Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-06-05 TRODILLAS PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 5, 2007 FRANCIS & MARTHA RODILLAS A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (REZ 07-000066) was called to order at 10:57 a.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT: William Graham ABSENT & EXCUSED: Takashi Domingo C. Kimo Alameda Alvin Rho Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Rene’ Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 19 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: FRANCIS & MARTHA RODILLAS (REZ 07-000066) Change of Zone from an Agricultural 3-acre (A-3a) to a Family Agricultural 2-acre (FA-2a) district for 4.76 acres of land. The property is located along the northeast (makai) side of Akala Road, approximately 73 feet from the Akala Road – Kaumana Drive intersection and in the vicinity of Kaumana Cave, Ponahawai, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-5-40:18. GRAHAM: The fourth item on our agenda today is an application by Francis and Martha Rodillas, Change of Zone application from an Agricultural 3-acre to a Family Agricultural 2-acre district for 4.76 acres of land. The property in question is located along the makai side of Akala Road, approximately 73 feet from the Akala Road – Kaumana Drive intersection, and this is in the vicinity of Kaumana Cave, South Hilo. Jeff? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can direct the Planning Commission’s attention to the location map. This area of the application is within the South Hilo District. Looking at the location map, we have Kaumana Drive. This is running in an east-west, westerly direction. Additionally, we have Akala Road running in a north-south direction. The area of the application is identified with the red dot. For your reference, the colors on the map indicate the existing zoning. The light blue indicates Agricultural 3 acres. The light green indicates Agricultural 1 acre. And the darker yellow indicates Single Family Residential-15,000 square feet. The applicants in this case, Francis and Martha Rodillas, are requesting a change of zone from Agricultural 3 acres to Family Agricultural 2 acres for a property that is identified as 4.852 acres in size. As the Chairman had indicated, it was originally for 4.76. With the newly done metes and bounds description it has been identified as 4.852 acres. The applicants in this case EXHIBIT C 1 intend to subdivide the property into two parcels, one which will be used by themselves to construct a new dwelling and the other lot will be used for their immediate family. Conditions to bring to your attention, Akala Road is identified as a proposed 60-foot collector road. At this time it’s a 30-foot right-of-way. So a condition is being added, Condition E, that the applicants provide a 15-foot future road wide setback to allow for possible future construction. Additionally, in the future if any type of development occurs on the other side of the road, they would also be required to place a 15-foot future wide setback on that area, so that this road can become a 60-foot wide collector road. Additionally, there is a portion of the property that is within the Flood Zone A. Our standard condition, Condition D, has been added stating that no construction of buildings or dwellings can occur within the flood zone. There is an existing dwelling on the lower portion of the property which was constructed in 1961. It’s an existing 3-bedroom dwelling. Additionally, we have our standard Condition F which states that in these particular types of rezonings, once these are zoned to smaller lots the applicants still have the possibility of constructing an additional farm dwelling. We’re placing in a condition prohibiting the construction of an additional dwelling. That’s Condition F. We have received a comment letter from the Department of Water Supply which has been passed out to the Commission, as well as a late comment letter yesterday from Wesley Sagawa. Mr. Sagawa owns a property near the location of this application. His concern is that he is landlocked. Further review of this and speaking to the applicants, at this time Mr. Sagawa accesses his property through an old cane haul road which is located approximately two lots mauka of their lot. To get to his lot, it actually traverses over another lot. In speaking to the Planning Director, this is a situation that will have to be addressed by Mr. Sagawa and is not something to be addressed within this particular application as it does not affect this piece of property. The Planning Director is recommending that this application be given a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council. Are there any questions? GRAHAM: Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: I have a question of the Director. According to this the LUPAG map has listed this property as Important Agricultural Land; and the ALISH has it as Prime Agricultural Land. Now I’m looking at the County Code, Section 25-5-60, Purpose and Applicability, it says “In addition, this district is intended to be primarily comprised of agricultural lands,” this district means the Family Ag designation, “less than five acres in area,” so this meets that quality, “which are not classified as A or B lands under the land study bureau’s master productivity rating, or classified as prime,” which it is, “unique or other important agricultural lands,” which it is. So it appears to me to my non-lawyer reading that changing the zoning to Family Ag for this parcel runs counter to the County Code.And I would appreciate it if the Director could explain why he is recommending that we do something that’s illegal. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. Mr. Yuen, would you like a few minutes to read it or -? EXHIBIT C 2 YUEN: No. I know the situation that you’re talking about. This is a property that is on the borderline between Low Density Urban and Important Agricultural in the General Plan. And the way, you know, because the lines are not looked at as exact boundaries it could be interpreted as being Low Density Urban. I had a memo on this subject, I don’t know where -. I know I wrote something about this section at one time to staff. Do we have that? DARROW: We have it at the office. I can run back and get it if you -. YUEN: Yeah, if somebody would get it. DARROW: Sure. YUEN: There is something that I wrote about it. If I can find this section. You’re correct to point out that this -. This could refer to it; and I just wanted to see what we looked at this situation before about. GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen, do you think it’s appropriate for us to go forward with the process at this time? YUEN: Yes. Right, we’ll come back to that question. GRAHAM: Thank you. Any other questions from the Commissioners? All right, I want to point out to the public that if any of you want to testify on this item to please go to the end of the table and sign up with Sharon so you can do that. So far I don’t have any public testifiers. Would the applicant please come forward now. Could you all raise your right hand, please. And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter today before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? APPLICANTS: I do. GRAHAM: Thank you, both. You’ve got the recommendation from the Planning Director. If there are any of the conditions that are suggested that you take issue with you could tell us about that. And you can also make whatever informational presentation you’d like to make to the Commission at this time. And just begin by giving your name and your address and then go right ahead. F. RODILLAS: Okay, I’m Francis Rodillas and this is my wife Martha. We live at 29 Akea Street here in Hilo. I don’t have anything to add to anything else that we’ve already submitted in writing, other than to say that to date twice we’ve sent out 35 letters to neighboring property owners and we have not had any objections, any negative comments concerning our application. GRAHAM: Good. I just was going to remind you to please try to speak clearly into the mike because we’re taping so that we can have a written transcript afterwards. So do you have anything you’d like to add, ma’am? M. RODILLAS: No. EXHIBIT C 3 GRAHAM: All right. So I’ll ask the Commissioners now if they have any questions for you. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Are you currently farming this land? F. RODILLAS: No, we’re not. SIRACUSA: And how long have you had it? F. RODILLAS: About two years, give or take a couple more. SIRACUSA: But you’re living in the house that’s on the property? F. RODILLAS: No, we’re not. The plan to farm and develop this property is part of the application, and the reason why we’re making this application is so that we can move forward with our plan. YUEN: You know, maybe it might be a good time to talk about farm dwellings and living in single-family dwellings on lands in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The nutshell is if the lot was created before June 4, 1976, it’s in the State Land Use Agricultural District, you can live in a house, you can have a house and it does not have to be a farm dwelling. There does not have to be any agricultural connection to it. This has to do with an amendment to State Law that was created, that was done in 1976 that has been subsequently incorporated in a Land Use Commission rule. If a lot is under a subdivision created in the Ag district after 1976 it’s supposed to be a farm dwelling, which is defined in State law as a single family dwelling located on and used in connection with a farm or where agricultural activity provides an income to the occupant. All right? So in a place like Kohala Estates, which is a subdivision created after 1976, the homes are supposed to be farm dwellings. In a place in a subdivision like Paradise Park which were created before 1976 they do not have to be farm dwellings. People are quite legitimately in a home without having any kind of Ag activity; and I’m talking about the first house on the lot. The second house will require an agricultural activity in either event. But for the first house on a lot you can, you do not have to have a farm dwelling on these older subdivisions. I’m not sure when this property was subdivided originally, but my guess is that it goes way back. Is that correct, Jeff? DARROW: Correct. It’s well before 1976. YUEN: So if they create, you know, if the zoning goes through and they subdivide the property, then the lots are post 1976, then the homes have to be “farm dwellings.” SIRACUSA: So just for purposes of clarification here, then that would key in the requirement that “The applicant shall submit an agricultural development and use program, farm plan or other evidence of the applicant’s continual agricultural productivity or farming operation within the County to the director. Such plan shall also show how the farm dwelling will be utilized for farm-related purposes.” That’s 25-5-67(c)(2). YUEN: That’s the County Code for additional farm dwellings? EXHIBIT C 4 SIRACUSA: Yes. Do you want me to repeat that reference? YUEN: No, that’s all right. That’s any additional dwelling on a lot in State Land Use Agricultural District is an additional farm dwelling under the County Code; and that does