The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0798.006 2018-2020P/ PC", Diu iso C,pW.7g8 March 18, 2020 County of Hawaii County Council 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 RE: Testimony in Support of Bill 150 Dear County Council Members: COUNTY CLERK COUNTY'OF HAWAII RECEIVED Tame $;� By Date MAR 1 8 2020 We own a property that is adjacent to Mr. Vincent Tai and are writing this testimony to support of the rezoning of his property back to its Residential (RS - 7.5) designation. Our neighborhood has been held hostage by Mr. Tai and his refusal to keep his property maintained and free of hazardous conditions that affect the adjoining neighbors. There is a well-documented trail of e-mails, letters and testimony that prove that he has been grossly negligent of his responsibilities of property ownership. He has told our elderly neighbors that he has no legal responsibility to maintain his property and that they are the ones who are negligent for not trimming and maintaining his property since they knew there were safety hazards caused by his overgrown trees. He even told several elderly neighbors to climb on ladders to trim the trees themselves to mitigate the problems. He consistently defaults to a position of written and verbal harassment to the neighbors, ourselves and even the County PublicWorks and Planning Departments. In fact, when the arborist at Backyard Monkey, LLC met with Mr. Tai at his property on 12/26/2019 Mr. Tai did not even tell the arborist that there was an outstanding Notice of Violation or provide the arborist with a copy of the Public Work Inspector's report. This was confirmed when we met with the arborist at our property with our neighbor to discuss our concerns about not removing the Monkey Pod trees that are hanging over our homes and the roots that are visibly going under the home. Mr. Tai even falsely states in his letter to Mr. David Comm. No. ift-te Ref. To: iRNp& Ref. bate JUL, 0.7 2020 Yamamoto, Director, Public Works "Except for er. few, Mr. Barrios, an ISA Bored Certified Arborist, did not agree with your inspector's designation of all the trees posing `imminent danger' to any properties. " These letters tilclude,.W...Tai's own acknowledgment of his adamant refusal to maintain his property; and ,trees:_which puts the 'neighboring properties in a hazardous situation.1`partial summary, is listed below: 1. Mr. Tai's letter, dated',01„/31/20,20 to Mr. David Yamamoto, Director, Public Works states "Please remind the neighbors I opted for `in lieu of removal ' option, therefore I am not responsible for trimming the I branches, over their properties. Mr. Barrios (Arborist) is doing them a favor as a matter of courtesy to them. ” 2. Mr. Tai's letter dated 01/09/2020 to Mr. David Yamamoto, Director, Public Works states "I suggest your office inform the neighbors that I um not responsible to trim branches allegedly crossing over to their property now that I had chosen to engage a certified arborist to prepare an assessment report (which recommends that the trees be removed) ... I would offer any other neighbors the permission to come over to my property to trim branches over their properties at their discretion provided they hold me free of any liabilities. " He additionally states "There are branches from a healthy andfruit bearing tree extending about S, feet beyond his (Mr. Tiogangco). fence and about 7, feet, from his building. I explained to him there is no law that requires me to cut the branches in question which means by law I am not responsible... .1 did caution him the branches, will continue to extend, further onto his property if he chooses not to tackle the' branches at this time. " I would like to provide several further items of documentation that prove that Mr. Tai has been aware of the Hazards his trees and fauna are causing to the neighborhood going back to at least 2011. These items are as follows: I 1. In 2011 a tree from Mr. Tai's property, fell on our home and caused property damage that resulted in a claim that was paid by his insurance carrier State Farm. This information was provided to the Planning Commission on the letter dated 02/04/2014 as follow-up to the requested Community Meeting by the Commission. I stated in this letter, with photos provided, my concern including the following, "Mr. Tai states that he will preserve the `already extensive growth o f vegetation and trees 2 along the property lines' but.this growth is overgrown weeds and not a planned landscaping design... In fact, the trees that he is referring to have caused previous property damage to our home when one fell on our roof above the porch and main bedroom of our home. These trees are non- native, invasive and rapid growing which requires reoccurring trimming and constantly shed leaves on our roof. These concerns are not addressed in Mr. Tai's proposed development." 