2016-07-07 Hearing Transcript - Hilo Medical Center REZ 14-175

Home

And, those are the main conditions related to mitigation measures for the adjoining properties, and you asked also whether those have been implemented? I believe the, there's a large fence that has been placed between the medical office properties and the residential properties that is shown here, and this fence actually extends all the way towards Komohana Street, so it divides the two properties. And, the only other issues have been there have been complaints because since this 1995 ordinance was approved, the landowner of the property, of the subject property, has been off and on using the property as a commercial parking lot. Did that answer your question? CLARKSON: Yes, that does. Thank you for pointing this out, and I'd just like to find out whether then any potential rezone of the subject property then, which would require breaking the heavy planting screen or fence, which was required to be unbroken, whether this rezone basically cancels all the mitigating requirements of the original zoning of the parcel where the medical center now stands. JACKSON: I can try to answer that as well. So, the Applicant is currently proposing a parking lot with pedestrian connection only, and the way they currently have it set up is keeping that fence along the property line, and they've provided a gate to connect the medical center property which is where I was standing taking this picture. You open the gate and go down to where they are proposing the parking lot. So, I would say that as long as conditions are included in the ordinance that only allow a pedestrian access, then that would not conflict with the 1995 rezone ordinance. ButI would think that you're correct that if, if they are proposing to consolidate the property and open that area up for vehicular access, they would have to go back and amend the 1995 ordinance to do that because of the landscape requirements, the fencing requirements that were in that 1995 ordinance. HENKEL: Does that answer your question? CLARKSON: Well, II'd just say I would have to disagree, that's all. I mean, it looks to me like this condition was to protect the residences that were already there from noise and visual impacts and that if you have any kind of traffic, pedestrian or otherwise, going through this area, it does not make that mitigation continuous and unbroken. So, I don't know. HENKEL: Okay, I'd like to get on with the public testimony and then we'll have a chance to discuss it more if there's any motion for action or, you know, even questions of the public. So, I've got six people signed up to testify. If there's anybody else, please sign up now. The way it is now, I'd like to have three at a time come up so it doesn't get too crowded, so I'll call Stephen Woo, Jr., Cheryl Reis, Kapuaokalani Andrade as the first three. It looks like two more signing up so let's go ahead and get Vivian [sic] Reis up here, please. We'll go four and four. REIS, C.: Mr. Chair, I'm going to read the letter from Mrs. Andrade. 15 EXHIBIT C