require an application that shows agricultural use; and we do review those and approve or deny those. But in this case the conditions of zoning limit them to one house on a lot anyway. So they would just have the first house. Now the first house, if, you know, you create two lots and it becomes a new subdivision, the first house, say they come in for a building permit on the vacant lot because they already have one house there, they would be handed, and this is a standard practice of the Planning Department, they are handed what’s called a farm dwelling notice that says that the house is supposed to be a farm dwelling, and it quotes the definition of a farm dwelling. And this is something that is done, again, as a standard practice in these post 1976 subdivisions, like Kohala Estates, Makalei Estates, Keaau Ag Lots and the like. People are simply handed a farm dwelling notice that gives them this information when they apply for a building permit for the first home on the lot. SIRACUSA: So then that would trigger this particular rule that I just read off? YUEN: No. That applies to the second. SIRACUSA: The second, the second one? YUEN: Yeah. SIRACUSA: The application for the second structure? YUEN: Right. Then that leads to a farm -. That’s an actual application and it leads to a farm dwelling agreement where they have an agricultural use plan and they have an agreement that is recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances that they have to implement the agricultural use plan and actually use the house in connection with a farm. But that level of formality only applies to the second, or third, or greater house on a single lot. The first house you just get a farm dwelling notice that you sign that you’ve received that, that you’ve been given that. But there’s no greater formality than that involved. SIRACUSA: Okay, thank you for clarifying that for me. Because in general I’m not in favor of breaking up prime ag lands into smaller parcels; and I wanted some kind of guarantee, I guess, that it would actually be used for farming, and not just the gentleman farmer or some other kind of use. Thank you. GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa, I also was, you know, concerned about lot sizes in an area of good ag land like this. But when I pulled up my GIS map of the area and I looked at that whole Ag-3 zone that’s in the blue there, I noticed there’s lots and lots of parcels in there that are actually smaller than the 3 acres. So it’s not like this is really out of the ordinary for that particular area. We do have the applicant before us and we were taking any questions from the Commissioners. If we have any questions for the applicant from the Commissioners at this time? Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: I would move to close the hearing -. There’s no testifiers, right? EXHIBIT C 5 GRAHAM: Yeah. I’ll take care of that now if we have no further questions. Okay, we have no testifiers signed up for this today so we’re in a position where we’ve heard from the applicant and we’ve heard from the public and so we’ll close the public hearing now. And then the Commission can discuss and take action. Thank you all for coming forward. Do I have a motion or do I have comments from the Commissioners at this time? Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: I trust that Commissioner Siracusa’s concerns were addressed so I’ll attempt the motion here. I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council for Change of Zone Application REZ 07-000066 based on the Director’s recommendations. GRAHAM: Do we have a second? ALAMEDA: Second. IWASHITA: Point of order. GRAHAM: Yes, point of order. Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Did the Chair close the hearing? GRAHAM: I believe I did. IWASHITA: Okay. GRAHAM: Thank you. So we have a motion, that a favorable recommendation be sent to the Council. Motion by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Alameda. Do we have discussion of this motion amongst the Commissioners? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: I’ve listened to the concerns expressed by Commissioner Siracusa and I’m looking at 25-5-60 and the other comments about, you know, gentleman farming and so forth. I cannot support this application basically because of those concerns and the fact that, as the chair pointed out, there are other smaller lots in the area, just historically in this area. To me, in my mind, it doesn’t justify creating more because, you know, basically according to the application these lands have not been farmed for at least 10 years, if not more; and breaking them up into smaller parcels I don’t think increases the odds that they’re going to be farmed. It increases the odds that they will be marketed in a few months as a gentleman estate, you know, some nice lands to be purchased, you know, to build a house and have nice views of Hilo Bay. And so I cannot support this application. GRAHAM: Thank you for your thoughts, Commissioner Iwashita. Other thoughts from the Commissioners? Jeff, if you would take the vote on this motion please. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to approve as recommended by the Planning Director. With that I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. EXHIBIT C 6 DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: No. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Nay. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes five to two. GRAHAM: Thank you, Jeff. You folks will be notified in writing of our decision today. The discussion ended at 11:18 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary EXHIBIT C 7