Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-11-21 tplant PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 21, 2003 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of PLANT-MASON FAMILY TRUST (SLU 03-009/REZ 03-021) was called to order at 11:38 a.m. in the County ` Building, Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman Fred Galdones presiding. PRESENT:Fred GaldonesABSENT & EXCUSED: Francis Smith Earl Fujikawa Bill Graham Florence Kubota Jeffrey McCall Aurelio C. Mina, Jr. Hannah Springer Bill Thibadeau Patricia O'Toole, Esq., Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 20 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: PLANT-MASON FAMILY TRUST (SLU 03-009/REZ 03-021) a.State Land Use boundary amendment for 2.862 acres of land from t to the Urban District. b.Change of zone for 14.771 acres from a Single Family Residential foot (RS-15) and an Agricultural 20-acre (A-20a) district to a Residential and Agricultural 2-acre (RA-2a) district The property is located adjacent to and west (mauka) of Haaheo E Wainaku, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-6-32:6. GALDONES:Commissioners, we are on Agenda Item No. 3. Applicant is Plant- Mason Family Trust (SLU 03-009/REZ 03-021). a.State Land Use boundary amendment for 2.862 acres of land from t to the Urban District. b.Change of Zone for 14.771 acres from a Single Family Residential foot (RS-15) and an Agricultural 20-acre (A-20a) district to a Residential and Agricultural 2-acre (RA-2a) district. Norman? EXHIBIT B HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. The subject property is indicated in red on this presentation map. It is located along the makai side of Kauhiula Road and also at the corner of Kulana Kea Drive. The H School is located at this particular location where IÓm pointing at. This would be the Hawaii Belt Road leading towards Hamakua, and this would be towards the City of Hilo. The zoning on the map indicates the various zonings. First of all this dark-shaded green area is the Agricultural 20-acre zoned district. The yellow areas would be Single Family Residential at varying densities. We also have an Agricultural 3-acre zoning designation here. The subject property, approximately 12 acres, is currently zoned for Single Family Residential (RS-15). The remaining two acres or so is still within the State Land Use Agricultural District, as well as zoned Agricultural-20 acres. What the Applicant intends to do is to rezone this subject property, and IÓll go to the site map here. First of all, the area that I indicated, still within the State Land Use Agricultural District consisting of 2-plus acres, itÓs 2.8 acres, is being requested to be reclassified from the State Land Use Agricultural District to the Urban District. At the same time, the Applicant is requesting that this particular area, which is also currently zoned Agricultural-20 acres, to be reclassified or rezoned to Residential/Agricultural 2 acres. The remaining of the property, as I indicated earlier, is currently zoned for Single Family Residential - 15,000 square feet; and the Applicant is requesting that this particular area also be rezoned to a Residential/Agricultural 2-acre. Based on the current density of the existing RS-15 zoned district, the Applicant can, in fact, based on the density, subdivide the property into approximately 34-plus lots. What the Applicant intends to do, as part of his rezoning action, is to reduce the density and create 6 lots. We are recommending approval of this zone change, as well as State Land Use boundary amendment. Are there any questions at this time? GALDONES:Commissioners, any questions of Norman? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Norman, IÓm trying to look back a little bit just to understand what went on before when the original rezoning went to the RS-15. In the paperwork I think it said that a 14.69-acre area was reclassified back in 1996. So does that include the 11.9 plus the 2.8 weÓre looking at now or -? HAYASHI:No. And let me explain. If you look at this particular map, this is Kulana Kea Drive; and across of Kulana Kea Drive, across the subject property, thereÓs a sliver of land which is zoned Single Family Residential. Okay? That particular area, that 2 sliver of land, plus this area that is currently zoned for Single Family Residential, was reclassified from the State Land Use Agricultural District and the CountyÓs Residential, Single Family Residential - 15,000 square feet back in 1996. However, when the subdivision application was processed, what had happened was instead of utilizing the area that is zoned for Single Family Residential, the entire 14-plus acres, that also included this particular property, the subdivision was configured in this, well, I guess this shape or this configuration. So what it, in fact, did was we included, we subdivided, or the property was subdivided and included this sliver of land which was still within the State Land Use Agricultural District. So, basically, it was an error in subdivision at that particular time. GRAHAM:I see. And has the subdivision taken place so that there are separate TMKs in all at this point, at this point in time? HAYASHI:ThatÓs correct. So this is one particular property here. So this property across, thereÓs a sliver of land again already zoned for Single Family Residential, RS-15 zoning. That particular property, that area that is currently zoned, is part of a larger area. So that particular property has a split zoning like this particular l GRAHAM:Is there any way that we should be, because of the errone situation, reverting that area back to Ag, or something like that, as -? HAYASHI:Well, itÓs a possibility that, I mean, that could be don initiate the zone change. ItÓs like the original 14 acres was, rezoning of this particular area was initiated by the Planning, previous Planning Director. GRAHAM:I see. All right. Thank you. GALDONES:Any further questions of Norman? If none, is the Applicant or representative present? Please step forward. Mr. Fuke, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? FUKE:Yes, I do, sir. GALDONES:Mr. Fuke, state your name and your residence address, please? FUKE:Sure. My name is Sidney Fuke, IÓm a Planning Consultant. residence address is 1358 Mele Manu Street here in Hilo. The Applicant is the Plant- Mason Trust. None of them were able to be here, couple of reasons, one is that they live on the mainland and, secondly, thereÓs like a small family emerg the family. As your staff accurately pointed out, and IÓll just kind of like expand it just a little bit, the property was initially, the general property was initially rezoned to create a minimum of a 25-lot residential subdivision. It was actually, at that time, C. Brewer wanted to relocate 3 their entire headquarters, you know, to Hilo. And, as a result, with the participation of the County administration at that time, this property was, the bulk of this property was rezoned back in 1996. This 14.7, or whatever 9-acre area, was part of a larger parcel that was rezoned and also reclassified into the Urban District. What happened, however, is that when the subdivision was approved in October of the year 2001, it was supposed to be subdivided to create this area that was rezoned and reclassified, as the staff pointed out. But when it was subdivided, it was, it did not correspond to that area. So what happened is that you have an area thatÓs on the top side of, if you look at the map, you have an area thatÓs on the mauka side of Kulana Kea Road which, itÓs actually on the north side of the property, of the road rather, is presently zoned RS-15. And then you have like a portion of the subject property which, itÓs on the Hilo side, is presently zoned Agricultural-20 acres. So, you know, it was not supposed to have been done. An error w was an irreversible error because, in the meantime, although the lots were in that area under a consolidation and resubdivision, there were a number of lots that were created in that area. The Plant-Masons purchased this property in December, I guess C. Brewer had abandoned their plans, purchased this property back in December of the year 2001. And all of the other properties in that area were also acquired. After