HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0438.020 2002-2004 t-30-O>; 3: 16PM: van Rerr~.is. :bon 325685 tt n
aa3,R"~NA,g: ~ e Y T,' T1
e~'Y'A•P.nu '
eiu{FI
V a n P E R N I S n~~a, ewi S h° I T H ~V A' N C I L
tt'b1abl~ll 2004 JAN 30 PI4 4 05
COUNT ~ tl= ! i ^i"JNI
Councilmember Leningrad Elationofl; Chair
" Committee on Public Works and IntergovemmenlaL Relatifans
County of }iawaii
Hawaii Coluxty Building
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Re:. BILL NCI. I~99 i
Hearing Date: F'et~:raary 3, 2004 ~
Dear Mr. Eiarionoff, '
I have been ir.,formed that thf; atove refelTed to matlir will be considered in Hilo
on Februaxy 3, 200•F at 2 p.m. when I cantlot attend, and T strongly object to the
disadvantage we nearby landowners in Y.ona have been pot to as a result. I again, as an
enclosure, present my objections previously stated in whiting. Due zo the scheduling of
this pra:eec!ing and of my hearing, tlxe applicant Catl present true or untrue, objective or
subjective information and azpument without the opportunity for your committee to have 1
the benefi. of hearing and considering valid responsive information from the
.:ieighwriiv~id, u°i "e i~iaiu.iug r.'3tt~itri'~.x33i vr. h°ui'lu vu u,x$ wair~r :u n.vita.
Although urban developmf:nt o.' this area may be eventually appropriate, the
existing infrastructure deficiencies and protrlems it would add to would now demand a
denial of the application at this time.
Please reschedule this mattfr for a 13:orla hearing. •
Very tnll.y yours,
~
% ~b'PERI~'iS/
!ice e
`~i
IvIVPso
f;I1C10SUTe
<x: Charmaine T, Doran I
aLn~rs.,, ~w
M ARK VanPEH.VIS - DA VID E. SMITD -GARY W. YAh"CIL -JEANNH L. O`BR[EN
75•,6'+ F H~ ~alslei Rosd, Suite a, Keilua-Kom, Hawai ~ V i740 -Telephone: 329 ?`5l - FeR: 329-6135 - E-Mail vav@hawaii.rc.com
Comm. No. 3g•Lv
Ref. To: Pr
Ref. Date
, -3G-O>; 3: +6 PM: van Ferri i z. !!gqgg''gqgg~~pp :UO& 3L5613P tt a
ii'axl9~Ety
cr.¢
aL Fiilupnc ¢v
IIHiLtI[YYtO
.i
m¢
• p
:Sal 1
V a n P ~ R N I S ;fg ImI S M I T H & V A N C I L
sus .eueim
luly' 2L, LGv
PLANNING CCIMMISSION
CCUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNIPiG D>3P.~1tTMc'dT
Aupunu Center, Suite 3
101 Pauahi Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96'720
Re: Dourer Coffee Hawaii C'o. Inc.
Special Permit No. 02-010
Dear Planting Commission and 1?lamning Department,
1. Intr~lttlt
1 aLl CO11taCt1;1g ;yi,u personally, jGlned by niy lti1fS siriSti v'an Peiul6, w pr0•vide
wriiten testimony concenring the strove referred to matter, including the Findings of
Fact; Conclusion of law and Recolnro~endation submitted by hearing officer Sherry
Broder, and the Exceptions submitted by dre applicant. ~ttsrough its attorneys. I{risti i
and I axe the ownl~rs of the property iituxiediately adjoining the subject Dourer Coffee
~-n.,r'' ,,.~e1
Hawaii Company property (being 1,lVl.lt ,,3~ 7-5-11.4Y~, wttlt our property etng
identified with TPvIIC (3) 7-5-11:3A. Our property is ilirrs;tly adjacent to the portion
of the Dourer property the special nse permit applilation covers, and thus our
property would bl~, and 1^. fact alrC£rl~r is rlir~rtly ltttl??:.PQ, nltr pr^p.°.,''ty's n9~ ]5
residential and agriwlhrral. I
Whan Dourer first applied Por this Special Use Permit, we were contacted as
adjoining landowners and invited to try to reach agreement such that Dourer could
avoid a contested case proceedinf; viitlt us. By correspondence, we believed a
compromise agreement had been rea~:hed with Dourer, which resulted in our not
seeking a contested case proceeding. W e are glad that o'thccrs did have a contested case
proceecliag, in that it appears tthat, ]:router has abandoned and ignored what we
1`.Cl::'.`S.ul nr[ F :yl, ..,a„,,,,.,..,,:~a ..a.J ......oa„e.at ..,::Y. °1S tC ,.:d ,...te..~o.i
sv , ..y.+.,++ +~uu +.E,+...,++ a..wu o...+ m w+. wwu CaSc°
proceeding, after it was too late for us to ;initiate in+orre. Fur chose reasons, as well as
those stated below, we question the credibility of Dourer, and ask that any Special Use
Permit ix denied, but if granted be }~tc:cisely stated, closely supervised, and quickly
enfr~rc_.eil its the e_,y+,nt of yinlatiQn_
nrnwxe~x>.r Lbw
\ uw 20:UVJAN'pN
