Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-03 TPUNABAPTIST PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI€I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 3, 2005 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of PUNA BAPTIST CHURCH (SPP 05-006) was called to order at 9:07 a.m. in the County Building, Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai€i, with Chairman Fred Galdones presiding. PRESENT:Fred GaldonesABSENT & EXCUSED: Allen Salavea C. Kimo AlamedaRodney Watanabe Bill Graham AndrewIwashita Jeffrey McCall Rene Siracusa Hannah Springer Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 29 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: PUNA BAPTIST CHURCH (SPP 05-006) Special Permit to allow the establishment of a church and related improvements on approximately 2.91 acres of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located along the south side of the Pahoa-Pohoiki Road (Highway 132), adjacent and to the east of the Pahoa Woodland Subdivision, Pahoa, Kaniahiku, Puna, Hawai€i, TMK: 1-5-115:8. GALDONES:Commissioners, we are on Agenda Item No. 5 under New Business. The applicant is Puna Baptist Church (SPP 05-006). This is a 1EXHIBIT A 2EXHIBIT A 3EXHIBIT A 4EXHIBIT A 5EXHIBIT A 6EXHIBIT A 7EXHIBIT A 8EXHIBIT A 9EXHIBIT A 10EXHIBIT A 11EXHIBIT A 12EXHIBIT A 13EXHIBIT A 14EXHIBIT A 15EXHIBIT A 16EXHIBIT A 17EXHIBIT A 18EXHIBIT A 19EXHIBIT A 20EXHIBIT A 21EXHIBIT A 22EXHIBIT A 23EXHIBIT A 24EXHIBIT A 25EXHIBIT A 26EXHIBIT A 27EXHIBIT A 28EXHIBIT A 29EXHIBIT A ORLOSKI:I definitely would like to hear it again. TORIGOE:Okay, ‚A 30-foot landscaping buffer shall be included in the development plans to mitigate any potential adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent properties in accordance with Planning Department Rule No. 17, meeting with the approval of the Planning Director. Existing vegetation shall be retained to the extent consistent with runoff control requirements with the exception of albizzia or other hazardous trees.ƒ ORLOSKI:Is that what you meant, Mr. Graham? GRAHAM:I can see your reason for concern. But I think the last sentence that CorporationCounselhassaid,whichisthattheexistingvegetationshallberetainedtotheextent its consistent with drainage controls necessary, I think it does, in fact, put in place what I intendedbymyamendmenttothemotion. SIRACUSA:Excuse-. GALDONES:CommissionerSiracusa? SIRACUSA:Yeah,Ijustwantedtopointoutthatsometimestherearetrade-offs,you know. You dont want the flooding and drainage problems, at the same time you dont want to bewideopenandhavenoscreening,vegetativescreeningatall.Sothisisanattempttodoboth, to make sure that the drainage is going to, that issue is primary, and is going to be resolved. And then to the extent possible once that is guaranteed by the engineers, then as much as possible the 30EXHIBIT A natural vegetation would be retained and added to as well when necessary. So I think youve got a, its the closest attempt we can get at to a win-win to allowing the church to go forward and seeing to your two major concerns. ORLOSKI:Were asking for less than 3 percent of their land to be allowed for -. SIRACUSA:Percentage has nothing to do with it though. ORLOSKI:Well, its a very small amount of land. SIRACUSA:€Cause you can put them on a one-foot, you know, one-foot building the length of the property and give yourself maximum buffering, or push them over to the other side of the property which then is going to impact the next neighbor. It looks to me like theyve got it pretty much in the center to be most considerate of everyone on all sides. And there always have tobesomegiveandtake.So-. GALDONES:Okay,theChairwouldliketoproceedforwardwiththemotion. IWASHITA:Mr.Chairman. GALDONES:CommissionerIwashita. IWASHITA:Thank you. I just wanted clarification from counsel, that 30-foot landscaping buffer, is that identified to be along the residential boundary? TORIGOE:You know, thats a good question. I was just looking at, Im wondering if we should say something like ‚to the westƒ to specify it, or are we intending for this to be on all, you know -? IWASHITA:Yeah, it was my intent in seconding the motion that this buffer is along the residential side of the property, the side that has the residences. ORLOSKI:Yes, were on Shinde, Ms. Shindes property line, the property, parcel 45; and its between, for legal matters, its between parcel 8 and parcel 45. GALDONES:Well, Id like to direct that question to Commissioner Graham since he had introduced the amendment. GRAHAM:Yes, that was my intention, that it would be only on that side of the property, and specific reference to the need of Ms. Shinde, so along the full duration of the property line