HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-01 TAGTOURISM
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
APRIL 1, 2004
A regularly advertised hearing on the AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 RELATING TO
AGRICULTURAL TOURISMwas called to order at 5:38 p.m. in the County Building,
Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Second Vice-Chairman Hannah
Springer presiding.
PRESENT:Hannah Springer ABSENT & EXCUSED: Fred Galdones
C. Kimo Alameda Jeffrey McCall
Bill Graham
AndrewIwashita
Allen Salavea
Rene Siracusa
Rodney Watanabe
Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director
Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager
Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner
Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner
And no one from the public in attendance.
INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR
Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code relating to Agricultural
Tourism. The purpose of the draft bill is to specifically address the permissibility of agricultural
tourism or its impacts in the various zoning districts.
SPRINGER:Our final item is Agenda Item 11. The initiator is the Planning Director.
Its an amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code relating to
Agricultural Tourism. The purpose of the draft bill is to specifically address the permissibility of
agricultural tourism or its impacts in the various zoning districts.
HAYASHI:Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the Planning Director will be
addressing this particular bill. Thank you.
SPRINGER:Youre welcome. Thank you. Mr. Yuen?
YUEN:Yes. We have a staff member, Larry Brown, who has been working on
this and was going to present this. He has a bad sore throat, and so I told him to go on home.
We also, at that point we werent, you had done a little quicker than we thought we were going
to get done with the last couple of items.
EXHIBIT J
But what this is, this is amendment to the Zoning Code; and what we want to do with it is clarify
what kinds of tourism and tour activities and sales can be done on agricultural property as an
accessory use to agriculture. Thiswas, and theres two sides to this issue. On the one hand we
have a lot of farmers and farming entities that want to be able to havesome kind of accessory
tours and sales on their property as an enhancement to their agriculture. Typical kinds of things
that might be involved here is that they would have visitors stop by, they would show them the
agriculture, they showthem the fields, they show them how they process coffee, for example;
and they might have a sales area where they sold some items to visitors. They might charge for
this or it might be free.
There were also some concerns about this kind of activity from people in the neighborhood.
There can be traffic, there can be tour busses. And one of the problems right now is that we
dont really have a bright line for whats allowed and whats not allowed. We, those of you that
have been on the Commission for a year or more had the Doutor Coffee Special Permit
application,forexample.Andthatwasanincident,asituation,wheretheDepartmentdecided
that what this particular operation was doing fell on the side, that needed a special permit. That is
it had some facilities that were built specifically for the visitors, that they were having regularly
scheduled tours, that they were having busses come in and go, and that they wanted to have some
sales of nonagricultural products.
On the other hand, there are quite a few operations, particularly in Kona, that are not that
different that we have never investigated or cited. Typically, we havent had complaints of them.
Were generally aware of them but Id have to say that they are, in some respects, not that
different from what weve cited as a violation. So we tried to come up with a bill that would
give a clear guidance to people and draw some lines as to what you could do as a farmer and
what you cant do.
Clearly now without a special permit who can have a roadside stand, you have to have, you saw
somebody come here with a roadside stand earlier. You can sell, you can have a roadside stand
for produce that you grow on your site and you can sell that produce. Thats about the extent of
whats clearly allowed under the present Zoning Code. So this bill, although it has a lot of
sections to it, the basic idea is that you can have an agricultural tourism operation on a scale of a
maximum of 40,000 visitors a year, which is a little over 100 people a day. The maximum size
of facility that you can have specifically for the visitors would be 1,000 square feet. Now this
doesnt mean that all your buildings have to be under 1,000 square feet. For example, if you had
a big warehouse that, say, like a banana packing shed that was 10,000 square feet, you could
have an agriculture, you could still have agricultural tourism in that. But the portion then where
you say seating for people, or a sales area, or something specifically devoted to agricultural
tourism, could be a maximum of 1,000 square feet.
You also are, one of the lines that we draw is that you cant do special events like weddings,
catered parties, that sort of thing, on a commercial level under the agricultural tourism permitted
activity. So there would be one level of Ag Tourism in this bill thats basically a permitted use.
The level of control, there still is some level of control for this, is that they have to come in and
apply for plan approval. So they would have to come in administratively to the Department and
apply and show that they fit within what is allowed as basically a permitted use. One of the
things that were especially concerned about is traffic and loading. So, at that point, we would
look at that, if they had a safe place to bring traffic into the farm, into their facility, and load and
2
off-load people without affecting the highways and the public streets. So thats the kind of
control we would have at plan approval.
Now if you wanted to do agricultural tourism that went beyond this level of permitted use, for
example, if you wanted to have a larger facility, or if you wanted to have special events like
weddings, then you would still have to go in the special permit route.
