Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0609.001 2000-2002 Testimony of Kim Evans Change of Zone Request for TMK 7-4-06:06 Robert Kelshaw Greenwell Planning Commission Meeting in Hilo Friday, March 22, 2002 ; , 't'" ~ t ~ As you know from my previous testimony at prior meetings, I afri~. opposcd-to the- approval of this Change of Zone request. I have testified in opposition to this application at every Planning Commission Meeting that has been open to public testimony. I am an adjacent property owner and my property will be directly affected by the future development of the subject property. The density and character of the proposed development are inappropriate and undesirable. There aren't any planned improvements on the section of road that will be most greatly impacted by the residents of this proposed development, according to the County Department of Public Works and the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation. The County of Hawaii Police Department writes that there should be consideration given to improving the infrastructure along the portion of Mamalahoa Highway in the Honokohau area. Given that there aren't any plans to improve the existing infrastructure that would have to support the traffic generated by the increased density, I don't understand how anyone can justify adding any more homes to the area. Just because the subject property is a relatively large parcel, and has adequate water units for the proposed density, doesn't obligate the Planning Commission or the County to grant the request at this time. It may be unfortunate for the applicant, but it is irresponsible to continue to allow further development until the infrastructure is adequate, and the use of the land is consistent with its zoning designation. The consistent lack of consideration for the specific Agricultural use for this property has been shown in the application and in failure to adequately respond to the State of Hawaii Land Use Commission's request for clarification. After the sale of lots there is no way to enforce agricultural use of the land, therefore the intentions of Mr. Greenwell are of no use in protecting the potential for agriculture on the land. The applicant has had ample opportunity to address this issue and has not done so to my satisfaction. Mr. Lim mentioned the proposed changes to the General Plan that there is a recommendation that this area be included in Other Important Agricultural Lands. If this is the case, we have a responsibility to be sure that the land is used for agriculture. As we all know, the use of 1-acre parcels for legitimate agricultural use in not enforced. The time to address the problem is now. Don't approve any more 1-acre agriculture lots until a system is in place to insure agricultural activity on the land -not proposed activity, but existing agricultural activity. The applicant has had over 10 years to use this parcel for agriculture. We're expected to believe that cutting it into the minimuml acre parcel size is going to provide more opportunity -for what? agricultural use or the developer's profit margin? Providing opportunity does not make anything happen unless the landowner is willing to seize that opportunity voluntarily. It is a proven problem and you owe it to the people of Kona to be a part of the solution, not to escalate it. CoYntri. N®, • , File N~. There are numerous 1-acre agricultural subdivisions I could name that are not supporting agriculture other than backyard gardening. When are we going to stop letting developers slide on the much-needed improvements in infrastructure and beautification of Kona. The County will be paying for this later if it is not addressed at the time of these requests. One of the reasons the infrastructure is inadequate and the budget funds are lacking, is that the land is being cut up and lost to residential use with agricultural zoning that generates less taxes and requires less infrastructure to develop. These owners are still driving on the same roads as the rest of the homeowners, and relying on the same infrastructure as everyone else. If individuals are going to get a tax break for proposed agricultural use on agricultural zoned land, let's try a lot harder to insure that agricultural activity is proven. Clearly the applicant was aware of all of the options at the time of his request, and chose to submit this zoning designation without considering all of the issues affecting the adjacent property owners and the impact of his development on the community. Judging by the minimal effort put into the application, I expect that the finished product will be equally minimal in effort. The Planning Commission has the power to control development and sometimes that takes a bit of courage to use that power for the benefit of the community. This type of irresponsible development should not be allowed. As I said in the first meeting, the applicant should go back to the drawing board, give up the self-serving, profit maximizing approach and come up with a plan the community can live with that will have a positive impact. This property should remain agricultural and the parcels increased to 3-5 acres. If you have the courage to put the needs and wants of the people of Kona ahead of the profit potential this applicant and other developers seek, you will be able to preserve what is left that makes this island the unique, attractive, interesting place that it is. Please vote for denial of this Change of Zone application. October 29, 2001 Ohana Keauhou Beach Hotel Notes for Public Hearing on Change of zone application for TMK 7-4-006:006 By Kim Evans I have an undivided interest in the 65 acre parcel directly mauka and bordering the subject property. I live above the 65 acres, and my legal access is through both the 65 acre parcel and the 27 acre subject property. I have a different philosophy toward land development in this area. If land is designated for Agricultural use, let it be just that. I don't believe that the Family Agriculture designation was intended for this type of situation. Although I could benefit from the rezoning of the 27 acre parcel and use it as an argument for rezoning the 65 acres for my