having purchased the property, they donÓt mind, I guess, like developing it into a 25- or 30-lot subdivision. However, like their ultimate goal is really to create like a 6-lot subdivision so that they could convey portions of the property to their family and their relatives and then maybe make two or three lots available to the general market. And, as a result, the request calls for a down-zoning of essentially the bulk of the property from RS-15 to RA-2 acres. The Background Report and your staffÓs recommendation generally are acceptable. I would like to note, however, that in the Background Report, there is, there should be one correction on page 2, item No. 3. On the top of that page, you August 5, 2002. Actually, that should be October of 2001. That subdivision was approved, and not in 2002. Secondly, is that the request, I think which, I donÓt know if the staff had passed it out. But there is a condition that the Department has, is recommending -. Condition B of the Change of Zone application states that the Applicant must comply with all of the conditions outlined in the original, excuse me, the existing zone change ordinance. And what we would like to request is that that condition be deleted and then in its place then you just use or take the appropriate conditions that are contained in that original ordinance and then apply that to this particular bill. The reason being that some of the conditions outlined in that ordinance, Ordinance 96-152, we believe, are not necessarily applicable to what the Applicant is proposing. Those conditions deal like with an RS-15 type of subdivision. This is a project thatÓs talking about an RA-2 acre type of zone change, a down-zoning of the property. And, as a result, what I did or what you have 4 before you is like a, is a reflection of what I did, which was to take out pertinent portions of the existing ordinance and then requesting that they be applied to the current ordinance. I would like to also, you know, for the record, indicate that in the event that this rezoning for one reason or another is not accepted, then the Applicant would have no other alternative but to proceed with the terms of the existing RS-15, which is really like not their choice. But if it comes to be, then, I guess, itÓs what theyÓll do. GALDONES:Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Fuke? Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:I lost you, Mr. Fuke, when you were going through the pro amendment changes. My understanding is, IÓm in receipt of a proposed amendment change or addition, by addition, actually, and one by deletion. I donÓt know where this came from but I have it in my hand. FUKE:ItÓs from me. KUBOTA:ThatÓs yours. So youÓre proposing that we delete Condition B in its entirety? FUKE:And then you would re-substitute -. KUBOTA:B, C, D? FUKE:Correct, yeah. KUBOTA:And then renumber the conditions following it? FUKE:Re-lettering it, Correct. KUBOTA:Yeah, okay. ThatÓs what you just said. FUKE:ThatÓs correct. KUBOTA:Okay. Is this, are these additions and deletions okay with the staff, the Planning Committee, Planning Department? HAYASHI:Yeah, I think, as far as the suggestion to delete Condition B, that would be okay with us. I think the ordinance that was referred, letÓs see, the Ordinance No. 96-152, the conditions imposed in that was over and beyond w normally been expected if this particular rezoning had gone through, or goes through. So we have no objections as far as deleting Condition B and restructuring the conditions as proposed by the Applicant. We had the opportunity to review those. 5 KUBOTA:Okay. HAYASHI:I do have one clarification, however. This is just to clear the record. Mr. Fuke had indicated that in the Background Report, Item No. 3 on page 2, regarding the date the subdivision was approved, actually, the effective date that we have cited in the Background is, in fact, correct. The first, the subdivision was approved back on October of 2001, and subsequent to that, the Applicant, not the Applicant, a revised subdivision map was submitted for our approval; and that was cer August 5, 2002. So that particular date is the date that the revised subdivision was approved. FUKE:Okay. Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:IÓd just like to clarify, Condition I of the original ordinance speaks to fair share contributions to mitigate the potential regional impacts. And is it my understanding then that with this down-zoning the density is not as great as would have been under the previous ordinance, so the fair share contributions are therefore eliminated? FUKE:ItÓs my understanding that the current County Council policy is that they require a fair share contribution for all rezoning that results in lots 1-acre or less, and thatÓs the reason why. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions? Norman, the additions of that B, C and D in the handout, that is acceptable by the Department? HAYASHI:Yes. GALDONES:Okay. We have two individuals who had signed up to testify on this subject matter. They are Leonard Cardoza and Dwight Vincent. Are they present? Mr. Cardoza, please step forward, please. Mr. Cardoza, could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? CARDOZA:Yes. GALDONES:Mr. Cardoza, will you please state your name, your residence address and you may begin your testimony. CARDOZA:Leonard Cardoza, 499 Kulana Kea Drive, Hilo, Hawaii. I live right above that property thatÓs going to be subdivided. IÓve got 75 acres right above it. Part of it that I want to, thereÓs some few questions. Part of it, IÓd like to see it happen but I want to be, donÓt want to be left on the tail end. TheyÓre going to do something, do it right. Part of that roadway is unsafe. I donÓt know what the requirement is for a 6 subdivision but the upper half ranges from 20 to 21 feet in roadway. At the bottom, when you go from Kulana Kea into Wainaku Street Road, if youÓre makin down Kulana Kea Drive and you make a right-hand turn, two cars barely fit on that tight turn. You donÓt have a good map there but they barely fit on that tight turn. And if you make a right-hand turn, youÓll have to go across the centerline into the Wainaku Street before you can get back towards Hilo, heading towards Dodo Mortuary. So I donÓt know, and then thereÓs that bank, itÓs a blind turn. You need to get out into the roadway to see on-coming traffic, both directions. And if youÓre at the stop sign heading towards Wainaku Street from Kulana Kea and thereÓs a guy making a left-hand turn from Wainaku Street, two cars ainÓt going to fit. So thatÓs part of my concern. As youÓre driving up Kulana Kea Drive, around Pole 7, thereÓs, on the right side is the Pole 7. YouÓre coming up there, itÓs a blind turn. And the opposite, if you look at the six lots that theyÓre trying to approve, thereÓs a sharp turn. If youÓre coming downhill, I saw two cars didnÓt make that turn, just went straight off that roadway into an adjacent property. ThereÓs no signs, no safety measure, no nothing. Of course, itÓs private road. Now I donÓt know if thereÓs anything thatÓs going to be done about it but the road is a bad problem. I think we should take that into some consideration Òcause whatÓs going to happen is maybe I want to subdivide, too. But this place is in corrected from day one. They want to make 30-40 lots, thatÓs fine. I want to make a 100, too. Now the waterline size, from my understanding, Brewer didnÓt make it. The water was undersized, the main trunk line, Òcause they couldnÓt get the fire hydrants. Maybe IÓm wrong but the trunk line, itÓs not designed properly so we donÓt have sufficient water; and we can look into that. So thatÓs pretty much my concerns, I mean, are these water conditions taken care of, is the road condition taken care of? ÒCause I know when they were going to do that big subdivision, they were going to realign that road, thatÓs my understanding. I did some work with Willie Tallett, heÓs with C. Brewer. He also owns the adjoining property, right across the ones that are being, he owns two lots right there. And with all that, cost was going to be, I guess, too expensive at the time for the money they would make on the lots to justify the cost. GALDONES:Mr. Cardoza, can you go up to the map