subsequent site inspection by the staff verified that the entire property was not grubbed. The perimeter boundary of the property was still in its native vegetative state. Therefore, on that basis, we did not further pursue the issue. SPRINGER:Thank you, Norman. HAYASHI:And that concludes the staffÓs report, unless you have any questions. SPRINGER:Commissioners, do you have any questions for Mr. Hayashi? Commissioner Kubota? 2 KUBOTA:Mr. Hayashi, is there a, the request for withdrawal, the request is somewhere that I missed? HAYASHI:Yes. These were letters that were submitted back in October, and those are letters that we had received, are on file; and it was previously presented to you, I guess, back in 2002. KUBOTA:Okay. So somewhere in my file I should have had the request for withdrawal? HAYASHI:That is correct. KUBOTA:Thank you. SPRINGER:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Norman, I just want to know, what physically is there now. This original permit was granted back in the Ò90s and all. What is the parcel like right now? HAYASHI:Okay. As a matter of orientation, this is Orchidland Drive. This is th 34 Street, Pahoa. This is, I guess, itÓs upside down. This would be Highway 130, which is Pahoa, the Keaau-Pahoa Road. So the subject property is right here. Currently, on the property, on the lower portion of the property, there is an existing single-family dwelling. The remainder of the property, which consists of two lots, are vacant. GRAHAM:Thank you. SPRINGER:Any other Commissioners have any questions of staff at this time? Norman, I have a question. On the July 19, 2002 testimony to th Planning Commission by Miya, PaÓu, last name, there are a number of conditions, A, B, C, D, E, that that testifier recommended pursuant to a motion unanimously passed by the Board of Directors of the Orchidland Community Association. Has there been any follow-up on those, that request by the association? HAYASHI:I wasnÓt aware of that correspondence. SPRINGER:Okay. ItÓs dated July 19, 2002 and it was distributed to us at the th July 19 meeting, just in case that helps. Thank you. Members, if you have no further questions of the staff, I would like to invite the Applicant or their representative and all those who signed up to testify on this matter. And I have two individuals, Johnalyn Hanohano and Greg Gadd. If you could all please rise and raise your right hands, including the Applicant and their representative? GADD:Yes, heÓs here. SPRINGER:Okay. And Greg Gadd? 3 GADD:IÓm Greg Gadd. SPRINGER:And the Applicant is not here? GADD:IÓm his representative. SPRINGER:Oh, okay. Thank you. If you could all raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm or tell the truth on this matter now before the HawaiÒi County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. SPRINGER:Thank you. Please be seated. And, Mr. Gadd, if youÓre the representative, if you could come forward, please. Thank you, Mr. Gadd, if you could just take a seat at the table before a microphone. And please speak into the microphone so that our records are clear. GADD:I donÓt have anything prepared to say but IÓm prepared to answer questions. SPRINGER:Okay. Well, I do have a question for you. Did you receive the Planning DepartmentÓs Background Report and Recommendation? GADD:Yes, I did. SPRINGER:Do you have any comments to make on the Background Repo Recommendations? GADD:No, I donÓt. SPRINGER:Okay. If I understand the Applicant correctly, Commissioners, he sits ready to field any questions from us. So, Commissioners, do you have any questions of the ApplicantÓs representative, Greg Gadd? Commissioner Grah GRAHAM:IÓm not familiar with the parcel or history Òcause IÓm ne Commission but the fact that the permit was granted a number of years ago. But, from what Norman said, nothing has really transpired; and now the permit is being extended, or expanded, or whatever, seems a little odd. Could you give us GADD:Yeah, at that time, the economy took a downturn and it just wasnÓt economically feasible to proceed. And now the economy is in an more sense to proceed with the project such as this, and thereÓs a larger population base in the area now, more people have moved into the area. 4 GRAHAM:So, at this point, there are plans, specific plans, that have really moved forward in a short time or not? GADD:Yes. I think the recommendation is to complete constructio within two years; and thatÓs the intent. GRAHAM:ThatÓs the intention. Thank you. SPRINGER:Any other Commissioner have questions of Mr. Gadd? Commissioner Mina? MINA:None. SPRINGER:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:No questions. SPRINGER:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:No questions. SPRINGER:Thank you, then. At this time, IÓd like to invite Johnalyn Hanohano to the table. Please take a seat in front of the other microphone, and speak into microphone so we can pick up your testimony. Could you please state your name, your resident address and speak directly into the mike. th HANOHANO:My name is Johnalyn Hanohano and my residence is 16-167 Street, Orchidland Drive. SPRINGER:Thank you. You may begin your testimony. HANOHANO:My husband and I have, I guess, questions regarding this project because it is