The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0978.002 2012-2014p/M 4v QI� Murashige, Laura From: Arlene Kimata <arlenekimata @aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:43 AM To: counciltestimony @co.hawaii.hi.us. COUNTY CLERK Subject: Testimony: Aug 20 Planning Committee COUNTY OF RAWAI'I Attachments: Aug 20 Planning Committee.docx; Aug 6 photos.pdf RECEIVED Time �5y" pp Date �o >�l 6..7 fi,,,... To: Council Planning Committee Attached are 2 documents I am submitting for written testimony for the August 20 Planning Committee meeting. I will also attend the Hilo videoconference for the meeting and plan to give oral testimony as well. Arlene Kimata 548 Hinano St Hilo HI 96720 cell: 808 - 935 -4745 i ^a c, C .o �a 0 %0 -- Conlin. kz(" '7 9� . 2, Ref. TO: �L -- Ref. Date AUG 2 0, 201+ August 18, 2014 Committee on Planning Hawaii County Council To: Committee Chair Zendo Kern and the Council Planning Committee Re: Bill 278 - Amending district classification from single - family residential to neighborhood commercial (Applicant: LK& RR Enterprises, LLC) I respectfully submit my objections to conversion of zoning from RS -10 /Single - family Residential to CN- I O/Neighborhood-Commercial. This is not a straight- forward rezoning Application. I object to (1) Applicant applying for change of use after the property has been fully developed, (2) submitting false and misleading documents about intended use of his property, and (3) prematurely using the property prior to obtaining rezoning. 1. Application for change of use is after - the -fact. Property was developed as if zoning was already changed and is being actively being used as such. The allegedly "residential" property and building is being actively used as a warehouse /commercial building since its inception, prior to any change of use approval from Planning Commission or County Council. Please note: the Windward Planning Commission's recommendation for change of zone comes to this Committee with one Planning Commissioner's "NO" vote. The "NO" vote was an objection to the building being built the way the owner intended to use it in the future, prior to both Planning Commission hearing and Council approval of zoning change. 2. Applicant's documents were knowingly submitted with false and deceptive information. Building Permit submitted for this allegedly Residential building shows construction of a 2 BR/1 Bath structure of 1218 sq. ft. with Garage space of 5996 sq. ft. This "residence" is a metal warehouse, constructed with no interior walls and with roll -up doors surrounding the building. Style points unambiguously to non - residential use. County Environmental Report in the Application states owners "will convert garage to bays" and "will convert residential structure to commercial office and retail space." In fact, the building needs no conversion. It was already has large bays, roll up doors, and parking area for large vehicle access and multiple car parking. It already has immense space, ready to be subdivided for commercial tenants or kept as a garage for large vehicles. 3. The building is used actively as a baseyard to garage double -axle trucks and construction materials, in violation with residential property rules. Attached photo (dated August 6, 2014) shows trucks and workers coming in/out of garage facility. 1 Owner cannot claim he "changed his mind" about his plans for the property, as it was built and is being used as non - residential. If zoning change is approved and such traffic will be allowed, it will continue to be disruptive to the adjacent residences and endangers pedestrian foot traffic. The street has accumulated gravel, mud, and dust due to the truck traffic. I will also mention that all adjacent properties are residential and house young children, pets, and homeowners who hope to enjoy the outdoors without noise and dust. 4. Applicant has benefited from unapproved use of property because he was not technically in violation (loopholes) of County regulations. As an adjoining property owner, I have had no recourse. In late 2013 after the concrete slab for the building was poured, I saw it was not likely a conventional residential structure. I went to the Buildings Division (in late 2013 /early 2014 ?) to see the building permit. Permit showed a metal structure with garage space 5 times larger than the living space and bays surrounding the building. Pointing this out to the clerk, I asked how a metal warehouse with garage space so grossly out of proportion with normal residential use could be considered "residential ". I was told there was nothing in the regulations that prevented it, but that she "also wondered" about this odd proportion. By February 2014, the metal walls and roof were up and the double -axle trucks were being garaged in the building. I filed a complaint with Planning Department on February 7, 2014 to protest this use of residential property. Received letter response from Duane Kanuha, February 27, 2014, stating they will inform me of existence of living area when "final inspection is completed ". In other words, wait. I filed similar complaint with Buildings Division on February 7th. Received call from Doris (did not get her last name) that since building is "still under construction" they cannot do anything, and that County Code does not specify what kinds of vehicles can be parked on residential lots prior to final permit. In other words, they can't do anything either. On July 3, I submitted written testimony regarding my concerns and spoke at the Planning Commission hearing. The Commission majority said no County rules prohibit a warehouse to be used as a residence and gave a favorable recommendation to the application. One dissenting vote was registered, the reason being asking for approval after construction had been completed. Photos (dated 8/6/14, attached) show continued unpermitted use as a garage for construction vehicles. Complaint filed with Planning Department on August 12. Phone call placed to Joanne MacComber informed me owner's consultant is being contacted. 5. Improper notification of surrounding property owners of Planning Commission hearing. I did not receive the April 9, 2014 notice of hearing. I happened to hear about the mailing from a neighbor. I sent a letter to Duane Kanuha on May 6. I received my copy of the notice on May 16. If I was not properly notified, perhaps other homeowners within the notification boundaries had also not received notification. In conclusion: I ask the County to demand that all developers play fair and follow the rules. Property owners should not be allowed to "just do what they want ", expect the County to ignore violations, and rubber -stamp approval. County should not reward scofflaws for fraudulent behavior. Further, sanctions should be applied to those who bypass established procedures to attain personal gain and benefit. This Application is rife with examples of intentional, willful deception to County planning processes. Applicant has thumbed his nose at established procedures other developers have had to comply with. He boldly built what he wanted in the first place, then comes now to ask for approval as if it was not already built. He was not candid in official documents about the actual condition of the property. He is using his prior building experience, "community clout ", and ability to hire a well- connected planning consultant to bypass rules. He fully expects County regulators to ignore his violations and reward him for his dishonesty. Had the applicant gone through a proper re- zoning process, I would accept any resulting rulings. For example, Michael Tokunaga did just that several years ago for his lot on Manono Street, just around the corner from the subject property. He went through rezoning hearings, for which I also submitted comments, and Tokunaga Fishing successfully opened just recently. Bravo to Mike for following the rules. As a citizen and homeowner, I understand rezoning is a useful tool to keep communities economically vibrant. I also understand that the Waiakea Houselots area is inevitably destined for conversion to commercial, warehouse, and other non - residential uses. In fact, I welcome living in a mixed -use neighborhood, and see as a benefit being able to walk to a restaurant, to banking, or to purchase a loaf of bread. No matter how small, every change in use of a property has an impact on the community surrounding it. When select property owners are allowed free rein to develop and operate without any sanctions, the community's faith in the legislative process is irrevocably eroded. Live aloha, because it builds stronger communities, and that is how we build our future. I ask the Council to uphold positive, fair, and equitable change in our community. Sincerely, Arlene Kimata 548 Hinano Street, Hilo HI 96720 Ph: 808 - 935 -4745 Email: arlenekimata @aol.com 3 Aug 6, 2014 IMG_6418 IMG_6422 Aug 6 2014 IMG 6421