M AF'.K Va~PH RNIS' DAVID E S]N I'CH • GARY W. VA. NBC[[. •,tEANNE 40'BRIEN
95_169 F R~nlelai Rwl Sfin A lCailna.(mw~ Pngnii 4I:9Q .'frlenMe.~ IRIIVg94A451 . Fe.~ r909N'MLw9. P_U.:1 ..vF.~F
.-30-G4; 1: 4EGM: van Fein lS, .b0~ 3E56t &6 # of 6
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII Pl.ANN1NCi DEPARTMEfiI'f
Page trvo
July 2:!, 2003
II. Noise
Thr, heating officer recomme:ndcxf that the "(n)oise associFaexl with the public tours
and re~ ail activities shall not exceed a maximum of .5 decibels (dbA) along any
properly boundary...`', (.Hearing officer`s report at p.3lsec.S.hJ, and tecorrmreuds
prohibition of arnplificaiion devices for speech and musiq (p31, sec. St). Douter
seeks i:o allow the use of amplified music, without a. decibel limitation or other
standard.
The; fountain/pooUwaterfall pavilion on the propert}+ at certain times (which relates
to wind direction) we believe has been generating noisy in excess of 70 dbA onto our
property's house site. To be heard over the falling water of the fountain/pooUwaterfall
pavilions, amplification would likely have to exceed 70 dbA. Would Douter fain off
the fountaiNpool/waterfall pavilion, a centerpnece of 'its. anraction, during its other
conunercial activities? Not likel}+.
In the prior correspondence anc'. (uow apparently) abatndoned agreement with us,
no
amplification of any kind was involved. Douter now proposes some undefined and
unlimited amplification. There should be no amplification of any kind, and no ~
f042^.tairr~poaUwatorfa!1 pa:~tlio.'. cl'etat:nn Axr~pt .n~l:e,,,, t: ...,s*,s r:.,,..:,t. Thar
Conntp and the neightrors should not be burdened by having to poLtce and f
enforce amplification limits or other exceptions.
III. R'~~dinas and Otha'Y rven~ I
In prior correspondence and by fine abandoned agretimrent with us, Douter had
promised no weddings or other non-ai~ricultrual (coffee) tours or events of any kind,
except weddingg.,i'or Hawaii Dou~~p~vees and Kona Ca~ze Festival events. This
was also recommended by the he>uing officer (S.e. on page 30). Douter is now seeking
to allow "concerts, conventions and other types of special events", with the only
qualifier being that they somehow "relate" to the "coffee industry." This could be
regular craft fairs and farmers maark:ets (with attendant, noise, traffic and other
problems) that Douter world claim is tenuously related to the "coffee industry". This
could include concerts (amplified or otherwise) and almost any other event which
might involve some small portion. of pr.~cP.eds going to I:he °`coffee industry" or in some
arguable way ostensibly promotinf; the "coffee industry". These undefined and
indeimabie exceptions mah:e the h:aring orricers recomrnendateon meaningless. And, as
referred to below, Douter cannot be misted to act in good faith. Must the County or
neig66ors inva>stigate every event to find if there's a significant "connection" to
,-2n-ill: 4[4PGM: V.in Fer'rii HOF 3L56t 85 # 4: N
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF li[AWAH PLANNDYCi DEPARTME^l'['
Page tluee
7uly 22, 2003
Douter also seeks to allow wedcsngs of some undefined type. Looking at the way
the fountain pool/waterfall pavilions is built leads one to believe that it was
specifcally constructed for weddings and the like. Douter seeks an exception for
"non-commercial weddings" without a definition of what that means. Does this mean
that weddings paid for in Japan or E(a~raii to wcddinK organs=.seions, such that there is
no fee paid by the couple directly to Douter, (e.g. Douter gets their fees from
somebody else), are "non-commercial"'? If the wedding pazty pays Douter for a tour
and fo~~d service; without a line it,:trt charge for use nt' the pavi]inn ac a tyrtjjr
jng
location, but has the wedding there nonetheless, does this mean it was a "non-
. commercial" wedding. Since Douter is a huge organization with a huge number of i
employees, can there be large numbers o:f these employees, their relatives, friends and
families participating in big weddings at itlte property such that Douter claims they're
"non-commeroial"? Must the Plannurg Deparhnent oir aggrieved neighbors get into
Douter's financial records to try to determine what's commercial and what's not?