adjacent to our property. WeÓre in full for growth but we have some concerns, especially living there for 20 years. When Wiki-Wiki came into Orchidland, it increased traffic, which is now a problem leaving Orchidland Drive onto Highway 130. With this new project coming in, what will that do to it? And i there be, you know, traffic signals, number one? And we have, weÓre on agricultural lot because we raise pigs and -. Now is this, what our question is, is this whole, is this property or this project going to be commercial or what will that do to the properties that are there now? And the operation I understand is from, going to be like six in the morning till nine at night. Right now with Wiki-Wiki there and the gas station, it shuts down at eleven or whatever. But there is a lot of loitering and a lot of trash, which I can personally say that I help to clean up in that area. And because weÓre very close to the Orchidland Drive, it 5 gets, I mean, even after hours or shut down, you still have the loitering and excessive trash in that area. And the fencing property, when you, if this property is going to be fenced, how high is the fence and what is that going to do to the animals that we raise now? These are the concerns that we have. And how can that be to protect us? ÒCause weÓve already, weÓve been there for this length of time. SPRINGER:Thank you, Ms. Hanohano. At this time, IÓd like to ask the staff if they have any comments, first of all, with regard to Ms. HanohanoÓs questions regarding the increase in traffic flow. Commissioners, youÓll see that there is a traffic impact assessment included in our packet. Norman, can you explain the ramifications of this regarding Ms. HanohanoÓs question? HAYASHI:Yes. Regarding the traffic issue, a traffic impact report was submitted by the Applicant, and that was sent to both the Department of Public Works and the State Department of Transportation for their review; and, basically, both agencies stated that they had no objections to the subject request. And as far as the State Department of Transportation, they indicated that the proposed change to the Special Permit is not anticipated to have any significant impact on the State highway system. With regard to the, as Ms. Hanohano had indicated, they are operating a piggery on their property. And as far as whether that would, the piggery would still be able to exist. This particular property, your property would still remain within the State Land Use Agricultural District. So that is a permitted use within that, on your property. So, basically, the granting of this Special Permit would not necessarily impact your piggery, as far as whether you can use it, continue to use it or not. And, thirdly, regarding the hours of operation, I guess, this is a request that the Applicant is, ApplicantÓs request to change the hours of operation from daylight hours to 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., so perhaps that question could be better directed to the ApplicantÓs representative. I just noticed on the staffÓs Background Report, there is a typo, typographical error on, regarding the hours of operation. It says, and this is only on the Background Report, it says 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. So that should be 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 SPRINGER:Thank you, Norman. Mr. Gadd, can you respond to the qu Ms. Hanohano, please? GADD:As far as the request for hours of operation, I think that daylight time is kind of unreasonable because it changes. And it would be hard to, you know, tell a business that they have to close earlier in the winter than they do in the summer; and this is two hours earlier than Wiki-Wiki, which is just a few hundred feet away closest. And as far as the fence, IÓm not sure what kind of fence we would put, but a fence would 6 need a building permit. And we would try to do something that would be unobtrusive or, weÓll try to work with you, you know. SPRINGER:Ms. Hanohano? HANOHANO:Okay. Our concern, itÓs not so much that, business hou fine. I mean, even if, like Wiki-Wiki goes to eleven. My concern with, is kids are going to start to loiter more. They already loiter at Wiki-Wiki store. And having other businesses there is going to just increase the loitering area. And being at a property adjacent to this when, if youÓve had yourself burglarized, then you become fearful; and weÓve had that three times. So this is where our concern is with being a fence being put up. And IÓm sure, is this going to have, property, this is going to have a waterline brought in or is it going to be like catchment tank like Wiki-WikiÓs right now? Because -. SPRINGER:Thank you, Ms. Hanohano. Roy, do you have any comments regarding these questions posed by the, Ms. Hanohano, the neighbor, to this property? Some of these questions seem beyond the scope of the hearing this morning, but could you offer some guidance? TAKEMOTOAs far as your -. SPRINGER:The loitering and littering. TAKEMOTO:Well, the loitering, IÓm not sure what kind of mitigation measures we could put. Were you thinking of security, having security there or -? GADD:We didnÓt really address that. I donÓt, we would try to discourage loitering, but I, here -. TAKEMOTO:I think a fence would be a minimum -. Are you proposing a fence? GADD:Right. Yeah, a fence would be a good idea. TAKEMOTO:Okay. As far as a building permit for a fence, if the fence is under six feet -. GADD:Over four feet, I believe -. HAYASHI:As far as a building permit, if itÓs a chain-linked fenc up to eight feet without a building permit. If itÓs a regular fence, like a wall, you can go only up to six feet; otherwise, you need to get a building permit for that. TAKEMOTO:Would a fence suffice or would you -? 