own monetary gains, I am absolutely opposed to this zone change and the increased housing density that it would bring to the area. I am also concerned about the old government road ,that seems to be gradually disappearing. Perhaps my view is different because I am actually living in the immediate area, unlike the applicant, who may not ever live there himself. I will be left to live with whatever is created in my neighborhood, as will the others living immediately below. Those who travel the surrounding roads will also have to contend with the effects of this proposal. This application for change of zone lacks planning, lacks consideration to the surrounding community. The applicant has been involved in agriculture for yeazs, and should know what the agricultural possibilities are on 1 acre, and what they are not. It is my opinion, after reviewing the application, that the primary reasons for rezoning this acreage to smaller parcels will benefit the applicant far more than it will benefit the community. It is not beneficial to the community to subdivide without proper planning. It is unwise to approve rezoning without plans for adequate infrastructure. One cannot make a positive impact on the community just by cutting up land into smaller parcels, simply to make them available. We should expect more from those who hope to benefit from the approval of a rezoning change. The burden should be on the applicant to show how they will make a contribution to the housing options in the area and to the surrounding community that already exists; dividing land into 1 acre parcels on a map with inappropriate zoning and minimum consideration for the impact on the community, does not constitute adequate planning Concerns about granting rezoning classification to FA-la: The proposed lots are too small to allow for agricultural use. The zoning classification gives landowner far too many options that are not appropriate for the area or for the size of lot proposed. By the time the `Farm Dwelling" and accessory structures are built, and the cesspool, garage and driveway are in, and with the required setbacks, there won't be much land left to support agriculture. The ratio of living area to useable agricultural property must be considered. The following permitted uses of Family Agricultural Districts are inappropriate for this parcel: Animal Hospitals, cemeteries, Farm Dwellings, Group living facilities, livestock, boarding stables ,roadside stands, telecommunications antennas, Veterinary establishments. Additionally, options are available for use permits and special use permits for Adult Day Care homes, Bed and Breakfasts, Golf Courses, Day Care centers, Sanitariums, major outdoor amusements and recreation facilities and mortuaries. These activities are also inappropriate, as they have very little to do with agriculture. I was told by someone in the Planning Department that there is a difference between a Farni Dwelling and an Ohana unit, but it is stated in the in the permitted uses that Ohana dwellings are permitted also. This doesn't make sense to me. It seems as though the justification for 1 acre, is that the property below is 1 acre. An opposing argument could be made for larger lots, as the property above and on either side is significantly larger. The property above it is 65+, zoned Ag 10, the properties on the North and South borders are significantly larger than 1 acre, and not zoned 1 acre. There may be certain property owners in the area who may wish to apply for a change of zone if this request is granted, using the same argument in this application. (It may be of interest to note that the agent for the applicant owns property that borders the proposed subdivision, and there is a potential conflict of interest here that should be brought to light.) There have been 2 accidents in the last week that have closed Palani Road to thru traffic. Traffic at Palani Junction is very congested. Turning left on Palani Road from Mamalahoa Highway at any time, but especially in the mornings, can take an additional 5-10 minutes of waiting for a safe break in the traffic. Construction would certainly have an impact on the wild animals that live in the area. These animals include ring neck pheasants, hawks, turkeys, owls and native birds. CONCERNS ~4~ITH APPLICATION ITSELF: 1 d) If the applicant is not going to build houses, who is? Will this be left to the individual landowners who will eventually purchase the subdivided lots. What will the parameters be? Will there be any, or is this just a plan to subdivide and sell -without any concern for the future of the project after the sale? 3. Alleviate the local housing situation sounds like a great idea, but it will also add to a traffic problem, create more ntnoff, it would be unsafe and also allows for inappropriate use of the land with the Family Agricultural zoning designation. I would argue that the shortage we are experiencing in housing at present is not due to a shortage in parcels, but a shortage of homes. One could argue that 1 lot would alleviate the local housing situation. What we need are houses to be planned, and planned well -not just rezoning, that would leave the enhancements up to the developer's scruples and the residual effects for the surrounding community and the County to deal with after the fact. There are very few people who will volunteer to spend any more money than they have to on improvements, unless they are required to do so before rezoning can be granted. How is the applicant going to contribute to the community in the form of property improvements and infrastructure, and how will he minimize the impact of this development on the lifestyle enjoyed by the surrounding properly owners. 6. a,b,c The applicant hasn't considered ANY of these questions? Certainly someone should look into the commodities that could be produced on the area of one acre that is left after the house, garage, driveway, cesspool ar~d setbacks are in place. I urge the planning Dept to do a bit of research in this area and look at other parcels with the same zoning to see how many of those actually support agricultural use, and what the impact on those surrounding communities has been. 6d.) The application states that the applicant is relying on definition of "Farm Dwellings" to assure agricultural use. I want to know what the applicant is going to do in addition to the "Farm Dwelling" classification. I would like to see evidence of the applicant's effort to assure this land is used for agriculture. 