that is shared by those two landowners. IWASHITA:Okay, thank you. I had one other. I just wanted to make clear on the record my understanding of counsels proposed language, is that it essentially is a restatement of the intent of our motion; and that is that the final wording were talking about is existing vegetation shall be retained. In my mind that is the controlling, the primary controlling language, that the vegetation that exists shall be retained but for the exceptions, which are removal of the dangerous trees, or some engineering concern that requires some other work to be 31EXHIBIT A done in that area so that the existing vegetation cannot be maintained, and it has to be, otherwise, landscaped. Is that your understanding? Im directing this to the applicant. CURLEY:What I dont understand is now how much of 30-foot buffer are we talking about? IWASHITA:Just along the Shindes property. CURLEY:Oh, okay. I understand. IWASHITA:But asto the language requiring, retaining existing vegetation in that area, my restatement earlier, is that your understanding also? CURLEY:Well, my understanding is other than the albizzia or the other garbage tree, whatever. SIRACUSA:Cecropia. CURLEY:Renehasgotit. IWASHITA:Thatyoullneedto-? CURLEY:Yes. IWASHITA:Maintain the existing vegetation? CURLEY:Other than that -. IWASHITA:Other than those, yeah. CURLEY:Yes. IWASHITA:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:One other thing, just to clear with Corporation Counsel, Planning Director did indicate that he thought it appropriate that he be the person that authorizes intrusion, you know, into that natural buffer area; and so I dont recall that you said that in your restatement. But I just want to be sure that that is the sense of this body and thats what you intended, or that is what were going to be voting on, that the Planning Director will be the body that needs to approve intrusions into that area for these reasons. TORIGOE:Right. I dont know if I specifically said that either, but the intent was to say that the buffer in the development plan would be in accordance with Rule 17 meeting with the approval of the Planning Director. 32EXHIBIT A One last thing, I hope, about the plants that can be removed. What I mentioned was that the albizzia trees and any other hazardous vegetation or trees could be removed. Do we need to refine that? Are we talking about cecropia? Is that a hazardous plant or -? SIRACUSA:In a sense it is because like albizzia it does tend to fall, unlike albizzia it doesnt get quite as large. So it might not necessarily go through a roof, but it would knock off, say, a gutter. They are a soft wood that, theyre not a hard wood that holds up, you know, to weather. So, yes, they can be dangerous. TORIGOE:Okay, so I guess we want to make it clear on the record. What is your pleasure? You want to authorize removal of the albizzia, cecropia and other potentially hazardous material or trees? It sounds like the applicant was talking about rubbish tress. I dont know if thats the same thing. CURLEY:ThatswhatIcallthem. GALDONES:Areweallonthesamepage?Okay,anyfurtherdiscussion?Otherwise, back to the motion. Seeing no further discussion, then the amendment to Condition No. 3 would be as stated by counsel; and that would incorporate the initial amendment, and the motion by Commissioner Springer, and the amendment by Commissioner Graham. Norman? HAYASHI:Before I take the vote, clarification. That new condition by counsel, is that going to be a new condition or is that added to Condition No. 3? GALDONES:It would be added on to Condition No. 3. It would amend your original proposed language. HAYASHI:In its entirety? Is that the intent? GALDONES:It would cover that all, counsel? TORIGOE:Yeah, I think, basically, this is to amend and replace that last sentence that starts, ‚Landscaping shall be includedƒ in Condition 3. SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? GALDONES:Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:And retaining staffs proposed amendment regarding the CV zoning, the CV and RS zoning. GALDONES:We would be retaining that. HAYASHI:Okay, I think, well try to come up with the proper language for that particular condition after meeting with counsel after the meeting. With that, Ill take the roll call; and that is the motion to approve with the proposed amendment to Condition No. 3. GALDONES:Yes. 33EXHIBIT A HAYASHI:Okay. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries. GALDONES:Thank you, Norman. You will be informed in writing of todays action. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Orloski. The discussion ended at 10:57 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawai€i Secretary 34EXHIBIT A