7 HANOHANO:IÓm sure that would be good. ItÓs just a concern. Because weÓve been in a situation of being burglarized, so it becomes fearful, so the red light, the red flags go up, yeah? SPRINGER:Thank you, Ms. Hanohano. Do you have anything more to to us for us to consider? HANOHANO:No, I just was also, regarding, is there going to be a waterline access onto this business and would the adjacent properties be able to work towards that as well? That was the only other thing. SPRINGER:Okay. Thank you. Norman, IÓm looking at page 6 of the Background Report, Item 25. Would you care to comment on that f HAYASHI:Yes. Basically, the Applicant had indicated that they would hook up to the waterline, CountyÓs waterline from the Highway 130. HANOHANO:Correct. HAYASHI:So the line will be drawn. So, I guess, at some point i may be able to tap on, depending on what arrangements would be with the Department of Water Supply and the Applicant. HANOHANO:That answers me. Thank you very much. SPRINGER:Thank you, Ms. Hanohano. Mr. Gadd, do you have anything more to add? GADD:Not at this time. SPRINGER:Commissioners, are there any questions that you might have? THIBADEAU:Madam Chair. SPRINGER:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Norman, can you show us where this property is? HAYASHI:Okay. I was going to ask Ms. Hanohano the same question because we did go out again to the subject property yesterday to see where the piggery was and we couldnÓt find -. HANOHANO:ItÓs not really a large piggery. We only have six of them. But itÓs the property to the -. SPRINGER:IÓm sorry, Ms. Hanohano -. 8 HAYASHI:Would you like to come up and show us where your property is? SPRINGER:Since we have this question, can you come forward and please speak into the microphone. Sorry, I excused you. th HANOHANO:Okay. WeÓre on 34. So this is upside down, so we would be, this would be right on the, letÓs see, my property is here. ItÓll be, itÓll be to the right of me th on -. LetÓs see, this is Orchidland Drive, this is, okay, 34 is right here. Okay, this is upside down. Okay, so IÓm right here, so itÓs going to be right to the side of me. HAYASHI:Across the road? th HANOHANO:No, my, 34 runs this way, so my property is here. ItÓs going to run to the side of my property. So itÓll be on, we would have boundaries, weÓre sharing the same boundary. Does that make sense? SPRINGER:Thank you, Ms. Hanohano. Does that answer your questio Commissioner? THIBADEAU:Yes. KUBOTA:Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:I have a question about the TIAR. The summary for this area on page, well, I guess, itÓs the last page of the TIAR. SPRINGER:Yes? KUBOTA:In No. 4, on the summary and conclusions, it speaks to the analysis that determined that a traffic signal is warranted for existing conditions. Now, who is responsible, if it is warranted? ItÓs now not there. And this had to do with, they reported that this project had nothing to do with warranting the need for a traffic signal. ItÓs prior to this project that itÓs needed. Now, who is responsible for putting up something like that? SPRINGER:Thank you, Mrs. Kubota. Mr. Deputy? TAKEMOTO:This is a State highway. So unless the State or someone had imposed a condition on someone else to put up the traffic signal, any kind of remedy to existing situations would be the State Department of Transportation. And IÓm not aware of any actual impact fee or anything collected for the purposes of a traffic signal there. KUBOTA:So thereÓs nothing in progress is what youÓre saying actually? 9 TAKEMOTO:Yeah, right. I donÓt think so. Unless, Norman, youÓve heard of any -? HAYASHI:No, thereÓs nothing in progress right now. But there is an existing Condition No. 7 of this particular permit, not related, necessarily relating to the signalization but it does require that channelization, I mean, not signalization, but traffic lights. But it does state that, and IÓll quote, ÐChannelization, signalization and street lighting improvements to the intersection of Highway 130,Ñ which is the Keaau-Pahoa Road, Ðand Orchidland Drive shall be provided by the applicants if required by the Department of Transportation, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion of the proposed development.