7. There can be some very heavy rains in the area and the subject property is very steep. I would like to know how the applicant plans to protect the surrounding properties from run-off after construction is completed. 8. Perhaps the applicant does not think that the roads need improvement, but I certainly do. I drive up and down the road every day at least twice, and there is low visibility, it is steep and two cars can barely pass on it. I have had several close calls with large trucks when I have had to get off the road completely. A large truck coming down that road cannot stop in time to avoid a car. Who determines whether the road is adequate for the proposed traffic? What are the standards?. Presently it is not safe -how can it be safe with 23 additional homes on it? What we have here is an attempt to use a road built for the Water Department, that is inadequate for a subdivision. 9. Will all of these things be done privately? a. Isn't the school district already overloaded? b. Will the road be brought up to county standards? The road leading up to it and the road into the proposed subdivision should be dedicated to the County as a condition to ANY further activity on the property. e. police -private security? Our police are already overloaded. Will they have jurisdiction? £ Fire -private? Hydrants? g. public utilities - in place for the Water Dept -not acceptable -should be underground. The following changes and conditions should be imposed before any zoning changes are considered Dedicate the road leading to the subject property to the County, and bring entire road up to county standards. Put the utility lines underground. - (electrical poles were put in for the Department of Water Supply, not with a subdivision in mind.) Limit the parcels to a 5 acre minimum, and do not allow the Family Agricultural designation here. Come up with a plan to control run off. Limit the number of pets and/or livestock Consider the size of "farm equipment" permitted, as the area is steep and unsafe for equipment to be brought up and down the road on a regular basis, and the parking of any equipment on the road should be prohibited. Limit the height of the structures to protect the views of the surrounding property owners. Include a specific beautification plan complete with landscaped entry and other common areas for the residents of that subdivision. Preserve the Old Mauka Government road A traffic signal at Palani Junction should be installed, as it is overdue. The applicant is in the process of disputing the boundary on the North side of the subject property. This should be settled prior to any change of zone, as the configuration of lots would change as a result. How can one apply for a change of zone and submit a map of the proposed lot configurations, when he is not certain of the boundary line? I ask that consideration of this application be deferred until more information can be gathered and the concerns of those in the community can be addressed. I am requesting that there be an on-site inspection of the subject property, it's road and the roads surrounding it, and a traffic study done at Palani Junction to determine the impact of adding any more vehicles to the already congested intersection. The Planning Department has a responsibility to the surrounding community to see that this application be more thorough, more specific, more appropriate, and protects the individuals in the community and the rights of landowners that border these projects. To allow this to continue through the approval process would be irresponsible. There is no downside to the community in delaying the request, but approving the request prematurely, would most certainly create problems for surrounding property owners. Perhaps the applicant should take this application back to the drawing board with the community in mind this time around. This is a self -serving request. Continued notes for hearing regarding Change of Zone Application (REZ O 1-010) Thursday, December 6, 2001 at 9:OOam. By Kim Evans I would like to begin by stating that I am opposed to the rezoning of the subject property to FA-1 a, or any other size of Family Agricultural classification. I don't think that this classification is suited to large parcels, and I certainly don't think we need 23 of these parcels in our neighborhood. I listed in previous testimony the problems with this type of zoning, and hope that you have all had a chance to look over the copy I presented at the last hearing. I hope that there has been a site inspection of the property by members of the Planning Commission. There are still many unanswered questions and unresolved issues that must be addressed before any decision can be made, and I ask that there be further investigation into the ownership of the Old Mauka Government Road, the traffic problem, the inadequate road, the preservation of the vies from the burdening properties, lack of specific planning and sufficient infrastructure, and the inappropriate zoning that is being requested. I would like to continue my testimony with concerns regarding the County Environmental Report What follows is a list of quotations and what concerns me about the wording in this report: 2. Conformance of State and County Plans 2.1 State Land Use Law "The proposed action will be improved small-scale lots, with residentiaUfarm dwelling and accessory uses, which is not contrary to the purposes of the State Land Use Law designation for the property." So, "not contrary" what does this mean? Why this word choice? 