HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0019.037 2002-2004Kathleen Porter
P.O. Box 545
Volcano, HI 96785
808-967-7960
alanuary 3, 20Q ? 2'
Re: Bill #4; Maurice Thomas Application for Rezoning
Dear Mr. Safarik,
This is offered in response to testimony given by Mr. Sidney Fuke at the December 17, 2002
hearing before the Planning Committee. Unfortunately, in the absence of anyone from the Planning
Department or the Corporation Counsel's office at the meeting, Mr. Fuke was cast in a positon, as
former Planning Director, to offer an opinion to Council Members whether approval of the proposed
rezoning in Volcano Village conformed to the General Plan and the Zoning Code. I believe this
constituted a clear conflict of interest for the applicant's consultant to be asked to offer an `official"
opinion to the County Council. Mr. Fuke answered that the Planning Director's favorable
recommendation of the project indicated the application conformed to the General Plan and was an
allowed use in the CV zoning district. I strongly disagree with this.
With all due respect to Planning Director Chris Yuen, I believe his recommendation is based on
an incorrect interpretation of the General Plan and the Hawaii County Code.
The applicant describes the proposed structure(s) as "an improved storage facility for
building material such as lumber, roofs and the like." These are precisely the words one might
use in describing a warehouse or a lumberyard, neither of which is an allowed use in CV zoning. Does
it not circumvent the intent of the Zoning Code to claim a warehouse is not a warehouse
because it is an accessory structure to an existing retail establishment and a lumberyard is not
a lumberyard because it will be enclosed? Walls or no walls, the same fork lifts, lumber delivery
trucks, etc. will be moving and stacking the materials. (Please see attached drawing). One should not
be allowed to do indirectly what one is not allowed to do directly.
According to HCC 25-4-4: "Any use not listed among the permitted uses in a zoning
district is a prohibited use within that district, except as otherwise provided in this chapter."
While the Zoning Code lists 48 separate uses that are allowed in CV zoning, warehouses,
lumberyards, and equipment rental, by omission, are NOT allowed in the CV district.
Warehouses, lumberyards and eqiupment rental are, however, specifically mentioned in other zoning
districts. Warehousing does not show up as an allowed use until MCX (Industrial -Commercial
Mixed Use), ML (Limited Industrial) and MG (General Industrial) districts.
I. SEMANTICS ISSUE: �`
"Warehousing." according to the Zoning Code. means "the storage ofdtll%r�eria 7
File No. 7
Re . o: — •
finished products, merchandise and/or other goods, within a building for subsequent delivery,
transfer and/or pickup." To describe this facility, which is 300 feet in total length and 15,000
square feet in area as merely an extension of a small retail establishment, clearly subverts the intent
of the Zoning Code classifications. It is difficult to find buildings this large on Makaala Street in Hilo's
industrially -zoned district. Mr. Fuke admitted that this is. indeed. a warehouse when he said at
the Dec. 17 meeting, "If you open up a jewelry store, your storage requirements would
probably be one safe. If you open up a True Value Store .... it's not housed in a safe, it's just
housed in a warehouse." It is hard to understand how these two warehouses, which would be
more than four times the size of the existing hardware store, can be described as merely auxiliary
storage for a small, rural hardware store in a forested village setting. Whether the structure can be seen
from the road or not, it is still a warehouse and its approval would represent an unfortunate precedent
for future growth.
Mr. Fuke again admitted the proposed structure was a "warehouse" when he said at the
Dec. 17 meeting that the applicant was asking to rezone an additional 1.4 acres "for the express
purpose of constructing a building to accommodate his expanded warehouse needs."
GENERAL PLAN ISSUE:
Mr. Fuke referred to the fact that Mr. Yuen stated in his recommendation report that the
rezoning will conform to the goals, policies and standards of the Economic and Land Use elements of
the General Plan. Mr. Yuen quotes in his report from the General Plan:
A. "Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life."
Which residents? This proposal does not improve the quality of life of the adjacent property
owner who has been granted two use permits by the County, one for a bed and breakfast and the other
for a wellness center. Being forced out of business by a lumber warehouse next door does not
necessarily improve her quality of life. Nor is this project likely to improve the quality of life of the
lodge, restaurant and gallery owners along Old Volcano Road and the dozens of other resident
employees in Volcano who depend on the quiet, peaceful nature of this area in attracting visitors to a
variety of lodging and visitor -related establishments. Pedestrians and bicyclists, who would have to
share this quiet, narrow road with lumber hauling trucks, would not enjoy an improvement in quality of
life, as well.