So were, this is our draft bill. Were looking for, I know that, I thought that there were some
people who were going to come and testify. They may have not been able to stay for the end of
this. We have some written comments. None of the square footage limits or the dollar limits, or
the number of visitors are written in stone. All of these are numbered that we, we tried to
balance the various interests and pick numbers, but that can be changed. What were looking for
at this stage is input, discussion, critique of the bill, before we take it up to the County Council
which will make final action on this.
SPRINGER:Is there any discussion? Commissioner Siracusa.
SIRACUSA:Well, I have some questions. I must admit, you know, Ive been sick so I
nevergotachancetoreadthis.Andsoifyoudontmind,DirectorYuen,ifIaskyouthe
questions that I didnt get around to finding out wherein here naught. In terms of, for example,
items for sale, besides say produce and flowers and foliage, would also other items that are sort
of related, like note cards that have photographs of orchids, for example, would that be
considered a proper item for sale in an Ag-tourism gift shop or sales area, or would be allowing
just about anything for sale, whether it had any kind of relationship or not to agricultural
products?
YUEN:We have provisions for nonagricultural product sales and those are, its in,
on page 6, number 7, incidental sales of nonagricultural promotional items, including but not
limited to coffee, mugs, t-shirts, etc., shall be provided; and it said then, provided the items are
specifically promotional to the sites, agricultural activities, and/or products and b) the gross
revenues from the sale of nonagricultural promotional items shall be included with the gross
revenues from the agricultural tourism activities.
SIRACUSA:Thank you. That answers it. Then I had another question as well, and that
-. We had a, I think it was the last Hilo Planning Commission meeting, we had someone who
was hoping for a bed and breakfast operation who said that she had a lot of fruit trees and things
like that, produce growing on the property, that she intended to use in serving the breakfasts.
And I know that on the mainland there have been some very upscale kinds of restaurants and
inns out in the country that have massive vegetable gardens where people can actually walk
through the garden with a basket, pick the produce, take it in, and theyll cook it for you. And
Im wondering if, yeah, Ive seen that in National Gardening Magazine and stuff like that. So
Im wondering if something like that would be also covered in this.
YUEN:Well, if you had a bed and breakfast permit, then you can supply fruits and
produce, uncooked fruits and produce, to your customers, to your guests as part of the bed and
breakfast operation, whether you grow them on site or not. But you cant cook anything for
them with the bed and breakfast permit.
3
SIRACUSA:Okay. But if it was a restaurant like -.
YUEN:Then youd need another, youd need a separate permit. It wouldnt be
called a bed and breakfast. You could have a restaurant permit under, you could have a
restaurant under a special permit; but we wouldnt call it a bed and breakfast, cause a bed and
breakfast is limited to uncooked, like continental breakfast, because of Department of Health
Food Service regulations.
SIRACUSA:I was thinking specifically of these fancy country inns in New England
that have the big gardens and you go around and pick your produce and then they cook it for you
as part of the menu items. And you get to choose what tomato or all those tomatoes are going
into your salad; and you cant complain afterwards, oh, I found a worm in my tomato. Well, you
should have, you know, found it when you picked it. But those are things that are becoming
increasingly popular. And I can foresee that with Ag Tourism coming on. I know the Ag
Departmentispushingit.Youknow,theyhad,thelastyearsfairatKomohanawastalking
about Ag Tourism and they had a fancy glossy brochure. So I imagine its just a matter of time
until somebody comes up with something like that.
YUEN:Yeah, it is becoming a big deal. And a lot of farmers are, there are a lot of
people that are doing it and there are a lot of people that are interested in doing it. What happens
though is youre a little bit at risk. And if somebody makes a complaint, then we go out and
investigate, and you may wind up getting cited for a violation. So what we want to do is really
lay out what level is definitely okay, and youre not at risk if you stay within these bounds, and
you dont need a special permit but you can operate this kind of facility.
SPRINGER:Commissioner Iwashita.
IWASHITA:Mr. Director, the restaurant scenario, that would require, if its in an Ag
area it would require a special permit, right, or a use permit?
YUEN:Thats right. It would require a, it wouldnt be covered under this Ag,
under the Ag Tourism itself, so youd have to get a special permit. You could combine it with
Ag Tourism but the restaurant itself would not fit under the Ag Tourism. It would need a special
permit, still need a special permit.
SPRINGER: Commissioner Graham?
GRAHAM: I guess my first reaction reading this bill is rather negative, and its
negative for infrastructural reasons. And the sense is its all done at plan approval. In other
words, 40,000, a hundred a day, 40,000 a year visitors can come to the facility and participate
this without the public ever having a hearing or a meeting to say the road is not adequate, the
turn-around is not adequate or anything. It all takes place in the County offices. And, you know,
like just looking at a specific instance, I think maybe only Commissioner Springer was with me
on the Commission when we did the Doutor Coffee one. As far as I know, the Planning
Department had no problems with tour buses going along the Holualoa Road, which for me was
a very substandard road and had no place for tour buses. But they didnt get a recommendation
for tour buses, only because they didnt get the turn-around proper. But I think it was a real
community issue whether tour uses should be coming to an agricultural tourism situation on that
4
particular road. And I can figure that could happen in lots of places with this kind of tourism
amount of 40,000 a year or something much more akin to a commercial or resort area where
presumably we already have infrastructure place and so many of our agricultural places do not.