2.2 Hawaii State Plan This states that approving the requested rezoning should satisfy the following economic objectives: "encourages the growth and development of diversified agriculture....by making available agricultural suitable lands with adequate water to accommodate present and future needs. This property is already zoned agricultural. How is FA-1 a going to encourage the growth of diversified agriculture if it is not adding any more available agricultural land? The Water Department has already granted 22 units. Has the owner himself been using this property for agricultural use? There may be adequate water for 27 acres, but does that justify cutting up the parcels? "..by utilizing vacant, undeveloped lands and providing opportunities for small scale agricultural activities.." Define `small scale' and why do we need so many structures on this? 2.3 Hawaii County General Plan `..by allowing for small-scale farming, thereby making diversified agriculture a feasible endeavor for the young family or resident with limited income." Whether a person is young or old, living alone or with a family, has a low or high income is not relevant. The words `young family' and `limited income' are in there to make it sound like the applicant is doing the community a favor. The truth is, agriculture could be considered feasible and diverse for just about anyone depending on perspective. Furthermore, this zoning would also allow many other undesirable alternatives and is far too diverse for this application. Many of the possible uses are so diverse that I can't see how they fit into the category of agriculture at all. "FA-1 a zoning and land use of adjacent parcels" Examples of these parcels should be provided. "retain the overall rural ambience..." How is rezoning from 20 acre agricultural use to 1 acre family agricultural classification retaining the rural ambience??? How can 23 - 46 additional homes and 46-92 vehicles retain the ambience? Broaden the region's economic base?? How specifically would this happen? Does the applicant have any examples?? Land Use Now we have a "mix of residential and small scale agricultural activities' and we are again given reference to "adjacent parcels" with FA-la zoning. I would like to know where these adjacent parcels are. Land Use -Agriculture Again we have justification for this that the `proposed rezoning would complement the aforementioned policy by allowing for small-scale farming, thereby making diversified agriculture a feasible endeavor for the young family or resident with limited income". This is not an`appropriate location'. How is small scale farming feasible on a limited income? "Diversified Agricultural are highly desirable to Kona residents as a way to maintain the rural lifestyle and character of their communities." First of all, this is a generalization. Second, it is irrelevant. What is relevant in the General Plan are the words, "in appropriate locations". I have seen no concrete justification for this parcel being an appropriate location for the FA-1 a zoning. I don't think that that the FA-1 a zoning is what the surrounding residents find desirable. How diverse can agriculture be on 1 acre with a farm dwelling and a residence? Environmental Quality "The project will not create any significant adverse effect on the environment." Define significant? What about run-off from the decrease in available land and increase in roof area? ...............sedimentation? Natural Beauty There are view planes to be considered even if the County of Hawaii doesn't list the property to have any Scenic view planes. What is the criteria for a Scenic view? Does this relate to individuals or to the public? The General Plan states that utilities should be put underground where feasible, and that vies of surrounding areas must be preserved. "The Project would also make available an increase in the availability of 1 acre family agricultural lots." Is there a shortage? This area is not appropriate for FA-1 a. 3.1.2 Topography and Soils "The has not been used for any agricultural activity and none is anticipated." What about family ag activities? The Project would not remove any of the property from being utilized for agricultural uses.... There would be no lands removed from the County of Hawaii's agricultural land inventory." Maybe on paper this is true of land zoned agriculture, but the reality is that not much agricultural will take place, and land will be lost to residences and infrastructure. 3.4 Socio-economic Resources Impacts and Mitigation "very low density agriculturally based residential use...' Low density? 4. Infrastructure, Public Facilities and Services 4.1 Access Impact and Mitigation "It is not anticipated that the proposed action will generate any significant daily vehicular trip counts along the private roadway which are generated by area residents.' How can one NOT anticipate a significant increase in traffic when so many parcels and dwellings are possible? The applicant needs to consider the long term effects on the rezoning classification, not what will happen in the days following the rezoning classification. 4.2 Water System Privately operated water system? How will this be set up? What standards are required for this? Have any plans been submitted? 5. Environmental Assessment and analysis 5.1 Relationship Between Short-Terns and Long-Term Uses and Maintenance of Long Term Productivity The following statement contradicts the previous statements made by the applicant "While development of the property will remove the land from existing agricultural use, the agricultural productivity of the site is relatively low and there is an abundance of other lands available in the region that are better suited for such use. Developing the property for the intended rural residential use will provide the benefit of enlarging the inventory of rural residential property to this area. 6.1 No Action Alternative Based on the concerns mentioned in my testimony, The `no action alternative' is more attractive than inappropriate zoning with premature consideration. 