Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-10-21 Leeward Exh A (Item 1 AMEND REZ 11-136) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 21, 2021 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of CYNTHIA FOSTER (AMEND REZ 11-000136) was called to order at 9:38 a.m. via live stream online meeting, with Chairman Michael Vitousek presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Vitousek, Shani Armbruster, Barbara DeFranco, Mahina Paishon-Duarte, and Faith "Faye" Yates ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Clement"CJ" Kanuha III ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Dalilah Schlueter, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Department), Zendo Kern (Planning Director), Maija Jackson (Planning Program Manager), Eric Cook (Planner), Jessica Andrews (Planner), and Noriko Sauer(Commission Secretary) APPLICANT: CYNTHIA FOSTER (AMEND REZ 11-000136) Application for a five (5)year time extension to Condition C (final subdivision approval) of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 11 73, which rezoned approximately 17.88 acres of land from an Agricultural 40-acres (A-40a) zoning district to an Agricultural 5-acres (A-5a) zoning district. The subject property is located on the north side of Mamalahoa Highway, approximately 750 feet west its intersection with Kipahele Street,Pu`ukapu Homesteads 2nd Series, Waimea, South Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 6-4-017:042. VITOUSEK: New Business. Applicant is Cynthia Foster; an application for a five-year time extension to Condition C, final subdivision approval, of Change of Zone Ordinance number 11 73, which rezoned approximately 17.88 acres of land from Agricultural 40-acres, A-40a, zoning district to an Agricultural 5-acres zoning district. The subject property is located in the north side of Mamalahoa Highway, approximately 750 feet west its intersection with Kipahele Street, Pu`ukapu Homesteads, Waimea, South Kona, no, South Kohala, Hawaii, TMK 6-4-017:042. Staff presentation will be by Eric Cook, and then we will have the applicant's presentation, and then we can have some questions from the commissioners. Mr. Cook, please proceed with your presentation. COOK: All right, thank you, Chair. Good morning. As previously mentioned, this application is for a Change of Zone Ordinance, and I'm going to open my presentation here and share okay, can everyone see the screen? VITOUSEK: Yes. COOK: Okay. So, this is for an amendment to a Change of Zone Ordinance, and with that I will get right into the presentation. Here we have the location map, and the subject property is 1 EXHIBIT A outlined in red. The subject property is located at 64-550 Mamalahoa Highway. The subject property is located on the north side of Mamalahoa Highway, approximately 750 feet west of its intersection with Kipahele Street, Pu`ukapu Homesteads 2nd Series, Waimea, South Kohala, TMIK 6-4-017:042. The applicant is requesting a five-year time extension to comply with Condition C to obtain final subdivision approval in order to subdivide the existing 17.88-acre lot into three separate five-plus-acre lots. So the applicant's reason for the request, according to the applicant, efforts were made to obtain final subdivision approval prior to the administrative time extension deadline of September 1, 2021. The applicant was unable to do so for the following reasons: Much of that subdivision process was deferred to a family member who has a thriving coffee farm in Kona, and that preoccupied much of their time resulting in a delay in that process; the initial surveyor hired for the project suddenly moved out of state, forcing the applicant to find another surveyor to complete the task; finding another surveyor proved to be difficult during the worldwide pandemic that we've currently been experiencing; despite the preceding, the applicant secured the tentative subdivision approval from the Planning Department on November 27, 2020; the applicant needs the additional time to meet the requirements of the tentative approval to secure final subdivision approval. Here we have the county zoning map. The property is outlined in red. The subject parcel and properties immediately to the east and west are zoned Agricultural 5-acres. Other surrounding areas are zoned Agricultural 1-acre and Agricultural 40-acres. State Land Use Boundary map. The subject parcel and all immediate surrounding properties hold the State Land Use designation of Agricultural. Subject property is split between the Important Agricultural Lands and Extensive Agriculture LUPAG designation. The immediate neighboring properties are similarly designated as either Extensive Agriculture or Important Agricultural Lands. Other properties in the area hold the LUPAG designation of Rural, as well as Low Density Urban. Here we have the preliminary subdivision plat submitted by the applicant as a part of their tentative approval. Represented here are the three proposed five-plus-acre lots