and show us where road problem is that you were talking about? CARDOZA:You donÓt have a full-detailed road on that, but -. GALDONES:Jeff, give him the mike, please? CARDOZA:If youÓre coming down this road -. Okay, I live right about here. ThereÓs a water tank right on this lower corner, right here. So youÓre coming down here, this turn right here is a sharp turn. If you donÓt make this turn, you go into this adjoining lot, right here. Right around here is Pole 7. If youÓre coming uphill and youÓre not being 7 careful, youÓll get in an accident, right on this oncoming turn, right here, guarantee if youÓre not being careful. You come down this road, the next thing is right inside here, youÓll never make a turn right here. This is not the way this road is designed right here. ItÓs, cut across here is a 90-degree turn. So, we got some problems here. But like I say, you know, IÓd like to see it happen. But, you know, there are other ways. If the developer wants to spend the money now, make it a 10-, 20-year deal where if we subdivide ours at a later date, we pay for some of the cost. Hamakua Housing did that out in Hamakua. I bought land out in Ookala and the Housing put in a main waterline, turned over to the County, but made a 20-year stipulation. I had to hook up the water. I paid $4 -or $5,000 to hook up the water But what IÓm saying is, you know, if you guys want to approve it, let them do it, do it right. ÒCause the rest of the people, I guarantee you in another 5, 10 years, going come up with the next subdivision deals; and I might be one of them. But if we cut the corners now, weÓre going pay later. GALDONES:Mr. Cardoza, was there anything else that you wanted to mention in your testimony? CARDOZA:Can you hang on for a second? GALDONES:Sure, go ahead. CARDOZA:Yeah, I think IÓve said it. But maybe we can just clarify for subdivision purposes, I donÓt know what road width requirements are. You know, maybe we can look into that. Like I say, we bought the property as is, where is. Of course, we understood the situation, itÓs a private road. Now, you know, weÓre going to go through changes, which is fine; but letÓs do it right so we all can benefit from it. And, you know, whether my neighbors wants to subdivide it, give it to the kids at some time, itÓs done right from today. And if we need to pay back, well, we pay back house. GALDONES:Okay. Commissioner Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:Yeah, I have a question with staff. Norman, is there a that road and is it a private road, or -? HAYASHI:The roadway that fronts the subject property is Kulana Kea Road; and that is a private roadway, 60-foot right-of-way with 24-foot wide pavement. FUJIKAWA:As it stands right now, whatÓs the requirement for development of the road? HAYASHI:Well, since the roadway is already there, what the Applicant is proposing is to have access off of that road as well as the side road called Kauhiula Road. 8 FUJIKAWA:Okay. Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:IÓm kind of confused at this point. Because according to agencyÓs comments, DPW, they say the access to the subject development is via Kulana Kea Road, and it is in good condition, and itÓs okay. CARDOZA:Well, I -. GALDONES:Norman, you -. Hold on, Mr. Cardoza. KUBOTA:I would like to have some debate, I mean, discussion on that. HAYASHI:First of all, I just want to correct what I indicated earlier. There would be no access, based on this subdivision plan the access would be basically off of Kulana Kea Road. The Applicant will be providing some, a small portion here which would be a private road and, then, this particular, the back lot here would be, there would be, would be a flag lot. Access would also be, for this particular lot, this lot would be either from this section here or along Kulana Kea Road, similar to this configuration. And if IÓm wrong in my view of this subdivision layout, then perhaps the ApplicantÓs representative can correct me. As far as the normal standards for a roadway like this, Kulana Kea Road, it would be a 50-foot, well, it would be a collector street. So I would assume it would range from 50 to 60 feet, which the roadway currently is as far as the right-of-way, and the pavement is 20 feet. So that would be consistent with what the Subdivision Code would require. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:I wanted to ask the testifier, the danger point that you were pointing out that we should consider, show me in relation to this Kulana Kea Road where the subdivision is, where that would be. Would it be in that direction after they come out? CARDOZA:Okay. That map is not drawn to full scale as the one on your left. KUBOTA:Okay. CARDOZA:I can show you on your left, you know, the map on your left. Also, for you folksÓ information that is not Kulana Kea Road, itÓs Kulana Kea Drive; and that Kauhiula Road is a dead-end road, itÓs one way in and one way out. You enter through Kulana Kea and you get out through Kulana Kea. But I can show you on that, the green map with that red dot. 9 FUKE:Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could kind of like shed some light. unfortunately, I just have only one copy of this map which IÓll share with the Commission beginning from the right to the left, but -. Just to give you some general background, when the former owners C. Brewer, created this parcel, it was done in conjunction with a whole number of other lots in this area; and I think that as you look at the tax map, youÓll see -. And what happened was that, in conjunction with that consolidation and resubdivision action, they created like a separate road lot, which is now called Kulana Kea Drive; and thatÓs kind of identified in yellow. The subject parcel that you see on the map would be identified, colored in pink. So they created that, they created that road. As part of the approval process, however, they were required to have construction plans prepared and approved by the Department of Public Works. And, so, what you have right now is a roadway that was not there prior to all of these; you know, there was like a former road, you know. But it was improved, you know, by the former owners of that prop on the map. So what happened is that now you have a situation w pointed out, may not necessarily be the ideal of the ideal situation; but this roadway is not an easement. ItÓs a separate road lot, itÓs a separate road lot. And the condition of the road, as the staff had pointed out and Public Works, also, you k a 20-foot wide pavement with a, you know, 2- to 4-foot wide shoulders. There may be, probably under idealized circumstance, maybe some need to make some adjustments, you know, to the two points that Mr. Cardoza pointed out: One, is that, you know, where this roadway touches down to the main highway, to Wainaku Street, and also like that curve, probably like about 200 feet makai of the subject property. GALDONES:Is there future plans to address those two points? FUKE:I would believe like, you know, like inasmuch as the Plant- as well as Mr. Cardoza and all of the others, they have the common interest in that road, it would behoove all of the property owners to get together and make the appropriate adjustments. ThatÓs my suggestion Òcause this is not really like a, this is not a County road. So notwithstanding the current application, you know, before you, which was calling for a reduction from 25-30 lots down to 6, as I mentioned very early, if it comes to pass that all of these things are not applicable and to be able to comply with all the existing terms of the conditions of the existing ordinance, the only way you, to make Ðends meetÑ is that they would have to do a 25- or 30-lot subdivision without having to do any offsite improvements, aside from just the water. And relative to the water, if you notice like on Condition 2, well, condition, the new proposed Condition C, this is like a direct take from the existing ordinance that you have right now, which shows that the landowner must provide that onsite and offsite water system, you know, for its proposed subdivision. Now, itÓs only for his proposed subdivision. On the other hand, you know, if, you know, so the sizing requirement may be different from what may be suitable for, what Mr. Cardoza in the future has in mind for his property. So then, again, it would behoove like all affected property owners who 10 would stand to benefit by any waterline improvements, or trunk line, or reservoir system in that area, to get together. I think itÓs totally unfair to expect the Plant-Mason on a 6-lot subdivision to solve the worldÓs problem in this particular subdivision. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:I have nothing more to say. ItÓs just that this red light went on. GALDONES:Press the buttom. KUBOTA:I did. Sorry. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Who owns Parcel 23? FUKE:I think, I believe like all, itÓs a private road parcel that all of the affected property owners in that area have like, what you call that, undivided or partial interest in it, as well as like the north-south road. If you look at that map, the north-sound road, and that north-south road continues all the way to Kaiwiki, Kaiwiki Road. SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Norman, in this type of situation where the concern is being raised by Mr. Cardoza, what has been the practice or the policy that the Department has followed to address future problems or increase of density? I guess itÓs a rather unusual situation because this is a private road. HAYASHI:Well, in any rezoning application, we would look at the CountyÓs, whether the proposed development would affect the roadway. We also need to take into consideration what would the, you know, what the future potential for development, additional development in that area would have to, would be relative to the infrastructure in this particular, in this particular case the roadway. I think, in this particular case, we looked at it from the standpoint that the Applicant, basically, is asking for a reduction in density, or substantial reduction in density. Therefore, we did not feel that roadway improvements needed to be made to the existing roadway or existing infrastructure that services this, that would service this proposed subdivision. GALDONES:When it was approved in October of 2001, it was with 25 lots, and the road at that time is what it is at this time, also? 11 HAYASHI:IÓm not too familiar as to what the situation back, was 2001-2002. YUEN:I have a question for Sidney. FUKE:Sure. YUEN:Okay. The rezoning that was done before would, that allowed 25 lots. Condition E says, ÐIn conjunction with the subdivision review and approval process for the subject property, the realigned and proposed County dedicable 60-foot wide collector roadway from the old Mamalahoa Highway to the subject property shall be constructed by the landowner meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. In addition, intersection improvements at the access road and old Mamalahoa Highway shall be constructed by the landowner meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works.Ñ Was that work done for -? FUKE:ThatÓs my understanding, and in conjunction with the creati this and all of the balance of the lots. YUEN:The, to make the four-lot subdivision? FUKE:No, not that four lots. You know, like that broad consolidation and resubdivision which is pretty much reflective on the plat map, on that plat? YUEN:So -. FUKE:My understanding is that those improvements were made in conjunction to satisfy both that condition, that you just cited, as well as the consolidation resubdivision approval requirement. So the construction plans were prepared and then subsequently approved by the County. YUEN:And constructed to those plans? FUKE:Correct, correct. YUEN:Let me ask Mr. Cardoza, has there ever been any intersectio improvements at the junction of Kulana Kea Drive and the old Mamalahoa Highway -. CARDOZA:Wainaku -. YUEN:At Wainaku? Did they ever improve that? CARDOZA:None has been done. And if you -. I own big trucks. If you look at that Wainaku Street, if you come out of Kulana Kea Road, the trucks go across the highway. ÒCause they cannot make that turn, they need to reverse and make that correction. It was never redone. ItÓs that bad. If you look at the County road right now, 12 from our trucks, itÓs big holes off the pavement because you can way that -. That road was designed so they could come out, you could come out of Kulana Kea Road and head towards Alae Cemetery on Wainaku Street. That was the cane-haul designed road. YUEN:Yes. I think it was one-way at one time. CARDOZA:And itÓs still -. ThatÓs correct. It was a one-way down. So if youÓre coming down one way, you got a chance, except you cannot look to your right. But it was never done. It was supposed to. ThatÓs why I say that, whatever, 25 lots, you know, that was the plan with the water system and the road to ma why I say, I donÓt mind to do it; but letÓs do it right. Now if you donÓt have the money or youÓre not ready for it, then donÓt do it, or put a stipulation where we owe back Plant- Mason money when I do mine five years, ten years from now; and make it safe, and make it so we can get out into the County street properly. I mean, the County in the end is going to approve this subdivision. YUEN:Oh, I donÓt know that a side road like this needs to be built so that a truck can make the turn without going into the other lane. What about a passenger car? Can a passenger car turn right out of there without going into the opposite lane or the Wainaku Road? CARDOZA:Unless you own a small Honda. FUKE:I beg to differ. CARDOZA:If you own a full-sized car, you know, unless you hug past center lane. I mean, if you look at this road, yeah, itÓs a two-lane road. It doesnÓt have a center divider, though. ItÓs just a paved 20-foot roadway. You come down to that stop sign, thereÓs no divided line that keeps you from the left or the right. So if you hug your left, cross the center lane on your private road, you can make a right-hand turn nicely with a big car. But, like I say, itÓs not designed properly because it doesnÓt have the right radiuses, which was, Brewer was going to do that when they did this subdivision. So the radius is not proper on that road. Even I think, if IÓm not mistaken, IÓm not an engineer, but even the road grade, I think, itÓs off; but IÓm not sure. YUEN:You want to respond to that? FUKE:I think that there are other residents in that area that perhaps can better, who use that road daily, can properly better address that issue than I can. Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners -. Commissioner Kubota, you have something? KUBOTA:Mr. Chair, is there someone from DPW that can be called to answer to their comment, agency comment? Because the comments s 13 GALDONES:ThereÓs nobody here, unfortunately, today. And the concerns being raised puts me in a very uncomfortable position to make a decision today because this subdivision was approved in 2001, couple of years ago, with the density of 25 lots. It has been downscaled to six. And, at that time, the powers to be, in their wisdom, decided that the road system was okay at that particular time. We are decreasing the density, and now the road is becoming a problem which was not addressed in 20 other hand, if the concerns that are raised by Mr. Cardoza is genuine concerns that meets, it is a safety problem, then I believe, as Commissioners, I think we need to give this due consideration. I have some difficulty today in reaching a decision on this. I donÓt know how we can continue this discussion to address that. If I am, at this time, required to make a decision, itÓs going to take some time for me to consider with this. KUBOTA:Let me ask something. Is it my understanding that you said this application is increasing the density? GALDONES:Decreasing the density. KUBOTA:Decreasing the density. If, at 25, it was okay. If we decrease it, it should be better okay. GALDONES:Yes, that is true. KUBOTA:So whatÓs the beef? GALDONES:However, what Mr. Cardoza raised was a safety issue. If the turn is a sharp turn that itÓs going to create a safety problem, and that also entering into Wainaku Drive or Wainaku Road is also a safety problem, then, as have some difficulty approving something that is going to be unsafe for the public. That is the concern that I have. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Just trying to make sure IÓm on the same page as everybod here -. Planning Director Yuen read some requirements to our prior ordinance which would have required some improvement of the road; and Mr. Fuke indicates that, to his knowledge, whatever was required at that time was done. Yet, Mr. Cardoza says, to his knowledge, the road has not been improved. So it seems to me that thatÓs kind of where the problem is like. Are we sure what the substance of those requirements were and are we sure that the substance was done. If thatÓs true, then it would seem like going to a lower density should not be a problem for us. But I donÓt think weÓre 100 percent sure that that was done properly before. GALDONES:Mr. Cardoza? CARDOZA:All C. Brewer did was pave the road from Wainaku Street to a little bit past that Kauhiula Road. ThatÓs all they did. They made a nice paved area. 14 Now when they proposed that subdivision, like Chris said, the developer was supposed to improve that road, make it good, and the water system. Those conditions have not been met till today. GRAHAM:And those conditions were subsequent to the paving? They were supposed to happen after the paving was done? CARDOZA:No, no, no, no. GRAHAM:No. The paving was done without those conditions? CARDOZA:The paving, I guess, was just for everyone else to buy the lots; but the road issue was with that 25 lots. Road and water issues is that why, from my understanding, thatÓs why this subdivision did not happen. The cost versus what youÓre going to sell the lots for, it doesnÓt scale out, right. You know, spending, you know, millions in dollars and sell the lot for $500,000, I mean, how d Brewer scrapped it, from my understanding. So what IÓm saying is this situation has not been done. The problem is if weÓre going to, down-scaling is great. Like I say, I live up the street, I want to subdivide mine. But weÓre going to just get away, steal a little now, what about later? WeÓve got to deal with the problem later anyway. ThereÓs more people going to build there, more people going to live there. So my concern is, you know, we need to be careful on this issue. GRAHAM:Yeah, I think I understand you, then. That, in fact, the road requirements that should be done in order to make the 25-unit were not done because it didnÓt pan out as a cost-effective thing to do. Therefore, weÓre dealing with lower density here. And maybe if we go through it and donÓt require any road improvements, that really wouldnÓt be right on our part as far as you see. CARDOZA:Well, think of it this way. That lot would have been sold as one lot, right? What theyÓre trying to use is it was subdivided to 25 lots. Well, we cannot make 25, letÓs make six. The issue is that lot stipulation, to me, still applies to water and road improvements, still applies. GRAHAM:So it feels like weÓre -. CARDOZA:WeÓre not going to put the page under this page. GRAHAM:Okay. Well, I have the discomfort that our Chairman has, also, then. CARDOZA:I live there. Like I say, you guys welcomed, we can have a meeting, we go there. I like to see that happen if it does happen; but letÓs do it right, you know, Òcause I going be affected. I going have to see 20 cars coming down the road and moving on the side of the road. Or I want to put a fire hydrant, IÓll call the County, ÐOh, we need a fire hydrant, oh, you cannot. You only have a 4-inch 15 the problem is there, we know. Why hide from it now? Why go fr why they sold it as one lot in the end. They said, ÐSell this lot.Ñ Plant-Mason bought it, great for him. But theyÓre still going back to the issue. Now and say, ÐWell, letÓs make two lots.Ñ Still back to square one. 6, to 2? One is okay. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:IÓm just going back to a suggestion that was previously mentioned about the landowners or the people that use that land, use that road, Kulana Kea Road, in the future one of whom might be you. How about all those landowners getting together and sharing in the cost, and the planning in the redevelopment of realigning that road? Because it belongs you folks, right? CARDOZA:Well, you know, thatÓs a good point. The problem is, yo we bought it pretty much as is from C. Brewer. C. Brewer ran away. We have an association, but we donÓt have even money in the association to maintain the road. I do the road mowing and what little I do at my own expense. ThatÓs how bad the situation is. So, you know, if everyone is willing to chip in, weÓll see, theyÓve -. KUBOTA:Well, the point that I feel uncomfortable about is -. I fully understand the, your concern for the safety. Okay? And, yet, at the same time, this is the first, I guess, the first of the applications to come in to develop. To hold them back, because the roadway is not in the Ðproper configurationÑ that would be the optimum safety, would be rather unfair I think because there are many other people that are up there that are going to be using that road, also. So I think everybody should be included, and maybe stipulate that fair share be paid later on or however it is, and maybe the Director can help me. But, you know, everybody is going to be using that road, right? CARDOZA:Well, hereÓs what I get to say - Right now we know how many lot owners we have up there, right? KUBOTA:Okay. CARDOZA:So weÓre okay. Right? KUBOTA:Okay. CARDOZA:EverybodyÓs happy. KUBOTA:All right. CARDOZANow the problem is whether they make 6 lots or 25 lots, w going to have more traffic. The next problem arises the way youÓre saying, maybe that road improvement might cost a million dollars. 16 KUBOTA:Okay. CARDOZA:Okay. But the problem is IÓm not ready to subdivide min maybe do I want to subdivide mine, or maybe the rest of the lot other option, which is good or bad, let the guy who wants, of course, heÓs the guinea pig, heÓs the first guy, right? Let him spend a million dollars. Pu next 10 years, or 20 years, or 30 years, anyone who subdivides above, pays a portion of the cost, of the million dollar infrastructure that was done. I think I said earlier to my friend, Hamakua Housing had that with the water system. I wasnÓt with the water system but I bought an adjoining lot, but I had to pay full $4- or $5,000 Òcause they made it with the County that for 20 years, you know, they gotta pay this loan back. And I had to pay $4- or $5,000 to have water, although the line ran right in front of my property. The County will not, would not hook-up to me, unless I paid my $4 Î So what IÓm saying is letÓs do it properly from now; and whoever wants to subdivide at a later date, providing Chris or whoever is at the time the Planning Director, pay back. The problem is the poor guy on the front line catches hell. But, to me, safety and all these issues is part of this land concerns that weÓre constantly getting. This is just one of them. I guess, that we, you know, Chris has probably one of hundreds that he has got to deal with water and road issues. KUBOTA:You know -. CARDOZA:And then, like you say, what, weÓre going put on 5-inch line but they going put one swimming pool in the backyard in case they need water? GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Yeah, you know, what troubles me, I guess, more is that t conflict between public testimony and agency comments. And our, in prior instances when we go into deliberation of this sort, we have depended on our agencies to give us guidance; and I feel that this is no different. If the agency takes it upon themselves to say that it is in good condition, then it must be in good condition, unless theyÓre here to debate that. GALDONES:Commissioner Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:To the testifier, now, and the Applicant, that particular road is, call it, they own that road, right? CARDOZA:Right. FUJIKAWA:Okay. CARDOZA:ItÓs an association. PUBLIC:No. 17 GALDONES:Excuse me, IÓll have to -. Later on you can testify. FUJIKAWA:So, anyway, my question with the Director now is that what are we doing advising a private landowner how to do it? Because if, in case thereÓs a liability situation, itÓs a private road. So how do you take care this? CARDOZA:But just remember, thatÓs when they, when they wanted to acres, that was part of the infrastructure. FUJIKAWA:Well, that was the past there. But now present is that all of you are liable for the