Ñ So that basically addresses some of the intersection improvement conditions, although it doesnÓt talk about having a traffic light at that intersection. SPRINGER:I have a question of any of our resource people here. Given the concerns presented by the testifier, given the Conclusion No. 4 as part of the Traffic Impact Analysis, how does the County have the opportunity or does the County have the opportunity to influence the Department of Transportation? TAKEMOTO:As far as putting traffic signals? SPRINGER:Yes. TAKEMOTO:We can, we always, in an annual basis, we discuss with the State Department on capital improvement projects. So at those moments we can bring this up. But weÓre also engaged in a Regional Puna Traffic Circulation Plan, at which time this could also be addressed. And the DOT also has a contract to study this Keaau-Pahoa Highway, what improvements are needed for the long term, so thatÓs another opportunity. SPRINGER:Thank you, Roy. My purpose for asking that was to signal to the testifier who came forward that this is an issue that appears on the record, both in your testimony and, also, in the Traffic Impact Assessment Report that was prepared for this application. So youÓre on record. And I think we can continue on with this application as itÓs presented to us now. Roy, with regard, also, to some comments made by the testifier, would it be appropriate to make an additional condition or recommend an additional condition regarding the fencing? TAKEMOTO:Yeah, that would be one that I would suggest to the Commissioners, that we add a condition that the Applicant provide a security fence along the perimeter boundaries. SPRINGER:And where might be -? 10 TAKEMOTO:Well, not in exact wording. It would be the perimeter boundaries that they share with a neighbor. So those that donÓt front the road, you wouldnÓt need a fence. SPRINGER:And where should we insert that, Roy? TAKEMOTO:Maybe right after 9 Òcause 10 and beyond becomes, are more on general kind of conditions. SPRINGER:So weÓre recommending a new 9 -? TAKEMOTO:A new 10. KUBOTA:Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Would you look at the new number 7. It might be appropriate to stick it in there, the renumbered 7. SPRINGER:Mrs. Kubota, are you suggesting an addition to Condition 7? KUBOTA:Yes, instead of adding a new condition. Is that what was formerly suggested? SPRINGER:ThatÓs what Mr. Takemoto suggested. KUBOTA:Yes. I think it would fit into the new 7. SPRINGER:Norman, you look like youÓre poised, ready to help us o HAYASHI:Yeah, the new, as you noticed we are recommending the nu changes. And the new 7 basically deals with traffic. KUBOTAA:The new 7? HAYASHI:Yeah, if you look at page 3, it was formerly Condition N now itÓs new Condition No. 7, so that would basically be traffic. So I think it would be appropriate to include a new condition; and I think where the Deputy Director had recommended would be appropriate. Then that would be, now, a new Condition 10; and Condition 9, which was proposed to be Condition 10, would become SPRINGER:Thank you. Have we had time to compose some language o or should we just give a summary of what will be in it and then rely upon staff to provide that, and we can move on with this matter? 11 TAKEMOTO:If we can do the latter. SPRINGER:Okay. Commissioners, do you have any objections to that course of action? KUBOTA:Madam Chair, just for clarification -? SPRINGER:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:WeÓre adding a new 10? SPRINGER:ThatÓs correct. KUBOTA:And renumbering the subsequent conditions? SPRINGER:ThatÓs correct. And, Mr. Takemoto, could you please give us the, not necessarily the exact language but the specifications of the new No. 10? TAKEMOTO:Unless, Norman -. HAYASHI:Yeah, I think I can give you a proposed condition, ÐThe Applicant shall provide a security fence along the perimeter boundary with the,Ñ and we can identify the tax map key which should be Ms. HanohanoÓs property. And I think that was the wording that the Deputy had indicated, and not necessarily to fence the entire property. Is that correct? TAKEMOTO:Yeah. There is another neighbor, though, yeah, another, two neighbors, huh? GADD:Yeah, thereÓs two neighbors. HAYASHI:I think to take into consideration all the adjacent property owners, perhaps we could say that ÐThe Applicant shall provide a security fence along the perimeter boundary of its property,Ñ and that would encompass the entire property. SPRINGER:Mr. Gadd, do you have any comments on -? GADD:What do we mean by Ðsecurity fence?Ñ TAKEMOTO:A chain-linked fence that -. GADD:Just 8 feet tall? TAKEMOTO:Eight feet, yeah. Security was just to qualify what the purpose of this requirement was. 12 GADD:So itÓs not going to be specified what type of fence? Perhaps a rock wall might be more aesthetic or -. SPRINGER:Just for a clarification, could we go over the specifics again of this condition? TAKEMOTO:Okay. I wasnÓt clear on the perimeter. So we would just put the fence -? GADD:But it would be preferable to have it at our option if we wanted to go along two properties but, you know, weÓre willing to accommodate whatever the committee feels. TAKEMOTO:Say that again. GADD:You didnÓt hear it? TAKEMOTO:No. GADD:It would be preferable to have the fence just along Mrs. HanohanoÓs property. But if the Commission feels that itÓs preferable to have it along both properties, itÓs acceptable. SPRINGER:If I may, I think that having it around on the three boundary lines that are shared with neighbors would be preferable. Because if it was just a single fence along ÐaÑ property line, the testifierÓs concerns would not necessarily be met because people could just go around that opened end of fencing. GADD:I think thereÓs an intent to define the boundaries to some extent but I just donÓt know what type of fencing we would like. So, you know, if weÓre being asked to construct a certain type of fence, it might be better if we had the option to maybe have a rock wall on one side and a chain link on the other. Or how would we distinguish what type of fence to put? HAYASHI:I think we can make that determination at the time of Plan Approval review. GADD:Okay. SPRINGER:Is that acceptable, Mr. Gadd? GADD:Yes. SPRINGER:So, Commissioners, are there any questions about where we are so far on this fencing condition? 