labeled 1 through 3 and shown in pink, green, and blue. Please note that this map has been modified from the original, with the color and numbering for ease of reading. The aerial photographs of the site here we see two aerials: The one on the left depicts the entire 17.88-acre site with the neighborhood context, and the photo on the right depicts a more zoomed-in view of the subject site in its relation to Mamalahoa Highway, as well as neighboring homes. Site photos—so this is from a site visit I did here and (indiscernible–poor connection) Planning Department photos the site photo depicts the existing single-family dwelling, as well as the property's Mamalahoa Highway frontage. The photo on the left depicts the property's existing 2 EXHIBIT A driveway and relationship to the highway, facing west. The photo on the right depicts the existing dwelling and driveway connection to Mamalahoa Highway, facing east. Planning Director's recommendation is to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council for amendment to Condition C of Ordinance number 11 73. And with that, I will hand it back over to you, Chair. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Next up, we have the applicant's presentation. FUKE: Hi, good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Congratulations, Mahima, for devoting your time on the commission. For the record, my name is Sydney Fuke. I am a planning consultant assisting the applicant. Unfortunately, the applicant is under medical care right now, so she was unable to kind of participate in the hearing. But nevertheless, I've had a chance to discuss the staff's background report and the proposed amendments, and they found them to be totally acceptable. If there are any questions the commissioners may have, I'll be more than willing to respond. VITOUSEK: Are you, are you planning to make any presentation today? FUKE: I'm just pretty much like answering questions. I mean, like, the staff kind of like noted the reason why, I mean, you know, it's basically a family type of subdivision VITOUSEK: Actually, if you, before we get into that, you mind if I just swear you in? Sure, so FUKE: Oh, I'm sorry VITOUSEK: would you mind raising right hand? FUKE: Sure. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Planning Commission? FUKE: So I affirm. VITOUSEK: And then, you know, you've already stated your name, but you mind letting us know the town that you live in? FUKE: Yeah, Hilo, Hawaii. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Okay, go ahead. FUKE: I pretty much like did my presentation; I'm more than happy to answer any questions that the commissioners may have. 3 EXHIBIT A VITOUSEK: Okay, okay, terrific. Well, at this point I'll open up the floor to commissioners. Everybody can have their own block of time. Trying to keep it under 10 minutes, I think that should be pretty easy, and anyone can answer questions. The purpose of the questions is fact-finding only; you can't state your opinion on things until a motion has been made and seconded, and then we can have a discussion on it. With that, I will open it up to my fellow commissioners. Anybody have questions for the applicant or for the county Planning Department? Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: Yeah, I just, two questions, did they obtain a new surveyor? Have they obtained? FUKE: Yes. The original surveyor was from Kauai, and then he moved. And so, you know, during the pandemic, a lot of the surveyors were also kind of like busy. So fortunately, Wes Thomas Associates elected to assume the responsibility. And that actually contributed to the delay also. DEFRANCO: Thank you. And then you've mentioned that this was a family subdivision FUKE: Yeah, yeah, Mrs. Foster DEFRANCO: —can you speak to that? FUKE: Yeah, Mrs. Foster lives on Oahu, and this is like a part of the family home as well. And so the idea was to have a three-lot subdivision to convey two of them to the children and one of them was going to be sold to kind of help underwrite some of the costs to have the land subdivided. One of the sons has a very thriving coffee farm in Holualoa; his name is Ryan Foster, and he was given the task of doing the subdivision, but farmers are farmers, and so, you know, this thing unfortunately kind of fell through the crack until the deadline came about. VITOUSEK: Are there any, any other questions, Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: No. Thank you, Sidney. FUKE: Yeah, thank you, Barb. VITOUSEK: Okay, any other commissioners have questions for the applicant or the Planning Department? (No audible response) Okay. I have a question for, I think it's probably the Planning Department, would be the best one to ask. Could you please tell us a little bit about the small farms and ranches preservation program from the Waimea, or South Kohala Community Development Plan and how this parcel fits in with that? JACKSON: Eric, do you want me to respond to that? COOK: If you wouldn't mind JACKSON: Okay. 4 EXHIBIT