6.2 Alternative Use "Infrastructure to serve the property is already in place to the project." This `infrastructure is minimal at best. The road and power lines were put in to access and service the Honokohau Well, not a subdivision. It would certainly be. Furthermore, no changes have been made to assist with traffic congestion on Mamalahoa Highway, Palani Road or Palani Junction. The area is already lacking adequate roadways, and traffic signals. These should be taken care of before any rezoning for proposed subdivisions is considered. Additionally, there must be some documentation regarding the ownership of the Old Mauka Government Road. Just because someone claims it under oath, doesn't dismiss the necessity of documentation. The applicant should be required to produce this documentation if he is claiming ownership of the road. This report is full of `feel good' phrases, `buzz words' and rhetoric that may sound persuasive at first, but has the potential to create problems for the surrounding community in the future. One must think long term and anticipate the consequences of approving this rezoning classification. The Planning Commission has a responsibility to address all of the concerns presented by the surrounding community. To defer this matter would allow time for this to occur. Planning Commission Meeting Friday, February 1, 2002 Ohana Keauhou Beach Hotel Notes for Public Hearing on Change of Zone Application for TMK 7-4-006:006 This is the third time I have offered testimony on this Change of Zone Application. I have many concerns, as you have been made aware of in the past. At the last meeting, I got the impression that the Old Mauka Government Road issue was of greatest concern. I want to emphasize that the ownership Old Government Road is not the only issue before the Planning Commission. There are issues of density, rights of surrounding community and public health and safety issues as well. Should the plot plan be reconfigured to leave the Old Government Road out of the proposed lots, this should not be viewed as any concession on the applicant's part, as it has not been proven that he has ownership of the portion in question. I would also like to add that although Mr. Greenwell is my Uncle, our personal relationship is irrelevant to my testimony regarding his proposed development. As you may have noticed, I have no feeling of obligation to agree with him, or disagree with him based on family relations. This is an independent issue that will impact the community, and as a member of the community, I am simply exercising my right to testify regarding this matter. The density of the requested zoning is too great, as it seeks the maximum number of lots and allows for additional dwellings as well. If I understand correctly, the Family Agriculture designation has replaced the Agriculture designation. If this is the case, it appears there is no other choice than FA in an agricultural area. However, the zoning should be changed to FA-Sa, rather than the requested FA-la, with conditions imposed that would protect the rights of property owners and insure public health and safety. I am opposed to the 1-acre parcel size. At some point, as the development creeps up the slopes of Hualalai, there needs to be a line drawn where 1-acre parcels end and larger parcels begin. I would ask that the 1 acre zoning cease at the Kai subdivision, as the entire area could explode into 1 acre parcels of dual density in short order. If this parcel were in 5 acre pieces, there would be some degree of a transition to the 10 and 20 acre zoning of the parcels that surround the subject property on 3 sides, and additional farm dwellings could be more legitimate. (Refer to map) To take a 27 -acre parcel zoned Ag- 20a and rezone it to FA-1 a is a giant leap into development. This is unrealistic and inconsiderate to the community. The application for an additional farm dwelling on TMK 7-4-6-9 gives an example of what could happen 23 times over if this Change of Zone was permitted. I feel that the community would be better served by increasing the parcel size to 5 acres. This is a more realistic size for agricultural activity. If a legitimate need is proven for a farm dwelling on a 5 acre parcel, this degree of density would be more appropriate and more suitable for agriculture. (Note: A reconfiguration of the lots without also changing the zoning to FA-Sa would not be acceptable. If lots were reconfigured into 5-acre parcels with the lacre zoning, this would leave the door open for additional parcels in the future if the Planning Commission could be convinced that increased density would be a good thing in our area.) To protect the rights of adjacent landowners, the following are some conditions that should be imposed: 1.The view planes of the surrounding properties must be taken into consideration, even if they have no dwellings on them yet. To protect the views, buildings should be restricted in height and may need to be restricted to single story buildings in the higher lots, utilities must be placed underground, as the electric poles span the entire views in areas of adjacent parcels. 2. Any street lighting should be low profile, so as not to disrupt the area and inhibit the views of the stars or discourage wildlife from entering area. 3. CCRs with lbuilding restrictions. For example, a minimum residence size of 1700 square feet of living area, limitations as to style of homes to maintain the upcountry feeling of the area. By this I mean stucco and Mediterranean style homes and track homes should be avoided and a variety of dwellings with ranch style architecture and wooden siding is favorable. This would help to maintain property values. Include a beautification plan to make the subdivision a tasteful, beautiful, enhancing rather than detracting from the land and the agricultural climate. 5. Agricultural activity should be limited somewhat where livestock and domestic fowl are concerned. The number of pets should be restricted, even on 5 acres. 6.10To taunting or trapping of wild or domestic animals. The following public health and safety issues need to be addressed 1. Limit water run-off to adjacent parcels and insure proper drainage during heavy rains. 2. Make road wider and provide grass shoulder for pedestrians 3. Address safety, evacuation and emergency procedures 4. The potential for ground avatar contamination due to proximity of the Honokohau Well must be addressed and avoided. 5. There should be a traffic study done on Mamalahoa Highway to determine the impact of additional vehicles on the road on a daily basis. 