Laserfiche WebLink
SMA Application PL-SMA-2025-000070 <br /> 32-962 Hawaii Belt Road <br /> TMK (3) 3-2-003:001 <br /> Owners: Dustin & Eszter Hollenback <br /> We are neighbors adjoining TMK(3) 3-2-003:001 owned by Eszter and Dustin Hollenback. <br /> We are providing this written testimony regarding the SMA Use Permit Application PL-SMA-2025-000070 for a farm <br /> dwelling and commercial agricultural structure. <br /> We have serious concerns regarding this SMA Application, especially in light of a pattern of not respecting setbacks and <br /> Conservation District land use. We, as neighbors, are very concerned about disruption commercial agriculture will bring to <br /> this unique 3 parcel neighborhood. Given the unique topography of this parcel of land, a considerable amount of grading <br /> and excavation will be required. We are concerned about destabilization of this coastline. Any coastal erosion will directly <br /> affect our property and its value. <br /> Below is a summary of the key points and concerns we have regarding this SMA Application. The Summary is followed by <br /> Details regarding each item. <br /> Thank you for your consideration. <br /> Justin Hertz & Rebecca Chacko <br /> 8/28/2025 <br /> Summary <br /> 1. SMA Application Omissions <br /> a. The SMA Application fails to disclose a permanent Yurt base built within 7 feet of our property line and <br /> situated entirely within 40 foot setback from the pali. <br /> b. Construction of a tree house on conservation land on Haiku point. <br /> c. The SMA Application fails to mention an IBC water tank within 40 foot setback of the pali. <br /> d. There is no indication of catchment or irrigation infrastructure. County water is specified for the farm <br /> dwelling only. <br /> e. There is no reference to roadways across the length of the property on the Site Plan for commercial <br /> agricultural access or harvesting produce. <br /> f. The Site Plan does not identify where the existing apiary will be relocated to. <br /> 2. SMA Application clarifications <br /> a. The proposed site was not used for growing commercial sugar cane.This site is located makai of the old <br /> sugarcane railroad tracks and was hand cultivated for subsistence farming. <br /> b. The shoreline, especially next to the proposed development is a sheer and undercut cliff, not an "average <br /> gradient of 50%". <br /> c. This SMA Application repeatedly refers to the "2.5 acre parcel". While accurate, it is important to note that <br /> only about 1.2 acres is actually farmable land. <br /> 3. SMA Application Concerns <br /> a. Shoreline survey waiver was requested by the applicant. Applicant has requested a waiver but has not <br /> shown good faith in locating structures within setbacks. Additionally, the sheer cliffs, evidence of erosion, <br /> and undercutting warrant a shoreline survey. <br /> b. Commercial agriculture will generate increased traffic. <br /> i. Commercial agricultural traffic will flow directly across the center of one neighbor's lot and along <br /> our property because of the circuitous nature of the RU-1 easement. <br />