A COOK: —yes. JACKSON: So the CDP calls for the area near this, the subject property and a lot of the farms on the east side of Waimea, to remain as small ranches or farms. The soils in that area tend to be the better soils on our island. So this property would be in that area. There is a provision in the CDP, though, that allows for small family subdivisions. And so, this would there is a few exceptions listed to preserving the small farms on the east side of Waimea, and the small family lot subdivision would be one of those exceptions, so that's why the department is supporting this request. VITOUSEK: So JACKSON: Did that answer your question, Chair? VITOUSEK: Sure. So under normal cir-under circumstances where it's not a family subdivision, is, are these types of subdivisions allowed in this area, within the small farms and ranches preservation area? JACKSON: They are discouraged, if they don't meet I think there's three criteria, and the small family subdivision is one of them, I believe affordable housing is another one, and then there's a third one that I don't recall right now but if they don't meet one of the three criteria, then, yes, subdivisions would be discouraged. VITOUSEK: And even though there is going to be an intent for a market lot that they're going to sell one of them, that doesn't remove the family subdivision aspect of it— JACKSON: tJACKSON: No VITOUSEK: (Indiscernible–simultaneous speech) family subdivision? JACKSON: No, because the majority of the lots will be for family members; two of the three lots would be for family members. VITOUSEK: Commissioner DeFranco, did you have a follow-up question to that? DEFRANCO: Yeah, if they're going to be five acres, so is that a small farm? Five acres isI mean, what do they consider a small farm? FUKE: I kind of like if I wanted to, can a little bit expand on that; I think the small farm provision was intended to be like five acres or less, and, you know, specifically not only, you know, like for farming purposes but, as Maija had indicated, they were also provisions for if you're going to do like housing for family. And so I think pretty much they're looking at—if you're going to do, like a five- or less-lot type of subdivision, you know, regardless of the lot size, they kind of like fall in that category, one of two categories, either going to be small farms or family oriented. In this situation, you are a little bit family oriented, and especially, if you 5 EXHIBIT A look at the maps, you know, like the zoning map that Eric had put up, you see like a lot of smaller lots in that area, there are like a few Ag-40 parcels. At one point in time, I think there was like an adjoining property that was once considered for like Ag-3 rezoning, but there was some kind of like community concerns primarily relating to the flooding and drainage issue, which is not absent now, which is absent over here. So, and besides the configuration of the parcel, if you saw, was kind of like long and narrow, so, you know, to create more lots than that, I think, would have been a very, very, very challenging. VITOUSEK: So, is there a number for this size of the lot, a minimum lot size that is allowable to be subdivided within the small farms and ranches preservation area? Is that established in the Community Development Plan? JACKSON: I don't believe there is. I would have to research it a little bit. I do see that the CDP recognizes that the small farms and small ranches typically consists of 10-acre or more size lots. VITOUSEK: Okay. So it seems like the intent is for, to preserve it above 10 acres, but because we are, because it's a subdivision of for mostly for family purposes, that's why the director is giving the positive recommendation. Is that right? JACKSON: Yeah, so that's why this was originally approved, that's why the zoning was originally granted, and so this would just be a time extension for that zoning. VITOUSEK: Okay. My next questionI think this is again for the Planning Department, but I think Mr. Fuke can definitely weigh in—is how to incorporate the SHPD review language into the conditions of approval. It looks like in the background report, or in the recommendation, that the conditions that we have try to pull it up, hold on—Condition J is dealing with inadvertent discoveries of cultural material, but the letter from SHPD requests that they have the opportunity to review the final subdivision and determine if an archaeological inventory survey is needed. So, it, would that be something that we'd be comfortable incorporating into the conditions, basically, stating that prior to issuance of final subdivision approval, SHPD will have the opportunity to review and comment on the project? FUKE: Yeah, actually, you know, Mr. Chairman, the applicant would not have any objections to that largely because it's going to have to be SHPD review and sign off on the construction drawings that's currently being worked on right now for the driveway. And so, in conjunction with that, if