2. Mr. Tai mailed an eight page letter to surrounding property owners within 300 feet radius dated 11/20/2013 where he states "As you know; theme are existing heavy growth of vegetation and mature trees next to the existing stone walls at the property lines which already provided thick visual barriers. Some of those trees and vegetation will be removed and some will ,stay. The existing stone walls will remain. A landscape plan will be submitted for plan approval in due course." 3. Mr. Tai's e-mail response to Maija Cottle's e-mail dated 12/31/2013 in response to the community meeting again acknowledges the heavy growth of the trees and his plan to address the safety issues of them. Mr. Tai's response, "There are already extensive and heavy growth of vegetation and trees along the property lines which will undoubtedly continue to grow. ,The Planning Director will have the final approval authority, for landscaping when I apply, for final plan approval which will most likely be at least one year away. " 4. Mr. Tai mailed a three page letter to various adjacent owners dated 01 /3 0/2014 where he again states "I also presented an aerial photo superimposed with the revised site plan. It shows the subject site heavily covered with full grown vegetation and trees, particularly along the border adjacent to properties zoned RS -7.5. " In addition we have repeatedly requested of Mr. Tai via e-mail that his trees need to be trimmed or removed. E-mail correspondence has previously been provided to the Planning Department and includes the following: 1. E-mail from -Mr. Tai on 03/15/2017 acknowledging a request to Mr. Kevin Aoli with Day-Lum from Charlene Nishida to trim the tree branches hanging over the property line. Mr. Tai states that he is not responsible for maintaining his trees and for us to consult an attorney to address the problem. He goes on to state that we do not have permission to enter his property. 3 2. E-mail response from Charlene Nishida on' 03/15/2017 to Mr. Tai stating that the trees are a danger and affects the entire neighborhood. 3. E-mail response from Mr. Tai on 03/15/2017 stating that he is not legally responsible for maintaining his property. 4. Several E-mail responses from Charlene N,ishida on 04/15/2019 to Mr. Tai again stating that the trees are a danger and need to be trimmed immediately. 5. E-mail response from Mr. Tai on 04/16/20:19 stating "There is no provision regarding property maintenance, particularly tree branches extending over the fence into neighboring properties that is the neighbors' responsibility to remove as they wish." 6. E-mail response from Mr. Tai on 04/17/20;19 stating "Please allow me to make a layman's suggestion if you do not want to pay for trimming branches over your property.... You ask your insurance company to file a. claim or your attorney to f le a lawsuit against me. 7. E-mail response from Mr. Tai on 05/15/20'19 stating "May I suggest you get an estimate, f rom a, few tree trimmers how much to trim the branched over the fence on your property. You may contact the tenant on my property who also does tree trimming. " During this timeframe several of my neighbors were also contacting Mr. Tai to trim or remove the hazardous trees and he provided them with the same "cut and paste" e-mail responses that he sent us. An additional item of note is a one page letter from Will Kill Termite and Pest Control on 11/08/2019 recommending the cutting of the overgrown foliage from Mr. Tai's property due to damage and access for rats to the roof from his overgrown trees. In summary, Mr. Tai has repeatedly documented his defiance in being compliant with the County of Hawaii Ordinance for Unsafe Flora and Fauna. He refuses to accept responsibility and is thus violating the conditional terms of his rezoning. He states that the submission of an arborist written report is all that is needed even if the arborist advises removal. Mr. Tai is choosing to remain in noncompliance with Public Works, Planning and even the County Council. He currently has the property listed for sale for $3,000,000 with no intention of caring for the health and safety of his neighbors. This is not the behavior; of someone invested in our community. 4 For these reasons we ask the County Council to support the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding Bill 150. With Regards, Shad and Charlene Nishida 16 Hale Nani Place Hilo, HI 96720 kpueo yahoo.com (808) 216-1028 MLS#627898 Price: $3,000,000 5