And to have all these decisions made behind closed doors, so to speak, in the County Building, I
dont like it. So I think whatever direction we take to promote agricultural tourism should be a
lot more restrained than what I see in this bill.
YUEN:It was interesting for me that the Farm Bureau said 40,000 was too high.
We thought that they were more, going to take a more wide opened approach. But then they said,
their letter said 6,000, which I think is a very, very small amount, you know, taken over a year.
We are going to look at the number and it may be that 40,000 is a bit high.
As far as the tour bus though, you have to remember that a tour bus can go on the Holualoa
Road. There is absolutely no control over tour buses going on any public road. So if that
becomesa,iftourbuseswanttogoonHolualoaRod,forexample,toseethetownofHolualoa,
to see the view of Kona from the mauka road, well, they can do it. Its true that you may be
creating an attraction along a particular road by allowing an Agricultural Tourism operation, but
it doesnt necessarily mean that buses are there or not there on Holualoa or any other public road.
GRAHAM:Well, obviously, thats true. I dont find that last argument particularly
persuasive, however.
SPRINGER:Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE:Well, I dont know what number is right, whether 40,000, or 1,000 square
feet, or 500 square feet is right. But I think that this is the beginning; and I applaud you guys for
making that effort of making some type of distinction. So I think that way you will have some
guidelines to have some consistency, and possibly not everything has to come to the public, you
know, which is kind of like what youre doing with boundaries for commercial versus
residential, etc. So I think youre on the right track. But, again, I dont know whether 40,000 is
right but -. I dont know, I had the opposite opinion from him. I think youre on the right track.
YUEN:And just to clarify, what we are expecting out of the Commission today,
well take this to the Commission at least one more time. And the end of, we would like a
recommendation from the Commission, favorable or unfavorable, to go up to the County
Council. Thats the purpose of bringing it here. But I, this is the first time youve looked at it,
so we wouldnt ask for that recommendation today. Well be putting this -. Norman, well be
putting this on the next Kona agenda, right?
HAYASHI:We dont have it on the next Kona agenda. We can still put it on.
YUEN:Okay. Why dont we put it on the Kona agenda because, to give both
sides of the island -. It hasnt been heard in Kona yet, right?
HAYASHI:No, it has not.
YUEN:So we should at least give both sides of the island a chance to comment on
this before the Planning Commission takes a vote on it. If the Planning Commission needs to
5
takemore time with it and defer it after that meeting for further discussion, then thats fine as
well.
SPRINGER:Thank you. So, Commissioners, well be hearing this one more time over
in Kona. Is there any further discussion on this matter today?
IWASHITA:Id just like to comment -.
SPRINGER:Sure.
IWASHITA:That, I guess, I understand the intent of where this is going. And I think
that there has to be some sensitivity to the publics interest and a local communitys interest. I
mean, we look at the church issue, you know, these relatively minor kinds of uses, compare it, 90
people going once a week to church, right, and weve got, the reaction that we got. And youre
talkingabout,youknow,nowyouretalkingaboutallowingbasicallycommercialactivitydown
in an agricultural area, right? And so theres going to be some, at some point, I think we have to
be sensitive to where you draw the line. Right? And, frankly, I guess right now my gut thing is
40,000 is a little high. To say the least, I think it is high. And that, you know, the line has to be
drawn where we perceive that its, now its reasonable to have public input, give the public an
opportunity to address whether or not that you should be allowed.
SALAVEA:Madam Chairman?
SPRINGER:Commissioner Salavea.
SALAVEA:For Director Yuen, I just wanted to clarify for my own self the intent of
the bill is to delineate or define what would be allowed on agricultural lands in terms of Ag
Tourism. Is that correct?
YUEN:Thats right. To allow, to define a certain level that we allow without
having to go to a special permit that comes to the Planning Commission.
SALAVEA:Thank you.
SIRACUSA:I was wondering if we want to look at the issue in terms of, well, if its
agricultural land and the primary source of funds for the farmer should be from actual farming,
do we want to then say that any monies that come in from Ag Tourism should be less than that so
that we have a, we know that the maxi -? Excuse me.
WATANABE:May I? I believe the proposed bill indicates that no more than 50 percent
of the gross revenue can come from peripheral sales.
SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner Watanabe. And, also, on page 2, theres that
discussion of a value that is commensurate with the land area and type of crop produced from the
Farm Bureau. Any other discussion? Okay. So, Mr. Yuen, well hear this again Kona.
6
The discussion end at 5:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawai Secretary
7