2016-10-06 Hearing Transcript - Council Bill 228 (Hilo Medical Center REZ 14-175)

Home

employee parking. We will be able to gate there and control access to that area through that method. Our property manager is here, and they will be responsible for helping to maintain those conditions—no reverse parking, you know, only employees; and the lot will be locked in the evenings, so, you know, we don't mind those conditions being imposed as well. And, I guess that's all I have if you have any questions. HENKEL: Thank you, Mr. Takase. Mr. Fuke, do you have anything to add? FUKE: Just very briefly because, you know, this has been kind of like a quote, unquote, like a festering sore for the community, and so basically, I think the community as well as like the Applicant basically would want to just kind of have this ultimately determined, you know, sooner rather than later. And, so, I think, you know, Mr. Takase did indicate a number of things. I just want to amplify one. You know, on the contract zoning issue, it is true that it's something that was proposed by the Applicant. On the other hand, if it's challenged by the Applicant, then it becomes a questionable matter. If, for example, if you look at the previous application on the John Kai's, you know, application, there was a condition restricting, you know, only one dwelling per lot whereas like the Zoning Code actually enables a property owner to have like one or two more, you know, dwellings on the property. So, in situations like that, you know, that's almost like a standard condition that has been, you know, accepted by the County Council. However, if it's challenged, then it's a situation where, you know, it's not what the Applicant is representing although he had agreed to it. So, in situations like that, perhaps, that, if it's challenged, could fall under the umbrella of the contract zoning and, thus, make that particular decision, you know, legally questionable. In terms of Condition G on the enforceability, I can understand what the staff is saying about like, you know, it's difficult to, you know like, how do you enforce like, you know, excessive idling, smoking, and so on and so forth. The reason that was suggested by the Applicant is that by having more specific details in terms of what to look for, then it becomes easier to enforce as opposed to just say that, you know, a generic condition that, you know, the parking lot shall not create any offensive, you know, not be offensive to the surrounding property owners or whatever. Then, it becomes, you know, how do you define, you know, offensive or whatever, so by having little bit more specific or more articulation as far as to what to look for whether it's going to be smoking, excessive idling or, you know, like reverse parking, you know so on and so forth, the concept behind that was to enable enforcers or other surrounding property owners to take pictures and create like a much more credible record for enforcement. That's pretty much it I guess. HENKEL: Thank you. Are there any questions of the Applicant? MIYASATO: I have a question. HENKEL: Yes. 5 EXHIBIT F