HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-26 TCOUNCIL
LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAIÒI
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
FEBRUARY 26, 2010
COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED BILL NO. 125,
A regularly advertised hearing on the
DRAFT 3
was called to order at 12:20 p.m. at the Hpuna Beach Prince Hotel, 62-100 Kaunaoa
Drive, Kohala Coast, HawaiÒi, with Chairman Frederic Housel presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Frederic Housel, Brandi Beaudet, Lani Bowman, Geraldine
Giffin, Wayne Iokepa, Richard Nelson and Rodney Watanabe
STAFF PRESENT: Brandon Gonzalez (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Margaret Masunaga
(Deputy Planning Director), Norman Hayashi (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto
(Staff Planner), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), and Maija Cottle (Staff Planner).
And no one from the public in attendance.
INITIATOR: 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.
HOUSEL: Item No. 2 on the agenda is the County Council Bill 125, Draft No. 3,
amendment to Chapter 25, the Zoning Code, Article 2, Division 1, Section 25-2-4, relating to
notification of surrounding property owners and lessees of record for change of zone
applications. Maija, would you like to give us more information
COTTLE: Sure. Yes, I will. Thank you. So this is a County Cou
amendment to the Zoning Code. And currently, for change of zone actions the applicant has to
notify all surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, if the property is
located in the State Land Use Agricultural District. This amendment is to expand that to 1,000
feet notification area, and the reasoning for that is that Agricultural parcels are usually larger in
size; so the County Council wanted to provide additional notification to one or two lot owners
over, if itÓs in the Ag land. So as it reads, it would be either 1,000 feet or two contiguous lots in
all directions, whichever is the greater distance.
And then the only other change would be, currently when the applicant submits their application
to the Department, they have to notify the property owners withi
application to the Department. Often times what will happen is the application is missing some
information, so we return it to the applicant for additional information. Sometimes that can take
a few months, like if we are requesting a traffic study for example, so what happens is if the
notification is already sent out to surrounding property owners, those property owners are
thinking the item is going to come up to the Planning Commission or County Council for
decision soon; but if itÓs still laid, they are not necessarily aware of that. So this change would
1
EXHIBIT B
require that applicants provide notification within ten days of the Department actually accepting
their application.
HOUSEL: Do they need proof of service?
COTTLE: They do.
HOUSEL: They do. Okay.
COTTLE: That still remains the same, yes. And so the Director is supporting this
amendment.
HOUSEL: Are we making a recommendation to the Council with this?
COTTLE: You are Î either unfavorable or favorable.
HOUSEL: Okay. Now, we have no one signed up to testify on this, so we can go
straight, if anybody has any questions -.
BEAUDET: I have a question.
HOUSEL: Okay.
BEAUDET: I just need to make sure that IÓm reading this correctly. Current Code
requires notification to be sent out to neighboring properties within 500 feet of the property
affected; so if your parcel is 100 acres, its notification requirement is for property owners within
500 feet of your property boundary. The change is for notification of property owners within
1,000 feet of the building site, so if -. Is that what IÓm reading here?
COTTLE: Actually, the Zoning Code uses the term Ðbuilding site,Ñ but itÓs defined as
the perimeter of the affected property. So -.
BEAUDET: Okay, so we are expanding notification requirements. We are not -.
Yeah? We are expanding that.
COTTLE: Yes, you are expanding it from 5,000 to -.
WATANABE: No, 500.
BEAUDET: From 500 to -.
COTTLE: IÓm sorry, 500 to 1,000 feet, or two contiguous parcels, yes. So using your
example, Brandi, if itÓs a 100-acre parcel, it would be well into, 500 feet or even 1,000 feet really
would only get you into that one next parcel over; so this is saying you have to go two parcels.
Does that make sense? The next two contiguous -.
2
EXHIBIT B
BEAUDET: Yeah, I understand.
COTTLE: Okay.
HOUSEL: Is that in all directions?
COTTLE: In all directions when the adjacent parcels are in the State Land Use Ag
District.
HOUSEL: Okay. Any other questions? Would someone like to make a motion?
Commissioner Watanabe.
WATANABE: IÓd like to move that the Commission send a favorable recommendation to
the County Council for the amendments as proposed to Section 25-2-4 of the HawaiÒi County
Code.
NELSON: Second.
HOUSEL: The motion was made by Commissioner Watanabe and seconded by
Commissioner Nelson. Would you like to do the vote?
COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE: Aye.
HOUSEL: Oh, is there any discussion? Sorry.
COMMISSIONERS: No.
HOUSEL: Sorry, Maija.
COTTLE: Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE: Aye.
COTTLE: Commissioner Nelson?
NELSON: Aye.
COTTLE: Commissioner Beaudet?
BEAUDET: Nay.
COTTLE: Commissioner Bowman?
BOWMAN: Aye.
3
EXHIBIT B
COTTLE: Commissioner Giffin?
GIFFIN: Aye.
COTTLE: Commissioner Iokepa?
IOKEPA: Aye.
COTTLE: And Mr. Chairman?
HOUSEL: Aye.
COTTLE: Okay, the motion passes, six to one.
HOUSEL: Thank you, Maija.
The discussion ended at 12:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Noriko Sauer, Secretary
Leeward Planning Commission
4
EXHIBIT B