Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-06 TPD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 6, 2005 A regularly advertised hearing on the PLANNING DIRECTOR€SPROPOSAL TOREPEAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE ORDINANCE NO. 487was called to order at 12:01 p.m. in the County Building, Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED: Allen Salavea Fred Galdones Hannah Springer Bill Graham Rodney Watanabe Andrew Iwashita Jeffrey McCall Rene€ Siracusa Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director NormanHayashi,PlanningProgramManager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And 5 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR Repeal of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 487, which incrementally rezoned a 50.988-acre area from an Agricultural 1-acre (A-1a) to a Single Family Residential ƒ 7,500 square foot (RS-7.5) district in August of 1972. The properties involved are located along the south side of Ponahawai Street, Ponahawai, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-3-36:18; 2-3-37:6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 (formerly, 2-3-36:18 and 2-3-37:6). ALAMEDA:Let us take up Agenda Item No. 5. Planning Director, this is a repeal of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 487, which incrementally rezoned a 50.988-acre area from an Agricultural 1-A to a Single Family Residential - 7, 500 square foot district in August of 1972. I€ll let the staff explain further about this particular agenda item. Norman? HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Drawing your attention to the map on the board, the subject area covered under Ordinance No. 487 is indicated and outlined in this yellow mark. It is situated at the corner of Komohana Street; and this would be Komohana Street going towards the Puna direction, and this would be in the Hamakua direction. At the corner of Komohana Street and Ponahawai Street, this would be going in the makai direction. The original application was submitted by C. Brewer and Company back in 1992; and that request was from an Agricultural 1-acre to an RS-7.5 zoned district. The original proposal by C. Brewer at that time was to provide for approximately 225 single family lots to accommodate EXHIBIT C for moderate income families. The ordinance to rezone the propertyfrom Agricultural 1 acre to RS-7.5 was approved -. ALAMEDA:Excuse me, we had a Commissioner who just left the room and we€ll wait for his return. Just for the record, Commissioner Graham has left the room. YUEN:We have to take a break. ALAMEDA:Okay, could we take five -. Oh, for the record, he has returned. HAYASHI:You haven€t missed anything, Commissioner Graham. The ordinance was approved back in August of 1972. Since that time, there were several changes in ownership of the properties. Basically, there were two properties involved. One was thepropertythatiscurrentlyownedbytheMatsunoEnterprise,thiswouldbetheirproperty. And, as you recall, the Commissioners recently heard the rezoning request by Matsuno Enterprise for rezoning for a portion of their property, approximately 8 acres to a commercial zoned district. The other property was subdivided into lots ranging between one to six acres in size; and that was done and granted back in 2001. These lots were created under the current Agricultural 1-acre zoned district. The ordinance that was approved back in 1972 was approved subject to several conditions; and these were conditions with incremental performance. In other words, it was broken up into several increments because of the proposed housing project at that time. And, as an example, the second increment could not be approved until performance was done in the first increment and x‚ number of houses had to be constructed in the first increment before the second increment was released, and so forth for the third and fourth increments. SIRACUSA:Excuse me, Norman, could you point out which is the first increment and which is which? HAYASHI:Okay. We don€t know. Because of the subdivision of this particular property into several lots back in 2001, we don€t know where the first increment is or where the second increment is or will be. Therefore, that€s the primary purpose for this repeal of this particular ordinance, because the current zoning is still Agricultural 1-acre. Although the rezoning request was for RS-7.5 because there were these performance conditions incrementally that were not complied with, we are recommending the repeal of this or initiating the repeal of this particular ordinance. All of the parties were notified of this action and what was being proposed; and all of them were informed that the current zoning is still Agricultural 1-acre, even if there was this rezoning ordinance that was granted back in 1972. SIRACUSA:And are those lots that I see, are those l-acre or more -? HAYASHI:Yes. 2EXHIBIT C SIRACUSA:Or are they 7,500 -? HAYASHI:I€ll go into -. So basically this ordinance is merely for housekeeping purposes. The property will still be retained in its current Agricultural 1-acre zoned district. Okay, just for your information, this is another area that was part of the rezoning request, rezoning ordinance. And back in 2001 or 2002, Mr. Frank De Luz came in for a subdivision request for 13 lots; and that resulted in the creation of some 1-acre lots along Ponahawai Street, as well as some 3-acre lots, remaining 3-acre lot that resulted from the subdivision request. So, as I indicated before, the current zoning is Agricultural 1-acre. So this is merely as a housekeeping change that needed to be done as a result of our approval of the subdivision back in 2001. SIRACUSA:So the various lots that are there that we are looking at on the map are conforming to the current Ag-1 zoning? HAYASHI:Yes. They are conforming to the current zoning, yes. So like Matsuno Enterprises,ifthecurrentlandownerswouldliketousetheirpropertiesotherthanwhatis permitted under the Agricultural 1-acre zoned district, they would have to come in for separate rezoning applications. For instance, if one individual wanted to subdivide his property into four lots, his one-acre lot into four lots, then he would have to come in individually for a rezoning application from an Agricultural 1-acre to an RS-10 zoned district. SIRACUSA:And the lot that belongs to the County of Hawaii, which one is that? HAYASHI:Oh, yes, that€s this particular small lot. That was used as part of the Komohana Bridge improvements. So that was part of the, I guess, used for the improvements to that bridge. ALAMEDA:Questions for our staff? Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:I don€t want to chase this topic too far, Norman. But just, I remember when Iwas new on the Commission I was asking the Planning Director regarding a different application for a time extension for a rezoning ordinance that had already gone and expired because conditions were not met, and I was told at the time that the ordinance that was approved, whatever the zoning was, that zoning still holds even though the conditions have not been met. And at that time it was like the Planning Director could choose, if conditions had changed, to rezone it back to the original zoning, because the conditions are not being met. But as far as the books were concerned, as far as how it stood, it retained that zoning even though the conditions have not been met. But it sounds like you€re saying a little bit different on this one. So I just thought maybe we need clarification. HAYASHI:No, I think it is a different situation. In this particular case, the zoning was approved subject to conditions, and the rezoning became effective as performance occurred in -. For instance, like the first increment in order to get the zoning for the second increment you needed to comply with the requirements of the first increment. So I think it€s a different situation as say, for example, if you had a rezoning approved for your property for commercial with no incremental performance condition, then the zoning would still be in effect until such 3EXHIBIT C time that we went and initiated the rezoning of that property backto its original designation or more appropriate designation. GRAHAM:Okay. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:I€m confused. GALDONES:Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Galdones. GALDONES:Norman -. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Norman, this action that is before us todayforconsideration,isthistime-drivenorisitprocess-driven? HAYASHI:Ithinkit€smoreprocess-driventhan-.Theproblemthatwehadhadƒ and we had conferred with the Corporation Counsel€s Office back in 2000when Mr. De Luz came in for a rezoning, as the background indicates, when he came in for, I mean, not rezoning, subdivision for the 13 lots back in 2000. We conferred with Corporation Counsel€s Office who indicated to us that the zoning was not valid until certain conditions were met, the incremental performance conditions. So on that basis we had determined that the current zoning at that time back in 2000 was Agricultural 1-acre and not RS-7.5 as indicated in the zoning ordinance. GALDONES:At the time this was acted upon, there was no condition which would state that if certain conditions were not met that it would revert back to its original form? HAYASHI:I believe that was a standard condition back in those days also and it€s noted in your Exhibit A of the staff€s background report or the Department€s background report that, at the very last portion before Section 3 on page 4, it says, Should these conditions not be met the Planning Commission shall reserve the right to initiate action to rezone the subject property to its former zoning designation.‚ GALDONES:So this is the condition that we are acting upon today, this sentence that you have mentioned? HAYASHI:I guess formally that€s what€s needed to be done. YUEN:If I can jump in here. ALAMEDA:Sure. YUEN:I don€t know that what happened here can be said to be 100 percent consistent with everything that has ever been said on these situations. But what happened specifically on this property was that in 2000 the landowner at the time wanted to do a subdivision and the question, the subdivision could be allowed if the property was Ag-1 zoning because the subdivision requirements would be less than as a 7,500 square foot zoning. The 4EXHIBIT C Corporation Counsel said, well, the rezoning ordinance is no good because noneof the conditions have been met, so treat it as an Ag-1. So tentative approval was issued and tentative approval for subdivision basically means you can go forward with the subdivision as shown on the map. Then we came in, and I don€t know if I agree with that approach, but the gist of it is that tentative approval had been given for the subdivision as a one-acre lot subdivision under one-acre zoning. So we allowed the subdivision to be finalized, but we sent a letter to the landowners, all the landowners, making it clear that we considered this to be under one-acre zoning, the subdivision was allowed under one-acre zoning so now don€t come in, you bought a lot, don€t come in and try to use 7500 square foot zoning on the lot that you bought. It wasn€t done that way, okay. So if you have a residential 7,500 square foot zoning, you have access issues, you have sidewalks, curbs, gutters, all that kind of improvements would have been called for in the improvements. So we could have initiated this repeal at any time after that. But things being, you know, other things coming up, we didn€t do anything about it until Matsunocameforwardtorezoneaportionofthepropertytoacommercialuse;andthatreally made it clear that we have to do something formal to throw out this zoning that€s still on the books as far as the last rezoning ordinance on the property. So we really need to do something to clean it up. Because once with, if you look at the conditions of zoning, you can€t decide, well, what is the first increment, what is the second increment. If somebody wants to build a house on one lot do we say no because there are not 60 houses built on another lot that, you know, the first increment is supposed to have? It says the first increment is supposed to have 30 or 40 houses, and then you can do the second increment. So that€s why we brought this forward to clean it up. Now they go back to the, the end result if we repeal the RS zoning ordinance is that they are zoned Ag 1-acre. We don€t look at that as necessarily the best zoning long-term for the property; but, then people will come, if they have other ideas and other plans, then they need to come forward to rezone it to something else from the Ag-1. SIRACUSA:Question for the Director, please. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Does this mean that we acted precipitously when we rezoned the Matsuno portion, or should we have done the whole thing the other way around, done this first and then taken up the Matsuno change of zone? YUEN:This is really more of a house cleaning and it didn€t -. The ideal thing would have been to do this first, but I don€t think that it€s a critical matter that Matsuno went first. SIRACUSA:It€s not going to make that change of zone, raise any questions about its legality because we€re doing this first? YUEN:No. 5EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:Very good question though. HAYASHI:Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA:Norman. HAYASHI:One thing I just wanted to add, we had some of the landowners contact us and their concern was that they bought these one-acre lots in order to build a single family dwelling on it, so the question posed to us was whether they still could construct a single family dwelling with the repeal of this ordinance. And we had indicated that yes, you can, because the zoning would still be Agricultural 1-acre, and you may construct your single family dwelling on that property. ALAMEDA:Okay. Given that, were there other potential concerns coming across your deskregardingthisactionbesidesthatone? HAYASHI:No,well,thereweresomeothersthatindicatedthatatsomepointintime they may want to come in for a higher density use; and we indicated to them that they would have to come in for a separate rezoning application, similar to what Matsuno Enterprises did. ALAMEDA:Okay. Well, we do have testimony and our Director, I guess, would have the floor if you want to share any other thoughts about this initiation. YUEN:No. I think I€ve covered it. We would be happy to take any more questions. ALAMEDA:Any more questions for our Director? DAVIS:I€d like to ask if you wanted to rezone it, to divide it into four equal parts your one acre -? ALAMEDA:I wonder if you could up and we could get that all for the record. It sounds like a good question. We don€t want to miss any good questions. So, could I swear you in at one time? DAVIS:I beg your pardon? ALAMEDA:Could I swear you in? DAVIS:Sure. ALAMEDA:Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? DAVIS:Sure. ALAMEDA:Could you state your name and address for the record. 6EXHIBIT C DAVIS:Carol Ann Davis. Right now I reside at 36 Kapaka Street. ALAMEDA:Okay, go ahead. DAVIS:I purchased this lot in 2001. I have it cleared. And I€m going to, I wanted to build two houses and a guest cottage, okay, but I wanted to subdivide it into four equal parts. And I wanted to know how long that would take, you know, because now I€m confused as to what€s going on here. I understand that you want to houseclean but I bought it with the understanding that it was, you know, a different thing. I bought it with the understanding that it was 7,500 square feet. You know -. ALAMEDA:Director Yuen? YUEN:Howbigisyourproperty? DAVIS:Oneacre. YUEN:Tosubdividetheproperty,youwouldneedarezoning. DAVIS:Okay. YUEN:You would have to apply for a rezoning. DAVIS:Would it take a long time, do you think? I don€t intend to sell it, but -, right now. Because, like I say, I want to build two houses but I want to give part of it to my children. YUEN:Well, the process for a rezoning, once you apply for a rezoning we get it to the Planning Commission in typically three to four months. DAVIS:I see. YUEN:The Planning Commission has three months to make a recommendation to the County Council. The County Council does not have a set deadline. If it€s a non- controversial rezoning, it typically takes about two months. DAVIS:Okay. Thank you. And that would be an RS-10 zoning if you wanted to divide it into four equal parts or -? YUEN:Yes. DAVIS:Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA:Any other questions? DAVIS:No, not me. 7EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:Thank you. We do have Mr. Basque, David Basque. Is he here? DAVIS:He€s gone. GALDONES:He€s not here. ALAMEDA:He€s not here. Seeing that there€s no further testimony, Commissioners, you have any questions or comments? GALDONES:Mr. Chairman, are you prepared to entertain a motion? ALAMEDA:Sure. GALDONES:ImovethatthePlanningDirectorinitiatedrepealofChangeofZone Ordinance No. 487 be approved by the Planning Commission. ALAMEDA:Motion made by Commissioner Galdones. IWASHITA:Second. ALAMEDA:Seconded by Commissioner Iwashita. Discussion? SIRACUSA:Excuse me. ALAMEDA:Sure. SIRACUSA:Do we have to say in that motion that this be forwarded to the County Council. Because they make the ordinances and we€re repealing one. ALAMEDA:Yes. SIRACUSA:Would that have to be included in the body of the motion? ALAMEDA:Norman? HAYASHI:Yeah, that will be good. ALAMEDA:That will good? HAYASHI:Yeah. ALAMEDA:So noted. SIRACUSA:Is that acceptable to you, Mr. Galdones? GALDONES:The maker accepts that amendment. 8EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:Thank you. Any discussion? Thesecond is okay with it as well? IWASHITA:Yes. ALAMEDA:Very good. Seeing that there€s no discussion, staff. HAYASHI:Thank you. Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries. ALAMEDA:Thank you. You will be notified of this decision. The discussion ended at 12:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura East Hawaii Secretary 9EXHIBIT C