Must the Counh~ or ne[ghbors be burdened with trying to define and determine
whuch weddings are commercial"and ~°non-cornmerciai"?
Douter cannot be trusted to act in good faint. Defutitions of events and weddings
are subjective and can be exploited to the detriment of neighbors and the County. No
events other than Kona Cot)'ee Fgggygl events durine the Festival itself and wedd
nasi
of Hawaii emplovees of Douter should be allowed. In ad Minn all liquor permits on a
daily basis or anv other basis should be Qrohibited absalu.tely- regardless of the type of
event or e1H ddine. The County and the neighbors ,;hould not be burdened by
having to police and enforce other exceprion:rs.
rv. pls."
Whan Douteu applied for this hermit, it proposed "the retail sale of non-
agricultural products such as t-shirts; postcards, utug~y macadamia nuts, cookies,
candies, etc." That "etc." concerned us, as it could open the door for sales of almost
anytnin;;. Thus we reached an agreement that food anti drink sales for consumption on ~
the premises would be prohibited. There is no present mention of that limiting factor ~
now by the Heating Officer's repnrt o:r Douter's exceptions. There should be a
specific prohibition that the gacebo(s) or store(s) on the premises be specifically
prohibited from the providing or sale of any food or drink for consumption on the
premises, and no alcoholic beverages under any circumstances.
r3U-0a; 5: 16FM: van Gerr iS. :&G& 3L56~e` tt Si 3
PL.4,NN1NG CAMNI[SSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANN17JCi :DE.PARTMEI~I'C
page four
July 22, 2003
V. Tour Basses
Thc: hearing officer has recomrnet.ded a compronni:;e on the hours of operation
(9:OOa.m. to 4:OOp.m.), the number of visitors per day (80), and the capacity of tote
vehicles (l.~i). Th13 g..:a a long tireij% HI YY AJ
I~,.~l d~.t%V,llrlllPl~lOttll~'j LVI1tG1, C~nsiu'eFirig tuai:
1. Matnalahoa is a naaow, winding t,nd substandazd road for miles on either side of
Douter's property;
2. i'susv school traffic for two schools nearby on Mattuilahoa (Hohtalos School and
Ma?ctta Lani), and six schools sewed by Mamalahoa but off adjoining Palani Road
(Kealalcehe Elementary and Middle School, Hualalai Academy, Kona Christian
ArairjPnny~ the M:mteccnn Arnarhnrvl end (',i
wo4iye Tl a.i Die ~~hwl) 4wY ~'r.,°u^`..°,~la,tt^va I
crowded from 2:30 to 4:00 p.m.
3. There are no adequate shouldec•s, parking, or turn arou±ad space for tour buses I
anywhere near Douter's pmpert.y.
. Thus it is offc;nsive indeed fir Doater to now argtt~. that the 80 visitors per day
limited should be changed to an un:iimited number by "excluding tours by company
franchi~ ees". A single franchisee or err:ployee of a franchisee in a tour bus, with all the ,
other associates, friends, relatives ,mFi others participating in the tour as his or her
"gu~~ts' can make the 80 visitors per day meaningless. Is fhe Planning Department,
/or the neighbors to interview each tour bus occupant, to determine their relationship
to Dourer? Are the books of DouU:r smd tour and bus companies to be examined
as to what person; traveling tp tl'ie prrn,ernr aid ~i are rnnr Having inectc nr f~+chisre
related? What is Douter's defini.tio~t cif a "franchisee"' or "employee", particularly in
regard n~ frienas, relatives and farniiy? srv Fiat dirierence does it make if a paying tourist
is or is not "franchisee" or "employe,'" related?
It is also offensive for Dourer to seek the allowance of use of a large (60 seat) tour I
bus once a day when the use of Ictgu l`itts+f' any n +TMi +er i~eamet~y the aroblem hat
must beorohibite:d_ Are the Plcuminl; Department and~ar the neighbors to monitor
whether a large tour bus is the frst, second or other number of the day? And if none
arrives one day, ct:n Lhere lre hve the n~.st? And who's to monitor whether a bus has
60 or more occupants?