B. "Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in
keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County."
Such a project is not in keeping with appropriate proportions and mix, or in keeping with the
social, cultural and physical environments of the County. This proposal is dividing our community
socially and culturally, and threatening our irreplaceable and fragile natural/physical environment.
C. "The county shall encourage development .... in balance with the
physical and social environment."
Again, this proposal, rather than being in balance, is thoroughly out of balance with the
physical and social environment. Volcano is a buffer zone to a World Heritage Site and International
Biosphere Reserve. Volcano is also unique in that it is one of the few remaining communities that is a
gateway to a major national park that has not been lost to run -away development.
D. "Zoning requests shall be reviewed with respect to ... compatibility
with adjacent zoned uses '
The property where I reside and where I conduct my bed and breakfast and wellness center
businesses is still zoned residential (RS -20). This is the home where our children grew up. We still
live here after many years. The majority of properties along Old Volcano Road are still Bed
residential. It is quite a leap to suggest that warehouses of this size and scope are compatible with
adjacent zoned uses.
B. "Distribution of commercial areas shall be such as to best meet the demands of
neighborhood, community and regional needs."
A semi -industrial commercial area in the heart of the Volcano Village neighborhood does not
best meet the needs of so many people involved in the burgeoning visitor industry of the Volcano area.
Rather, it is a bit like shooting ourselves in the foot.
"The development of commercial facilities should be designed to fit into the
locale with minimal intrusion while providing the desired services.
Ironically, Mr. Yuen, in addressing the issue of curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements
describes the Volcano area this way: "... the village is rural in nature. Thus to require these
improvements would be incompatible with the area and change the unique character and rural ambiance
of the community." Amazingly, a massive lumber warehouse is considered "minimal
intrusion" that would not change the "unique character and rural ambiance of the
community."
Further, Mr. Fuke referred to the many concessions the applicant has been willing to make. It
is my observation that these "concessions" (dividing one 300 foot long building into two
buildings 150 feet long each, hours of operation beginning from 8:00 a.m. rather than 7:30
a.m.) are not meaningful. As for confining all operations inside the buildings, this is not a voluntary
concession by the applicant, but one required of him by the Planning Department and one that is
fraught with problems (see below).
In referring to the Volcano Vision 2020 community plan, Mr. Fuke said it lacked legitimacy.
Actually, the Planning Department not only sanctioned the illanning nrocesa ac legitimate but
encouraged, supported and participated in that process at the time It is my observation that
those who now object to the plan generally object to any type of regulations and, with few exceptions,
chose not to participate in the Vision 2020 process and are unlikely to have read it. Many people
involved in the original planning process are still hopeful for some sort of resolution of the ongoing
polarization through a process of cooperative dialogue, which they enthusiastically support.
Finally, I would ask the following questions:
I) Where exactly does the boundary exist on Old Volcano Road between Low Density
Urban and Medium Density Urban on the LUPAG Map of the General Plan? Low Density
Urban, which may define a portion of the proposed rezoned area, does not allow even CV
zoning, but is restricted to CN (Commercial Neighborhood) zoning as the only commercial
option. This is a question I think needs to be answered and resolved.
2) Since all activities, including the moving of lumber merchandise and the maintenance and
repair of rental machinery and equipment, will be required to be conducted inside the
buildings, as stated in the Planning Department report in order to minimize noise and visual impacts,
will the huge doors be required to be kept shut in order to accomplish this end? What of the
sounds of machinery and equipment reverberating inside uninsulated metal walls? And if the doors are
to be kept closed at all times, then what of Department of Health and OSHA regulations
pertaining to worker health and safety standards, as well as Fire Department regulations
regarding the operation of combustible gas-fired engines in enclosed spaces? Conversations I've
had in recent days with officials from these agencies, make it clear that this option leaves many
unanswered, and possibly unsolvable, questions in this regard.
This proposal represents a drastic departure from what has characterized Volcano all these
many years. Not only would allowing this rezoning set an unfortunate precedent for Volcano,
but for small rural communities througout the Big Island. There is just too much at stake
here, too many unanswered questions, and too much upheaval within the community to allow
this to happen.
I apologize for the length of these remarks and thank you for so seriously considering this
important issue.
Sincerely,
i
Kathleen Porter
s-"Uj,oc
I
moisn
afo
.syr :es ruvvaa 3
Figure 4