6. Before any further subdivision applications are considered on land that uses Mamalahoa Highway for access, a stoplight should be installed at the top of Palani Road. 7. No overnight street parking should be allowed 8. Long tarots caanping should be prohibited I do not understand how the applicant has 22 water units, and how this is expected to impact the decision on the rezoning of the parcel. Are these units already granted? Does the fact that the applicant has enough water units for the larger parcel somehow help to justify the number of proposed parcels? I would like to ask a representative from the Department of Water Supply answer these and the following questions about water usage. How much does each unit allow? How much water is used daily by the average household? Is this enforced? Are there any figures available to estimate the average water needed for agricultural activity on a 5 acre parcel? If the allowance was enforced, would there be enough water available to support agriculture with one unit on 1 acre. How many would be necessary on a 5 acre parcel? I am asking these questions because I am concerned that at some future date there will be a need to enforce the usage of water, and the limit should be regarded as if it were to be enforced. I think there needs to be an effort on the applicant's part to try to come up with a plan the community can live with, as many have already made their homes here and have come to enjoy the existing characteristics of the community. I feel that there should be some degree of cooperation with the adjacent property owners to preserve the quality of life that exists right now. I see no consideration for the community, or for agricultural potential at all in the Application, and there are contradictory statements regarding agricultural land in the County Environmental Report. I have heard all the public testimony at the last two hearings on this issue, and thus far have not heard one property owner speak entirely favorably about it. The applicant has not been around for all of the testimony, which unfortunately gives the impression that he is not interested in working with the community. It is my belief that the community would be more apt to support the project if the applicant was willing to work with the community rather than independently without regard for the concerns expressed at these public hearings. We must work towards a compromise. While I realize it would not be fair to completely deny Mr. Greenwell the development of his parcel I feel that the community has a right to request that, modifications to the application be made and parameters in place before rezoning is allowed to happen. It seems to me that there is room for compromise on both sides here. The application should be revised with acommunity-minded approach. The parcel size is inappropriate and the application shows very little consideration for anyone but the applicant. Don't allow this to be railroaded through your department for the County Council to iron out. I ask you to put the burden on the applicant to consider the impact of his proposal on the environment and those who have made Honokohau Mauka their home. Most of the larger parcels in the surrounding area have been in families for many years, and if these families share my sentiment, they hope to hold on to their land for generations to come. Granting this Change of Zone would be unfortunate and unfair to those long time landowners. Should the request be granted as it stands now, the impact would be irreversible and it would show a blatant disregard for the issues raised by the public at this and previous hearings. I feel that the Planning Commission has a responsibility to work with the community to address the legitimate concerns presented ,and take action that is as fair as possible to all sides, which often requires compromise. Testimony of Kim Evans on Change of Zone Application for TMK 7-4-006:6 Public Hearing Monday, Feb 25, 2002 Ohana Keauhou Beach Hotel I would like to begin by addressing some statements made during the last meeting that I was unable to comment on. As you know, there was a lot covered in the meeting and after reviewing the minutes from that meeting, I feel it necessary to comment on statements made that could be misleading, and therefore require a response. TIME ELAPSED SINCE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION First of all, when the Planning Director announced his recommendation, Mr. Lim stated that there was an issue of time and that his applicant had been waiting since June for a decision. When you look at the history of this change of zone application, it was suibYnittecl prematurely for flee following reasons: 1. There was no agreement from the Department of Water Supply for adequate water units. (There was not an agreement from the DWS until November 27, 2001.) 2. There was insufficient documentation of ownership for the section of the Old Mauka Government Road that was included in several lots. 3. The proximity to Honokohau Well and effect of wastewater on groundwater quality was not considered. 4. The application was not well thought out in terms of the impact on the surrounding property owners. 5. The zoning designation applied for was designed to maximize housing density without sufficient consideration for what the existing infrastructure could support. 6. No consideration of actual agricultural use was apparent in the application. 