SHPD does not sign off on it for its own reason, then, you know, you will have to comply, but— VITOUSEK: utVITOUSEK: Right. FUKE: without being said, SHPD will get involved in the further permitting process of this proj ect. VITOUSEK: For sure, it definitely will as part of the grading permit, but it seems like what they're asking for in the letter is to be involved in the subdivision permit as well. And so, I think 6 EXHIBIT A putting that on as a condition of final subdivision approval that they do the review and comment—and I wouldn't, I wouldn't request an archaeological inventory survey at this time because that may not be necessary, SHPD could determine that there's no historic properties affected by it simply by doing a field inspection and seeing if there's no sites, so I don't think we need to request the AIS but if we are requesting that they have the opportunity to review and comment on the subdivision, that would, that would suffice the request that they made in their letter, and it won't really change anything from the applicant side. FUKE: Well, in summary, the applicant has no objection to such a condition, I mean, because like in terms of timing, they currently need to have the construction drawings basically for the driveway connection and the connection on the water system, which is pretty much limited to the front portion, but because it's already a live application, then SHPD, you know, could probably put it in his portal and, you know, have their review relative to the subdivision. So, timing wise, I think it's, it can be done, you know, without unnecessarily delaying the review process. VITOUSEK: Okay. Would the Planning Department be okay with that addition to Condition J? KERN: No objections. VITOUSEK: Okay. Any other questions from any Commissioners? (No audible response) Okay, seeing none, could we have a motion? Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for amended change of zone docket REZ 11-000136 based on the deputy [sic] planning director's recommendations, which shall be adopted. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Is there a second? Second by Commissioner Yates. We can open up for discussion now. I, if it pleases my fellow commissioners, I can make a motion to amend the motion on the floor to update the language of Condition J to reflect the need for SHPD to review and comment on the project prior to final subdivision. Okay. With that said, I will make a motion to amend Condition J to include the language that prior to the issuance of final subdivision approval, SHPD will have the opportunity to review and comment on the project pursuant to HRS 6E-42. YATES: (Raises hand to second the motion) VITOUSEK: Second by Commissioner Yates. Any discussion on that motion, the secondary motion? (No audible response) Okay, seeing none, let's do a roll call vote on the secondary motion. KERN: That's you, Eric. COOK: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, so voting on the amended motion of approving it with amendment to Condition J- 7 EXHIBIT A SCHLUETER: Eric, I'm sorry to just jump in, this is just for a motion, is a vote on the motion to amend, not the motion on the floor; we are just amending the motion on the floor right now, sorry. COOK: Yes, that's what I meant, I'm sorry I didn't say it correctly. So for that, then it would be, okay, so, Commissioner Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. COOK: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. COOK: And then, Commissioner Armbruster? ARMBRUSTER: Aye. COOK: Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. COOK: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. COOK: And then, that's all, so motion carries with five ayes, zero no. VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you, so the motion, the main motion has been amended to reflect the updated language to Condition J. At this time I, if there is no further discussion, we can do a roll call vote on the main motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council. Any further discussion? (No audible response) Okay, seeing none, let's proceed with roll call vote on the main motion. COOK: Okay, to approve as recommended by the planning director, with the amended Condition J. I will take the roll call vote now. Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. COOK: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. COOK: Commissioner Armbruster? ARMBRUSTER: Aye. 8 EXHIBIT A COOK: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. COOK: And Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. COOK: Okay, motion carries with five aye, zero no. And I will return the floor to you, Chair. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fuke— FUKE: Thank you very much. VITOUSEK: you will be notified in writing. Please, please pass along to your client. Appreciate your time. FUKE: Thank you very much. Aloha. The hearing was adjourned at 10:02 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 9 EXHIBIT A