13 TAKEMOTO:So weÓre going on two sides, right? HAYASHI:Yeah. TAKEMOTO:Not along the road frontage. Okay. SPRINGER:Commissioners, are there any more questions? Clarification, is there a road frontage on two sides of the property? GADD:Yes. SPRINGER:And there are shared boundaries with neighbors on two sides of the property. GADD:Correct. SPRINGER:So, Norman, could you point out for us where the fencing would go? HAYASHI:It would go in the back here of the property and on this side of the property. SPRINGER:And, Norman, could you point out where thereÓs a highway frontage? th HAYASHI;Highway frontage, this is Orchidland Drive and this is 34 Street. SPRINGER:Thank you, Norman. Commissioners, any more questions of staff? Mrs. Kubota or the Applicant? KUBOTA:IÓm totally confused. I thought Mrs. Hanohano said she was th sharing the boundary on 34 Street to the right of her property. And if it we put a security fence on the sides that Norman pointed out, arenÓt we leaving out Mrs. HanohanoÓs property, the adjoining lot? HAYASHI:SheÓs on this side of -. IsnÓt that correct, Ms. Hanohano? HANOHANO:Yes, thatÓs correct. HAYASHI:Yeah. KUBOTA:Oh, sheÓs on that side, not on the -. HAYASHI:Yeah. th KUBOTA:I thought she pointed out the opposite side of 34 Street? 14 th HAYASHI:YouÓre not across 34 Street, are you? HANOHANO:No. HAYASHI:Okay. KUBOTA:Oh, okay. As long weÓre accomplishing what weÓre setting do. SPRINGER:Mrs. Kubota, I think that there may have been confusion if she th described her property as having been on 34 Street, perhaps. KUBOTA:Yes. th HAYASHI:I guess, basically, what it is is that 34 Street would extend here and her property -. KUBOTA:I have it, okay. SPRINGER:Thanks, Norman. Mrs. Kubota? KUBOTA:Yes. So now are we saying that the purpose of this construction to be, is for security purposes and that we are not limiting them to be a specific type, the Applicant to a specific kind of security fencing but weÓre leaving that aspect open? Are we saying that? SPRINGER:The condition, as I understand it, that is being proposed is silent on the type of fencing; and that will be discussed between the Applicant and the Director at the time of Plan Approval. KUBOTA:So, do we, excuse me, may I cut in? SPRINGER:Yes, maÓam. KUBOTA:And I also in the motion, we talked about perimeter boundaries. Would that suffice or do I need to say southeast, southwest, northern side of the, or tax map key -? Do I need all of that information or can I just say security fencing along the perimeter boundary of the project? HAYASHI:We can identify by tax map key. And right now we donÓt that tax map key identification, but we can include that in the letter that goes out that would be signed by the Chair. SPRINGER:Okay. And, members and Mr. Gadd, at this time weÓre still discussing the possibility of inserting this new condition. It has not yet been brought to 15 us for a vote, weÓre still in discussion on the matter. And I b Graham may have some comments or questions. GRAHAM:Actually, my comment was on the application but not on that particular matter. So if weÓre still going on that, I should wa SPRINGER:If you could. I understand that we do have an additional member of the audience who has signed up to testify, and thatÓs Ron Terry, and his comments are particularly germane to this issue before us. So if the Commissioners have no objections, IÓd like to invite Ron Terry to come to us and come to the table, to the microphone, if you would, please. And, Mr. Terry, could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the HawaiÒi County Planning Commission? TERRY:Yes, I do. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Terry, could you please provide your name, your resident address and proceed? TERRY:Ron Terry, HC2, Box 9575, Keaau, Hawaii 96749. Thank you this late opportunity to provide testimony. As you know, IÓve been here before on this matter supporting Mr. Wood as a member of the community. I think itÓs a very good idea. I think all my comments germane to that are already on the record and, although there are new Commissioners here, I think, were shared by other testifiers at that same hearing. And I think youÓre aware how badly we need commercial services in Puna, so I will drop that. Regarding the fence, I was just concerned; and it sounds like it has been resolved here that we do not require a security fence around the entire parcel. Chain-linked fences that are eight feet high in the road frontages are really not an attractive option and should only be put in places that require security. Like maybe a mini store I can see why you have to have a fence around it. But I would strongly hope that the Commission would consider the aesthetics of that and refrain from requiring that. On the boundaries of the parcel, I think thatÓs a fine, a great idea. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Terry. Commissioners, are there any further questions? Now, weÓve had this, weÓve been having discussion -. Mr. Terry. WeÓve been discussing the possibility of inserting a new Condition 10 to the conditions of approval for this application. Is there any further discussion on that matter of a new No. 10? Are any of us prepared to make a motion regard condition? KUBOTA:Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Mrs. Kubota? 16 KUBOTA:I move that we add a new Condition No. 10 regarding secur fencing; and IÓll just leave it as, leave the specific language to the staff. But in its intent it is providing a security fencing along the shared perimeter boundary of this project site; and thatÓs it. SPRINGER:Is there a second? MCCALL:Second. SPRINGER:Thank you. Discussion? Ms. Kubota, I understood that you were making a motion to insert a new Condition 10 -. KUBOTA:No. 10, yes. SPRINGER:To the conditions of approval for the application. Is that correct? KUBOTA:Yes. I did not say that? TORIGOE:No, I just want to just clarify procedurally because, you know, whatÓs before you is the approval of these amendments. So what youÓre saying, basically is, at this point, is just that you want to add to the recommendation an amendment? KUBOTA:Yes, I am saying that I want a new No. 10 which refers to the security fencing be added to the conditions of approval, at this point. TORIGOE:Okay. So youÓre not really, youÓre not taking any action on the actual application to amend the permit right now? SPRINGER:Not yet? KUBOTA:Not yet. TORIGOE:Okay. KUBOTA:Is that permissible? TORIGOE:I guess you can do that. I mean, basically, what youÓre doing, though, is just, youÓre making a suggestion that the Commission ultimately consider approval with that new condition, right? KUBOTA:Come again? TORIGOE:Ultimately, well, the action youÓre taking is, the actions that you take are not really to amend the recommendation. ThatÓs not what you do here, right? You ultimately take action on the recommendation either to approve it as is, approve it 17 with some changes, or to deny it. And, so, you know, itÓs really not part of your official action to really to amend the recommendation. KUBOTA:No, at this point. Mr. Corp. Counsel, is there a better way to handle on this? I just made the motion because it was asked for my motion. HAYASHI:Maybe the simplest way is to vote on the amended request and, also, to add Condition 10. With that, if I may, at this point in time, and IÓll go over the proposed, the conditions and the changes that the staff is recommending and, also, the retention of existing conditions. So if you look at, starting from page 2 of the staffÓs recommendation, No. 1 and 2 remains the same. SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Because the Applicant is requesting the addition of that one acre, we are recommending a new Condition 3, which would basically state that these two parcels will be consolidated. Existing No. 3 becomes No. 4. Existing No. 4, relating to the time extension that they had requested, becomes Condition 5. And, basically, weÓre saying that the construction has to be completed by, within four years from the effective date of this amendment. So that would take it to 1997, if this application, I mean, IÓm sorry, 2007, if this part approved today. No. 5 becomes No. 6. No. 6 becomes No. 7. No. 7 becomes No. 8. No. 8, which is the hours of operation as well as the types of uses that would be allowed under this particular permit, would become No. 9. We would have a new No. 10, which would include the, which would be the security fencing condition. No. 9, existing No. 9 would become Condition No. 11. Existing Condition No. 10 would be No. 12. And No. 11 would be No. 13. Are there any questions regarding the -? 18 SPRINGER:Commissioners? KUBOTA:That seems very logical, Madam Chair, to do it that way. SPRINGER:Thank you. And I apologize for my contribution to the confusion. KUBOTA:Is it necessary for me to rescind? SPRINGER:Withdraw your motion -. KUBOTA:Withdraw. SPRINGER:It was not seconded. KUBOTA:It was. MCCALL:I did. SPRINGER:IÓm sorry, IÓm sorry. Commissioner McCall. TORIGOE:I guess, at this point, if you want to withdraw, then Mr. McCall would concur; and if thereÓs no objection, then, consider it withdrawn on the record. SPRINGER:Thank you. TORIGOE:Also, thereÓs the matter of the contested cases that you should dispose of first. SPRINGER:Yes. Mr. Torigoe has drawn to my attention that although we were informed of the parties who had requested standing in the contested case to withdraw, we need to accept their withdrawal. So, Ivan, does that need to be in the form of a motion? TORIGOE:Yeah, why donÓt you just -. I think, usually, you, just record have a motion to accept the withdrawal, and you can do that by voice vote. SPRINGER:Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Torigoe. Members, may I hav motion then to accept withdrawal of the applicants for a contested case. Norman, could you remind us of the names of those individuals who had applied? HAYASHI:Yes. The