7. The private road bisecting the property was deemed adequate when it clearly was not, which resulted in a scheduled sight inspection to make that determination, among other things. It doesn't seem as though the obvious issues were considered or anticipated prior to the application being submitted, which has delayed a vote. Most of the delay has been due to a lack of thoughtfulness on the applicant's part. It would be unfair to the community and to the taxpayers of the County to rush through the decision-making process because people want to make financial plans. The applicant's financial plans are irrelevant, and if time was an issue, the above items should have been taken care of prior to the submission of the application. Every time there has been a continuance, it has been with the agreement of the applicant, because there are things that have not been taken care of. This application was submitted prematurely, which is the main reason continues to be on the Agenda As you have seen here, an application can look to be straightforward on the surface, until a more in depth look has been taken. I don't think anyone could have anticipated from the outset how long this would take, however there were some things that the applicant was aware of as being potential problems at the time the application was submitted, and things that his attorney could have anticipated as well. The time taken did not appear to be an issue until there was an unfavorable recommendation made by the Planning Director. To now use that as a reason to "let it go through", is ridiculous and irresponsible. The Planning Commission must take all the time it needs to make an informed, well-considered decision. To push this through prematurely would not be fair to the County Council, as it would be left to iron out these issues. FAIRNESS When we talk of fairness, let's talk about it with regard to all involved. Eight months is really not significant when making lasting decisions that affect other people in the community. I would say the time "lost" by the applicant was time well spent by the Planning Commission, which should take as long as is necessary to make an informed decision. On the subject of fairness, the Mayor's remarks in the West Hawaii Today were taken out of context by Mr Lim, as the Mayor was referring to fairness in the allocation of budget funds, not in the personal needs of the applicant. It seems from his comments, that Mr. Lim's definition of fairness would be approval of his client's application, even if it is inappropriate, simply because it is taking some time to iron out problems that should have been taken care of months ago. There are no guarantees when applications are submitted as to how long things will take, and the applicant even agreed to extend the 120 days in order for the Water Department to meet and approve the water units that weren't yet committed to the subject property. It would not be fair to the County Council to pass this through without careful consideration of all the issues raised. ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE Just because the applicant has a response for some items, doesn't mean they are well thought out or acceptable responses. There have been some incorrect statements made by Mr. Lim, and written statements made in response to government agencies regarding improvements made to and planned for Mamalahoa Highway. I am prepared to offer a few examples of these unacceptable answers to issues raised by a few government agencies, specifically with regard to road conditions and traffic DOT letter dated September 11, 2001 (see attached) This letter lists traffic congestion, the precedent that will be set for increased density in the area mauka of and adjacent to the subject parcel, and the inadequacy of the infrastructure that presently exists and is committed for the near future. The DOT goes so far as to suggest that the community share the costs of the needed improvement. I don't see how you can hold the community responsible for the paving and widening improvements on the road, and I think it is time to ask the applicant to assist in funding infrastructure problems. Applicant's response to DOT (see attached) . How can the addition of 23 house-lots possibly NOT generate significant trips along the private roadway? The statement regarding the paving and widening of Mamalahoa is misleading and incorrect. The road improvements stop approximately '/4 mile south of the intersection of Mamalahoa Highway and the Honokohau Well Road. The only paving and widening that was done was on a small blind turn in front of one residence for a distance of approximately 100 feet. The rest of Mamalahoa Highway between the entrance to the subject property and Palani Junction has not been paved or widened, and according to information I have received from Engineering, there are no plans and no funds to do so. DPW letter dated July 20, 2001 does not address the condition of Mamalahoa Highway, but only the private road. They should be asked for more information to address this area of Mamalahoa Highway, as their information is incomplete. Police Department letter dated July 3, 2001 (see attached) suggests "consideration be given to improving the infrastructure along the old Mamalahoa Highway in the Honokohau area as well as Palani Road." Applicant's response is misleading, as the widening and repaving has not been done on the section that is most critical to the proposed subdivision. The 3/ mile portion of Mamalahoa Highway that will be used by the residents of the proposed subdivision has NOT been improved. As I have said in previous testimony, there are road improvements and traffic problems that still leave not been addressed. 'These should be considered and a traffie study ordered for Palani Junction prior to a further increase in density of this degree for Holualoa. AGRICULTURAL USE OF THE LAND The Land Use Commission also responded to the Planning Department after reviewing the application stating: "Clarification should be provided as to the specific agricultural activities and uses that are to be undertaken on the parcel. The applicant's response was this: "Each lot owner will be responsible for following the requirements as defined in the County's Family Agricultural and State Land Use Commission "Agricultural zone districts." This response is hardly clarification of specific agricultural activity and is completely unacceptable, as it doesn't address the question. The applicant has had 7 months to answer this question, and has neglected to do so. This question needs to be answered before a vote is taken. Perhaps the applicant can address this today, at an appropriate time. ACCESS OF ADJACENT LANDOWNERS While we are on the subject of letters, there is a letter in the file dated October 19, 2001 and signed by Mr. Robert Triantos that I initially chose not responded to. However, the same issues of access and the zoning of an adjacent parcel was mentioned again by Mr. Lim at a previous