road. So the question with the Director I have is -. I donÓt think the County should get involved with this. CARDOZA:And they didnÓt make any difference before and now, laws are laws. GALDONES:Mr. Yuen? YUEN:As part of rezoning, we should look at safety of the road, even, and the adequacy of the road, even if it is a private road. We, in working this application up, we did rely on the comments of the Department of Public Works that the road is in pretty good condition. I think actually the road is a pretty good road for this level of development, except for, and IÓm not familiar with the upper part of the road. The intersection comes at a, thereÓs a little funny angle at the intersection; and, Mr. Cardoza, I donÓt have any reason to doubt him talks about there being a bad curve on it. We are dealing with, we canÓt simply say that it used to be zoned for 25 and now itÓs now going to be zoned for less. Because in developing that 25, they were going to have to improve the road substantially from what it is now. It doesnÓt look to me like those improvements actually -. I drive by that intersection all the time and I know nothing has ever been done at that intersection. I donÓt know about the road itself. And looking at the subdivision file, it does not look like the road improvements were required for that subdivision and the reason was that subdivision, in turn, did not create any more lots. It was what we call a consolidation/resubdivision. I hear the Commissioners saying, I donÓt think -. This question that Mr. Cradoza is raising of make the first person do a big job and then have the other people reimburse later, it comes up all the time; itÓs very difficult to do in practice. There are mechanisms for doing it but theyÓre quite cumbersome. There are things like Improvement Districts and the like. I donÓt think itÓs something that for a small project like this we could put in place. If the Commission, you know, the Commission has several options here. The Commission can continue and get more comments from the Department of Public Works. I think that the minimal, as I say, theyÓre talking about a minimal increase in the use of the property in this rezoning, from what is. I think you actually have four lots there now, am I correct? You have four lots on the property now? 18 FUKE:No, thereÓs just one. YUEN:ItÓs just one lot on the -. So the four-lot subdivision previously would, included the other properties? FUKE:It was a part of the consolidation/resubdivision -. YUEN:Right, okay. FUKE:Which resulted in this, as well as other lots, yeah. YUEN:Right, right, right. The Commission could, you know, looking ahead at where this is going, clearly, I can tell you without having been up there, that if youÓre talking about realigning a curve on a road, thatÓs an extremely expensive proposition. And the Applicant, if that were a condition of their approval, would probably figure out something else to do with the property, righ FUKE:Yes. Largely because as you see the tax map key, Mr. Yuen, you know, the existing right-of-way is already set. YUEN:Yes. FUKE:You know, so to be able to kind of make appropriate correct then you would have to condemn property or, you know, I think thatÓs going to be a very difficult proposition to handle. YUEN:Yeah. An alternative, if the Commission wanted to move ahe today, I think an alternative would be to have a condition about having adequate sight distance and turning radius at the intersection, which is a safety, a major safety consideration. The road itself to add, you know, itÓs going to be a big project. ItÓs either going to be donÓt do anything or, and let, deny the rezoning,or leave it as it is and let the rezoning go forward, as far as the curve that theyÓre talking about. CARDOZA:What about the water issue? FUJIKAWA:Mr. Chairman? GALDONES:Mr. Fujikawa? YUEN:And let me just say one thing about the water. There was a requirement for water system improvements if they did a 25-lot subdivision. I think that this application has been tailored so that it can fit within what is available in the Department of Water Supply currently. There are some things that youÓre going to have to do, but basically they do not need major improvements. And, I think, that is their choice. If they come in with an application that fits with, you can do a development that fits within the number of, theyÓre applying for six lots and the Department of Water 19 Supply can basically supply that with their existing facilities; and thatÓs their choice to do that. We canÓt sit here and say you have to, we want you to do a bigger development so that the other people who might want to develop can also share in that later on. GALDONES:Mr. Fujikawa, you had a question? FUJIKAWA:Yeah, on this Background Report and agency comment from Department of Public Works, theyÓre the ones who gave us the comments on the access to that road, 20-foot wide pavement in good condition. So thatÓs what weÓre basing on right now -? YUEN:Right. FUJIKAWA:ItÓs the Public WorksÓ study, okay. Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Yeah, I just wanted to ask the Planning Director. You know, in the original ordinance, the Conditions E and F that were theoretically supposed to have been done and have been done according to the ApplicantÓs representative, would they have, would that, at that time, those requirements, E and F, would have taken care of the needs of that particular subdivision as they saw it at that time, correct? And if they -. YUEN:I -. KUBOTA:If they had, wait now, and if they had been done like the ApplicantÓs representative said they had been done, would mean that everything is in place for this new project, right? YUEN:Then everything would be in place. But I think that the subdivision that was done in 2002 did not, they did not make them realign Kulana Kea and build it to collector standards as stated in E; and that they did not, I shouldnÓt say they, we, in the Planning Department, did not make, require the intersection improvements at Mamalahoa Highway because this was processed as a parcel consolidation and resubdivision which did not increase the number of lots. In other words, they were lots up there in a certain configuration and they just changed the configuration of the lots and did not increase the number of lots; so it did not trigger this condition of the rezoning ordinance. This condition of the rezoning ordinance would have been triggered if they had done a 15,000-square foot lot subdivision, then they would have had to have done all this work. But the consolidation/resubdivision, thereÓs an exemption in the Subdivision Code that says you donÓt have to do things to full standards when youÓre not increasing the number of lots and youÓre just changing where the boundaries are between the lots. So thatÓs my take on what happened back in 2002. So itÓs not true -. Say, they kept, say they werenÓt coming for this rezoning, all right? They would have this 15,000-square foot zoning up there, but they couldnÓt just come in 20 and subdivide with that 15,000- square foot zoning. They would have had to have done road improvements and the water improvements to do that, to do that project. So they decided, as Mr. Fuke says, they decided to do a lesser project in order not to have to carry some of those costs; and the net result of it is, you know, a rather small rezoning. FUKE:Mr. Chairman, can I just clarify. GALDONES:Sure, Mr. Fuke. FUKE:Yeah, I think, I concur like with what the Director has indicated. And I would have to indicate, you know, Commissioner Kubota, that IÓm not really certain whether Condition E was satisfied. All of the conditions that are outlined in the existing ordinance would be triggered in conjunction with the actual subdivision, you know, of the property into 25-plus lots. The other thing IÓd like to clarify is that the ApplicantÓs reason for coming in with this Change of Zone is not necessarily because of the inability to proceed with the 25- or 30- lot subdivision in that area. It was more like the former owners of the property, C. Brewer for its own reason, had elected to abandon its housing project. This, the Applicant today, however, from their personal, I guess, estate planning purposes, they felt that it would be prudent, more prudent to have like a two-lot subdivision, you know, like six two-lot, two-acre lot, you know, type of subdivision rather than a 25-lot, and getting to the development and trying to do what developers do. So thatÓs the reason why -. I think that as a fall-back position, as I indicated in the beginning, that if for some reason like, you know, all of the same conditions and all the expectations of the original 25-lot project, you know, are saddled onto this six-lot subdivision, they would walk away and just say, IÓll do a 25, IÓll do a 30-lot subdivision, Òcause then itÓll pencil out. But I canÓt do, I cannot fulfill all of these other kind of infrastructure requirement for a 25-, 30-lot subdivision, you know, for only a six-lot subdivision. And thatÓs kind of like the bottom line, so -. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:How about improvements at this intersection with the old Mamalahoa Highway to improve the sight distance and the turning radius? Is that within feasibility for your clients? FUKE:IÓm not really sure, yeah, IÓm not really sure. You know, pretty much like youÓre constrained by the existing right-of-way, which is already delineated. And, for example, you know, to make it into like an idealized situation, it may actually require like acquisition of adjoining properties; and that might be very costly, or very difficult to achieve if the adjoining owner elects not to sell, you know. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Chair? GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? 21 SPRINGER:IÓm looking at the back page of the State Land Use Boundary Amendment application. And so when youÓre talking about, the map part, when weÓre talking about possible acquisition and expense there, is that for this little tip? FUKE:Correct. Yeah. IÓm sorry, that is the map. So you see th Kea Drive, thatÓs already an existing road right-of-way. So any improvements that Mr. Cardoza is suggesting that may be needed would have to be done within the existing right-of-way. SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Any further discussions or questions to Mr. Cardoza? Otherwise, we have two other individuals who have signed up to testify. Okay, Tom Anthony and, IÓm sorry, IÓm not able to read the writing for Jornen? BJORNEN:Evonne Bjornen. Do we come up together? GALDONES:Yes, please. Mr. Anthony, you have already been sworn in. Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? BJORNEN:I do. GALDONES:Could you please state your name and your residence address and you may begin your testimony. bJORNEN:Evonne Bjornen. ThatÓs B-j-o-r-n-e-n, 805 Kauhiula Road in Hilo; and IÓm one of the owners up there in the subdivision. I have a 25-acre parcel. On your map itÓs going to show No. 20, I believe Lot 20. I think on this, in the first place, IÓm in favor of the six-parcel subdivision. I think that most everybody that I know that has property up there is in favor of it. So IÓm not here about that. But, I wasnÓt even going to come up and testify, but the road is not owned by the property owners, so this shouldnÓt even be coming up here. ItÓs still owned by Mauna Kea Ag, the subsidiary of C. Brewer. They come to our Neighborh and John Cross comes, says they still own the road. So as far as I know, they still own the roads. So there canÓt be some ruling here about the opening of the road or whatever when the property owners donÓt even own the road there; and I donÓt know if weÓre willing to take it over from them. Certainly in the future if things are done by them, not by us property owners to the road, then maybe weÓll accept it an But I donÓt think that should have any bearing on Jackie and Bill Plant-Mason on what theyÓre trying to do. And I think theyÓre trying to downzone, IÓm in favor of it. TheyÓre keeping four parcels, I understand from when IÓve talked with them, and only going to be selling two of them. I consider them a good addition to the neighborhood. 22 But on the road, I donÓt see why that should even be coming up here. I donÓt think it has, you know, any bearing; and Leonard is my favorite neighbor. Leonard lives up there, too. But unless Leonard can, thatÓs why I really want him to sit up here, unless he knows something that I donÓt know. The property owners do not own the road. May I address that to Leonard, and can we bring him back up, Òcause IÓd like to know that. GALDONES:Well, I think that information that you had submitted to us will sway some of our decision, then we need to have somebody to confirm that, if it is indeed not owned by the property owners and owned by the Mauna Kea Ag. And possibly -. BJORNEN:Mauna Kea Ag, IÓd like to see them do something, sir. You know, I mean, I think if, I donÓt disagree with Leonard Cardoza at all that Brewer did a very bad job on the opening of the road. I can drive out without getting onto the other side of the road, so I donÓt personally have that problem; but the sight view is bad. But that is what Brewer did, and somehow the County allowed that to go through that way. You know, I would like to see somebody tell us how we can get Mauna Kea Ag to correct it, you know. They should be maintaining the roads up there. Leonard C maintaining the roads at his own expense up there. GALDONES:Commissioner Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:Yeah. I have a question with the ApplicantÓs representative, Mr. Fuke. Do you have a deed, by any chance, of the particular land that -? FUKE:Well, what I was going to check on the, I guess youÓre asking about the ownership issue, right? FUJIKAWA:Yeah. FUKE:I was going to look at the surrounding property owner list and trying to identify the parcel number, and I can determine like who owns the road. YUEN:ItÓs Parcel 23 -. FUKE:Parcel 23? YUEN:Yeah. GALDONES:Ms. Bjornen, do you have any further comments? BJORNEN:No, except that I think this should be approved. I donÓt see any reason for this to be continued. ItÓs my own personal feelings, you know. It has nothing to do with the Plant-Masons on the road situation. You know, and they are down- grading. You know, I, myself -. You know, I think Brewer got away with a lot, not just on this parcel but many others. They did not put the size -. I went down to their offices and I have the whole water layout that we were able to obtain on it. And they didnÓt even 23 put in what they submitted to the County up there, but yet itÓs there. You know, so thereÓs a lot of things, but that has nothing to do with Plant-Masons, or with Leonard, or with me. ItÓs Brewer and Mauna Kea Ag. Okay? GALDONES:Okay. BJORNEN:Thank you. GALDONES:Before I dismiss you, any questions of Ms. Bjornen? Otherwise, Mr. Fuke? FUKE:In looking at the surrounding property owner list and what was sent out, it would appear that Parcel 23, which is the road, is commonly owned by all of the affected property owners. ÒCause itÓs the Plant-Mason Trust, the Talletts, the McVays, the Tallets, the Crudells, Ishii and Leonard Cardoza, everybody else. They all have, itÓs picked up as being Parcel 23, as that they have some interest in that road. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions, comments? If not, Mr. Anthony? ANTHONY:Yeah, IÓm not here to oppose the subdivision. I really donÓt have any idea what thatÓs all about. But I am familiar with the road and where it meets Wainaku Avenue. I use Wainaku often. IÓve even on occasion hav Kea Road. It never used to have a name. It used to be a one-way road going out towards Hamakua. And I used to see people make turns off of Wainaku against the one-way all the time. And when you come in, itÓs just like these guys say, you canÓt see nothing coming down over there. When did the road change to a two-way r conditions? And my question to the, you know, IÓm usually appalled at the admissions that the Planning Director has made. Here, his Department has made a favorable recommendation for this project and yet he is more than familiar intersection poses. HeÓs, I mean, he has admitted it. So who a there are accidents there? Does the Planning Director pay out of his pocket or do the County taxpayers pay for his -? You know, he knows it. He has admitted he knows thereÓs a problem, and yet his Department comes here and recomme I know thereÓs a problem. IÓve often made a point about that particular road and that intersection. It was dangerous when it was just cane haul road without any -. It was a gravel road going right up, the cane trucks used to come down. I remember seeing cane trucks making illegal turns on that one-way coming up, so, you k blocking the road and everything. That road is a danger. And the Planning DepartmentÓs, you know, sweeping that part of this whole thing under the rug is just appalling, especially since the Planning Director, himself, said the road and that intersection is somewhat queer. I donÓt know if thatÓs the adjective he used, but he used something referring to it as being problematic. 