It should be noted that the D~outer property is directly across the street from the
intersection of the Hualalai. Farm subdiv ision road with lWl:arrtalahoa Highway. That is
a substandard intersection. It should b_ noted that rain aztd storm water run off at that
very location has become a major sourc:: of controversy :utd litigation, and is presently
,-3G-Oa; 3: 5a PM; van Pern is. ;dOd 3296 i0° x q- e
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Page five
July 22, 2003
the subject of major litigation, being$ Douglas Scoufi~s et al. v~l ro Ine Pt ~
gj:, and its Arbitration O1-0287-A, now going into its third week of hearings. Rain
water runoff accumulating on and conning across Mamalahoa there, at the Douter ~I'
nrooerty locati4tl; is at issue! Additional Ixrtet~tial liability for t}te C_.onnty shnald nnr
be part of this permit approval. See section 24 on page 9 of the Hearing Officer's
report.
Douter, without applications or pewits has been running large tour buses to and
from their property in disregard and violation of applicable County regulations and I`
ordinances for a long time. See section 18 on page 7 of the Hearing Officer's Findings. ~
Although the County cited Douter for such activities and violations on January 26, 27
28 and February 1, 2003, such activities, as observed by the undersigned, occurred
much more frequently than that. Dquter's lack pf credibility and resneEt fnr the
County's regulating powers and its neighbrns is thus demonstrated. t
The undersigned uses Mam.alahoa Highway, passing by the Douter property,
every school day morning to take his daughter to school, and often to take her home in '
the afternoon. tht one occasion, upon coming to the Douter property there was a large
tour bus in the south bound lane, half on the highway and half off, with persons
attempting to board the bus from the paved traffic lane, with someone trying to stop
and direct the Mamalahoa traffc in both the northbound and southbound lanes. An
accident was narrowly averted
VI. StreetlfYhts ,
At page 13, in section 43(e) of the 1learing Officer's report. There is menfion of the
installation of streetlights by Douter under certain conditions. Due to the topography
w ure area, sue;n saeeuigrns coma oe yisiore and oriens+ve to our and omen stumugding
properties, and contradictory Eo the rtual and private type of property we sought out
and purchased. Streetlights should be prohibited under any circumstances.
VQ. j~,ndscaotag to Prateet Nejp~j~,;;;,
i
The Hearing Officer at page 29, section 3 of her recommendations referred to
"additional heavy landscaping" far the'~bundary of the Yokoyama property, TMK 7-
5-11:26, to the north. The property adjoining to the south, being, among others, our
TMK 7-5-11:34, should receive the same treatment. We would have been in the
contested case proceeding, but for the agreement reached with Douter to avoid our
involvement in such a proceeding, a~td now apparently a.btcndorted.
L'IIi.. ~'OneiiisiOri
We believe Douter has„ by ig+tori ng archaeological considerations and requirements
as referred to in the Hearing Officer's report, conducting a massive tour operation in
i-_°G-05; 34FM;'oan cerrii=_. :dOb 3G5&~85 v A-
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF E[AWAII' PLANNIN<:i DEPARTMENT
Page srx
July 22, 2003
knowing violation of governmental ruluinements before and during this application, and
in negotiating an agreement with us to avoid our involvement in a contested case
proceeding and now appazent[y abandoning that agreement, has demonstrated bad faith
~ and untrustworthiness. 1'he objections of Doutcr to the Hearings Officer's report and
Recommendations appears to seek exceptions or changes in Douter's favor that would
be so vague and tmenforceable as to make many conditions of any permit meaningless.
We helieye that thin tactic, elan de:rnnnctrates bars faith Thr hiirrlen of invrctioatinn
~...a.....,..,
determination and enforcement by the Courrty if such exceptions or changes were made
would be unbearable, leaving Doute:r u> conduct such extensive commercial activities so
as to severely impact the neighborhoa~i.
Our preference is that the application of Douter be denied.
If the permit is allowed, all the special conditions recoimmended by the Hearutg
Ofl:icer should be; adopted, plus the fwllowing added:
1. The fountain/pooUwaterfall! shoald not be operated except when the tours are
being conducted;
Np PvgQlc Writer than the tnnra aim linpa ('nffae FPatiyal n~rentc ~Ll wair1inbg
of Hawaii employees of Douter shall be allowed;
3. No food or drink For consumiltilrn on the premises Wray be sold in or out of
the store(s) or gazebo(s).
4. No alcoholic beverah+es may hie dispensed on the premises daring any event r
IILLIICi' i1~~' lafi°IliL7ltirllCC7.
i. 'tQn etraatliah tc ehall ha allnwad•
.....,-....._..s.._-
6. Heavy landscaping shall be ittstalled along the east-west of the Dourer
property along the boundary with T:N]K 7-5-11:34.
Thank you fo.r this opportunity to ;aresent information and comment.
Sincerely,
B y _
MVP:so MAltl{'1'AN PI';RNIS
C. R. Ben Tsukazaki, Esq.
Sherry P. Broder, Esq.
S. (Bud) Quitiquit, Esq.
All Flanning Counrmssion Members