two individuals or parties that were granted standing by the Commission were Michael and Kimberly Lecates, if IÓm pronoun and the second is Orchidland GulsonÓs LLC. KUBOTA:What? 19 HAYASHI:Orchidland -. KUBOTA:No, the other one. HAYASHI:Oh, L-e-c-a-t-e-s. ThatÓs Michael and Kimberly L-e-c-a-t-e-s. KUBOTA:Lecates. HAYASHI:Lecates. KUBOTA:YouÓre waiting? SPRINGER:IÓm waiting. Yes, MaÓam. KUBOTA:Oh, IÓm sorry. SPRINGER:No, no, no. I assumed that you were collecting your thoughts, preparing to make the motion. KUBOTA:No, IÓm not collecting my thoughts. I was waiting for so to say something. Madam Chair, I move that the request submitte Kimberly Lecates and Orchidland GulsonÓs LLC, their request to withdraw standing, be accepted. MINA:Second. SPRINGER:Thank you. Moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded by Commissioner Mina that this HawaiÒi County Planning Commission accept the withdrawal of Michael and Kimberly Lecates and Orchidland GulsonÓs, LLC from a contested case on this matter. All those Commissioners in favor of doing so, say aye. COMMISSIONERS:Aye. SPRINGER:Any opposed? Thank you. That motion carries. And, no can move back to discussion of this request to amend Special Permit No. 870. Commissioners, is there any more discussion on this matter? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I had a more broad issue that I want to bring up about -. Essentially when we read the Statutes that we were given as part of our materials that this is part of, which is 205 and is authorized by Hawaii Revised Statutes 205-6, it authorizes the use of special permits for purposes like we had today, non-agricultural uses in the Agricultural District. I worry that this will generate zoning piecemeal by doing this kind of permit. And I noticed in our material that we, where we had listed HRS 205, thereÓs an Attorney General opinion which says, ÐSpecial Permits cannot be granted to authorize uses which have the effect of making boundary change or creating new districts.Ñ So it seems like weÓre sort of creating a little urban area there with 20 somewhat already a done deed by the Wiki-Wiki, and by the prior permit, and all that. I guess, I just wanted to bring it up to the Planning Department about how they are viewing, and we have, how they are viewing special permits like this which effectively bring an urban use into an area, which may desire permitted uses but are circumventing the normal process where you would have a boundary change and a rezoning. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Graham. Are you looking for a comment f department or are you just entering that into the record? GRAHAM:IÓm, no, IÓm looking for a comment basically because I am know, part of many special permit hearings, and I know following one on our agenda, also seems to address this issue. So IÓm wondering how, since the Planning Department is recommending approvals, I wonder how they are making this kind of discretionary judgment that it is appropriate to do such things with a special permit. SPRINGER:Thank you. IÓm going to turn to you, Mr. Deputy Director. TAKEMOTO:You raise a very important issue that actually went up to Supreme Court for an actual larger-scale project on when a special permit versus a boundary amendment is more appropriate. As far as the way we look at it, itÓs, if a use is permitted in another district that raises a flag already, like this commercial use, obviously, is a permitted use in a commercial zone district. There are other sp are not specified as a permitted use in any district; and thatÓs where itÓs pretty clear that a special permit may be appropriate because itÓs an unusual use. But in a situation like this where it is covered, itÓs a real judgment call. And where itÓs advantageous to go with a Special Permit is a Special Permit you can customize and put conditions specific to the uses proposed. Whereas, if we do a boundary amendment and rezoning, it opens the door to the broad range of uses permitted within that zone. And, so, thatÓs the judgment call we make in a lot of these cases. Norman, you have anything you HAYASHI:No, the only thing I wanted to add is as part of the General Plan Revision Program, this is one of the areas that weÓre proposing that it be considered for medium density urban development or urban type uses. So I think itÓs something that weÓve thought about for a long time and are making the necessary adjustments by recommending that this area be changed to, for urban type uses. GRAHAM:Thank you. Norman, one more follow up on that last thing then -. I know this General Plan has been running for a long time, and I donÓt know exactly whatÓs holding it at the moment, but itÓs certainly appropriate what you say. IÓm just wondering, are the General Plan changes to the urban uses at this particular location, and other locations, have they been controversial parts of the General Plan amendment that youÓre proposing for the revision? HAYASHI:No. I think weÓve had support for this type of designations in the lower Puna area, including those within the Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision that weÓre proposing, also, being designated for medium density or industrial uses. 21 GRAHAM:Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you, Members. Are we, is there any further discussion or are we ready to get into the application before us? IÓd just like to get or offer clarification on the new Condition 10. IÓd like to make clear that the fence be an 8-foot chain-linked fence or of comparable security effect. GADD:Ms. Chairman, maybe we could specify the height, that might address that. SPRINGER:Eight feet? GADD:Yeah. And then that would solve that, I think. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Gadd. Members, are we ready to hear a m KUBOTA:Madam Chair, was your verbiage to be included as a stated condition? I thought the type of fencing was to be negotiated at the time of final permitting? SPRINGER:Eight-foot chain link or of comparable security effect. KUBOTA:ThatÓs to be included, and itÓs what the Applicant is requesting? I thought the ApplicantÓs representative wanted it left up to them because they might choose -. SPRINGER:A rock wall? KUBOTA:A rock wall. SPRINGER:If it offers the comparable security effect. GRAHAM:That was my understanding, the same as Ms. Kubota, that t decision would come at the time of Plan Approval, that offers to the adjoining parcel an appropriate security fence, determined at the time of plan approval, and the height requirement. SPRINGER:Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:Yeah, I just, as I hear this discussion, it seems that it would be good to give the Planning Director some guidance as to the type of fence that you envision. You know, if you leave without any kind of specification then, you know, there could be disagreements between the Planning Director and the Applicant later as to how tall this fence should be or what kind of fence it should be. So, I guess, minimally, I would suggest that the height be specified. 22 GRAHAM:With that, I certainly would go along with that wording. SPRINGER:Thank you. GADD:Should we specify that it does not include the perimeter bordering the road? Should that be specific? SPRINGER:I thought that that was made clear. HAYASHI:Yes, itÓs going to be along the adjoining property lines and not along the roadway. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Gadd, for that. ItÓs always good to make sure that we are clear before we move forward, so thank you for bringing t attention. Is there any other thing that needs clarifying at this time? HAYASHI:I just would like to point out one thing. If you go on something other than a security fence, a chain-linked fence, and if the height is 8 feet, if thatÓs the height limit that youÓre imposing, then that would require, if a stone wall were to be constructed, they would have to obtain a building permit that would, and that would be considered a structure. A structure would have to be setback ÐxÑ number of feet from the property line. So, along the, both of these adjoining properties would be side property lines, so you would be required to set back 20 feet from the property line. An 8-foot high chain-linked fence would be allowed to go on the property. SPRINGER:Mr. Gadd? GADD:I have a question. Can the buildings go right along the property line? And, if they can, thereÓs no need for a fence there. HAYASHI:The buildings would not be able to be placed at the property line. You would still need to set back. The minimum setback would be 30 feet along the roadway frontages and 20 feet along the side property lines. SPRINGER:Does that give you better clarification of -? GADD:Yeah. I knew in commercial sometimes you could build right along the property lines, but -. HAYASHI:Yeah, those are within the commercial zoned properties. GADD:Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you. Members, any further discussion? Mrs. Kubota? 23 KUBOTA:IÓm going to give it a try, Madam Chair. SPRINGER:Thank you. KUBOTA:I move that Special Permit No. 870, which requests the amendment to include the adjoining one-acre parcel and to amend Conditions No. 4 and No. 8, be approved, along with amendments by addition of a new No. 10, which refers to a security fence along the shared perimeter boundary of this property, an 8-foot security fence, and the specific wording to be supplied by our staff, along with the Recommendations and Findings of the Planning Director. MINA:Second. SPRINGER:Moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded by Commissioner Mina. Is there any discussion on the matter before us? HAYASHI:Before I take the roll call vote, thereÓs a new Condition No. 3. Does your motion also include the new Condition No. 3, which is condition? KUBOTA:I missed that. IÓm sorry. I will include new No. 3 and and the subsequent conditions to be numbered as they show, renumbered as appropriate. SPRINGER:Thank you, Norman. HAYASHI:Thank you. With that, IÓll take the roll call, Madam Ch Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. 24 HAYASHI:Chair Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Madam Chair, motion carries with six aye votes. SPRINGER:Thank you. GADD:Thank you. Thank you very much. SPRINGER:Mr. Gadd, youÓll be notified of the CommissionÓs decision in writing, and thank you for bearing with us. GADD:Thank you. The discussion ended at 10:06 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 25