24 I had something else. That part of the road is dangerous; and this is a liability to the taxpayers of this County, that you guys should be aware of that. And who do I hold accountable when something happens over there and somebody sues theyÓve allowed this road? And what are the conditions, Mr. Planning Director, what are the conditions that apply when you make one, actually you give a road a name and you make it come into -? ÒCause I donÓt think that was even a legal road at any time before it got a name and that front section got paved, you know. I mean, are there conditions that must be met for roads coming into meeting a County road? Private roads, do they have to be safe and all that? I know C. Brewer, all they did was just pave it. They would have, left it exactly like it was. ThereÓs a bridge on one side, you know, thereÓs poor visibility; and, if youÓre going to, just a regular pickup truck, you have to make a wide turn. ThereÓs no way you can turn going, coming to Hilo off of that road and not enter into the other lane. IÓve never been able to do it, you know. So weÓve got all kinds of problems with this silly road. I canÓt believe that you guys, you know, that the Planning Department has approved that. And then the other question is the matter of these lots. Mr. Director, you said that, you know, there seems to be some questions. C. Brewer applied for a 25-lot subdivision from a single-lot subdivision. I see this application for only a change to, itÓs just an amendment to the original application. It was only one lot and youÓre increasing the density every time, whether C. Brewer developed it or not. The original lot size is one lot, not four lots or not 25 lots. TheyÓre not making less. ItÓs still more than what it originally was. So all theyÓre doing is amending C. BrewerÓs application. I donÓt see how the density is lowered at all. ItÓs still increasing the density of that area. ThatÓs all I have to say. Thank you. Any questions? GALDONES:Thank you. Any question of Mr. Anthony? Okay. Mr. Fu FUKE:Well, I think that thereÓs a couple of things. One is that I would tend to agree with the Planning Director. Essentially, IÓve always been a firm believer that Ðthe punishment has to fit the crime.Ñ And in the situation with the original or the existing zoning, you know, you did have rather extensive infrastructure requirements. TheyÓre proposing to do something less. And we believe that the conditions, as suggested by the Director and as further amended as what we had suggested, would probably be appropriate punishment. Secondly, I do respect, you know, the need to make some improvements, you know, to that area. I donÓt know what the cost is. I know that the Chair has said that, you know, you need to mull this over, which is fine from the ApplicantÓs standpoint. I think that if youÓre going to mull it over, what you may want to do is actually drive down to that area, you know, and have this thing continued to your January meeting, but maybe do a field trip if you want to, you know, just to get your own satisfaction. And, in the meantime, maybe the, over the next six weeks maybe the Applicant can make they want to proceed with the lower density or just go ahead with the original plan. 25 GALDONES:Commissioners, any questions -? YUEN:Can I make a slightly different suggestion that -. I think from the, some of the comments, the Commissioners youÓd rather continue it, if thatÓs all right with the Applicant. IÓm not sure of our timeframe. But I would, I think we should ask, rather than do a site visit, letÓs get a professional opinion; and weÓll ask the Department of Public Works to check the intersection and the sight distance, and see what comments they may make on it. GALDONES:Commissioners, you have heard the, are there any further questions or comments, any questions of Mr. Fuke? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Thank you. When the Department of Public Works is prep their remarks for us, it seems as though there might be at least three scenario: No change to the present conditions, to improve sight distance and turning radius, and then the more full intersection developments that I think are recommended in the original Condition E. So if they could discuss with us just what the different scenario might entail. Thank you. GALDONES:Any further questions or comments? If not, the Chair is prepared to entertain a motion to close the public hearing. KUBOTA:I so move. FUJIKAWA:Second. GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded b Commissioner Fujikawa. OÓTOOLE:Do you want to close the public hearing or are you expecting to take more later? GALDONES:I think weÓre going to be taking more evidence later if we are going to be continuing this hearing. But IÓm just following the protocol you folks have established. Now you guys mess me all up. KUBOTA:I think we should just leave that off. GALDONES:Just leave it off. I agree with you. Okay. Instead o public hearing, Commissioners, you have heard two suggestions made, one by the Applicant and also one by the Director. I think both of them is worthwhile considering, gives us at least more information for us to deal with. One is, Mr. Fuke is suggesting a site visit, along with, somewhat similar to what Mr. Yuen is proposing. But Mr. Yuen is short of a site visit; and heÓs just proposing that we get professional opinion, which is the Department of Public Works to address the site, the turning radius, and the overall safety of that road. So Chair is willing to entertain a motion at this time. 26 KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman, IÓm not ready to make a motion yet but IÓd like to discuss this. I like the Planning DirectorÓs suggestion in that we leave this analysis up to the professionals and, as always, we do abide by their recommendation. And I think they could see more into what is necessary than I could. IÓm no engineer. So if the other Commissioners donÓt have a discussion, IÓm ready to move. GALDONES:Any further discussion? Otherwise, Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman, I move that this Commission, what is it, delay, not delay -. SPRINGER:Continue. GALDONES:Continue. KUBOTA:Continue this application; and, in the meanwhile, we have the staff contact Department of Public Works to address the problems and concerns that were raised at our hearing regarding that road structure. FUJIKAWA:I second it. GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota, and seconded Commissioner Fujikawa, that we continue this hearing as articulated in the motion by Commissioner Kubota. Any further discussion? KUBOTA:Should I put a time on it so they will do it? GALDONES:WeÓll have them agendize it at our next Hilo meeting. KUBOTA:Okay. Thank you. GALDONES:Okay. Commissioner Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:Now weÓre going to have the engineering office check on the entrance, right, of the County road and the private road, that area? GALDONES:That and, also, I think the concern raised by Mr. Cardoza regarding the sharp turn also. FUJIKAWA:The turn, okay. Great. GALDONES:Any further discussion? Roll call. Norman? HAYASHI:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. 27 HAYASHI:Commissioner Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair, motion carries. GALDONES:Mr. Fuke, so the hearing will continue. FUKE:Thank you. The discussion ended at 1:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 28 GALDONES:Okay. Commissioners, weÓd like to call for a lunch recess and reconvene at 2:30 p.m. (Recess) (Agenda Item No. 5) 29