Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-05 TCOUNCILbILL125Draft3 WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT FEBRUARY 5, 2010 COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED BILL NO. 125, A regularly advertised hearing on DRAFT 3 was called to order at 3:26 p.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Rell Woodward presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rell Woodward, Dean Au, Takashi Domingo, Andrew Iwashita, Zendo Kern, and Wallace Ishibashi. STAFF PRESENT: Brandon Gonzalez (Deputy Corporation Counsel), BJ Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Norman Hayashi (Planning Program Manager), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner) and Maija Cottle (Staff Planner). And 2 people from the public in attendance. INITATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL (BILL NO. 125, DRAFT 3) Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 2, Division 1, Section 25-2-4, Hawaii County Code, 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), relating to notification of surrounding property owners and lessees of record for change of zone applications. WOODWARD: Okay, the last item on the agenda is County Council initiated Bill No. 125, a Draft 3. Maija. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is an amendment to the Zoning Code that was initiated by the County Council. It relates to notification to surrounding property owners for applications; and, specifically, it relates to the Change of Zone Applications. The change would expand the notification requirements so that, from the current 500 feet to 1,000 feet. So now property owners within 1,000 feet would need to be notified if the property that’s coming in for a change of zone is in the State Lane Use Agricultural District. And one other change that’s also proposed as part of this is normally the applicant has to notify the surrounding property owners within 10 days after they file the application with the Department. And this change, the Council is proposing a change that would require notification ten days, within ten days after the Department has accepted the application and the applicant has been notified of that acceptance. And the purpose of that is to prevent confusion really. Because often times what will happen is the Planning Department will not accept an application because additional information is needed yet the applicant has already sent out notifications to surrounding property owners. So they’re expecting that application to be taken up by the Planning Commission or County Council at the public hearings, and it can create some confusion 1 EXHIBIT E as far as timing of those hearings. And so the Planning Director is recommending approval of this change to the Zoning Code. WOODWARD: Do we have any questions? KERN: Mr. Chairman? WOODWARD: Commissioner Kern. KERN: It says here that it’s changing from 500 to 1,000 feet or two contiguous lots in all directions. Was the two contiguous lots always the case or is that new as well? Was it just 500 feet before, period -? COTTLE: Period. KERN: And now it’s 1,000 feet or two contiguous lots? COTTLE: That’s correct. KERN: Thank you. LEITHEAD TODD: Just by way of explanation, it’s trying to take into account that in the Ag District the contiguous lot could be huge. So the idea is like, you know, the lot next door might be 40 acres, so that would be the only guy you’d normally notice but there might be other people utilizing the road or the area. So the two contiguous lots is to try and expand the area of notice. WOODWARD: Okay, any further questions for staff? We have one member of the public, Mr. Rees wants to testify on this. All right, we’ve already sworn you in so you can just tell us what you think. REES: Yes, Commissioners. Ms. Leithead Todd pretty well explained the reason why I suggested at the County Council level why they not just have, not necessarily arbitrarily but a specific distance designation. Obviously I think this is a good increase, the more notice the better. And it’s not onerous upon government or applicants, and it’s pretty easy to notify the people within these areas. I felt it was important to address the issue, as she stated, in Ag parcels where people share roadways. There’s often private roadways, public roadways, paper roadways which are now government roads and a change of zone could increase the traffic drastically. And often times there’s informal agreements between the users of the roadway, and you might want to be notified about that , that you may need to be kicking out 5,000 more a year in maintenance, you know. So the reason why I suggested that was to accomplish this further notification. And there was a clause -. Actually before coming here today I didn’t know whether the County Council ever amended that and included that language. Donald Ikeda, Commissioner, I mean Council Member from Kaumana District, he told me he had contact from people in Kau area and 2 EXHIBIT E Kaumana area, mostly Ag parcel, large Ag parcel, Ag parcel owners who were in favor of that amendment. So it’s certainly, I think, a good idea. But when I threw out the number two at the Council level I was just throwing out, that out as food for thought; and I was hoping that the Council would really mull over what is the right number of contiguous parcels and what would be the correct distance to have as a lower default. So the passage that is missing now as I hear this is that I added one additional thing that said “whichever provides greater notification to the surrounding property owners.” So I just wanted to explain that to you; and thank you very much. There were other Council Members who felt that was a good idea also to have two variables, the set distance and the contiguous property owners. WOODWARD: All right, Commissioner Kern. \KERN: It does say “whichever distance is greater.” REES: Thank you for that clarification. WOODWARD: Okay, any other questions? No? Somebody would like to make a motion? DOMINGO: Move for its approval. WOODWARD: All right. Second? KERN: Second. WOODWARD: Okay. So we have a recommendation for a favorable recommendation on Agenda Item No. 10. Council, County Council Bill No. 125, Draft 3. Any further discussion? Okay, Maija. COTTLE: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Kern? KERN: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Au? AU: Yes. COTTLE: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. 3 EXHIBIT E COTTLE: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. COTTLE: And Mr. Chairman? WOODWARD: Aye. COTTLE: Okay, the motion passes, six-zero. The discussion ended at 3:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 4 EXHIBIT E