Planning Meeting. At this point, I feel a need to bring further awareness to issues discussed in this letter. I would like to read the letter now, as it best organizes my thoughts on the subjects. I have a copy for Mr. Yuen, and will be forwarding copies to the individuals listed on the last page. BOUNDARY DISPUTE As you know, the applicant is disputing the boundary on the North side of the parcel. He has also mentioned at the last meeting the boundary of the Mary Kalele Foglesong Living Trust (Ili of Elepaio) was moved to the south. The Planning Commission should wait until the applicant is finished going after adjacent property owners to see what results. I suggest the Co~naniSSi®n waits until the pending litigation is resolved before coaaaplicating the issue dvith a subdivision plan. I would hope that the boundaries of the subject parcel are critical inforanation. dVithout definite boundaries, one cannot be certain of the area for which zoning is being applaed. The applicant wants you to continue with the Old Government Road unsettled, and the boundary unsettled. Who does that benefit other than the applicant? Even if you are inclined to vote on this, a vote should be deferred for this reason alone. RECOMMENDATIONS -PLANNING COMMISSION AND PLANNING DIRECTOR The major difference between the two recommendations is that the Planning Director's position takes into consideration the actual use of the land, and the comments made by the community at the Public Hearings. OPPOSI'?'ION FOR FA-1 a The FA recommendation looks like the application all over again, and many quotes from the General Plan actually support the RA designation. The statement in the Planning Commission's recommendation, "The Kai subdivision would probably set the atmosphere for further development." is not a selling point for the FA-1 a zoning. The I~ai subdivision was created in 1979 with no apparent restrictive covenants, and it is very inconsistent. This is a result of poor planning. I aYn not convinced that this atmosphere will enhance or protect Yny property value. The General Plan states: The County shall protect residential roperty values from depreciating influences. I would consider a poorly planned neighborhood as a depreciating influence on my property. The following statement in the recommendation is incorrect regarding utilities: "Underground utilities for electrical purposes are available to the property." The fact is, and anyone who was at the site for the inspection prior to the last meeting would have seen that electrical poles have been used to run the electrical lines. The utilaties should be put underground, as the electrical poles are in the view plane of the properties to the east (mauka) of the subject property. Incidentally, I notice that the change of zone approved "for an adjacent 85 acre property to the east and above the subject property" fora " 2-lot subdivision" has surfaced again as attempted justification for the Commission's recommendation. It seems the Commission has taken a page out of Mr. Triantos' book. I do not think the FA-1 a zoning was intended for large parcels, and I think that the 3 to 5 acre parcel size is more appropriate and desirable for the area. If you look at the table of FA zoned lands in the background report, the only parcels that have been rezoned FA-1 a are smaller than 7.5 acres, and there are only (5) examples totaling approximately 22 acres. The only two parcels over 20 acres that have been rezoned in N. Kona, both located in Kaloko, have gone to FA-3a zoning. This parcel, being 27 acres, fits into the latter group of FA-3a zoning. This is a more fitting comparison than the 2-lot subdivision to the East of the subject property that the Planning Commission sites in it's recommendation. I-Iowever, if any Planning Commission members are still not convinced after reading the Planning Director's recommendation and the reasons behind it, I would ask that the following conditions be added to the list for FA-1 a zoning: 1) Prohibit the use of CPR, as Curtis Tyler recommended at the last meeting, 2) Require that the utilities be buried underground, as the General Plan calls for this 3) Include the preservation of view plans of surrounding properties by limiting the height of structures and landscape Limit types of Agricultural activity. 5) Prohibit overnight parking and long-term camping. 6) Prohibit parking of heavy equipment on lots. 7) Incorporate a beautification plan into the subdivision. 8) Prohibit the hunting or trapping of wild birds. 9) Limit number of animals, including livestock on each parcel. SUPPORT FOR RA-1 a Although I think the 1-acre parcel size is too small, at least the RA doesn't create more problems in terms of enforcing agricultural use. I think that if the applicant is insisting on a 1-acre parcel size, that the Planning Director's recommendation is the best way to go. I want to make it clear that I am not advocating reclassifying all of Holualoa in 15 acre increments to avoid petitioning the State Land Use Commission. I am sure this was not the intent of the Land Use Commission Agreement option and I hope this will not set a precedent we may regret for the area. The 1-acre parcel size doesn't solve the infrastructure problems and traffic congestion, but at least an effort is made to address the issue by making the larger lots 3 acres in size. Locating the 3-acre parcels along the mauka boundary is a smaller transition than I had hope for, but a transition, none-the-less. The most significant difference in the Planning Director's recommendation is that an effort was made to address the issues and concerns raised by the public in these hearings. This gives some credence to the concept of a public hearing, and shows that our concerns haven't fallen on deaf ears. It is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to look at the `big picture' in the planning process, and not focus solely on the subject property or the needs of the applicant. The Planning Director's recommendation shows a thoughtful attempt to address the issues raised, and considering the two choices before you today, I would hope that you find his recommendation better suited for this parcel.