Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-03 TTAVARES PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 3, 2008 WALTER TAVARES, JR. (SPP 1212) A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was called to order at 9:19 a.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe ABSENT & EXCUSED: Lani Bowman C. Kimo Alameda Takashi Domingo Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Alvin Rho Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And five people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: WALTER TAVARES, JR. (SPP 1212) Extension of time limit (condition no. 2) and related conditions of Special Permit No. 1212, which allowed the construction of a 2,500-square foot building for the establishment of a towing and auto repair business on one acre of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural rd District. The property is located along the makai side of Uluhe Street (aka 33 Avenue), approximately 1,620 feet northwest of Makuu Drive, Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision, Keaau, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-5-16:148. WATANABE: Agenda Item No. 2 is Walter Tavares, Jr. It’s a Special Permit No. 1212 for an extension of time limit (condition no. 2). Mr. Darrow. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could direct your attention to the board, the next applicant is Water Tavares, Jr. He’s requesting an amendment to Condition No. 2 for Special Permit No. 1212. Condition No. 2 is a condition which has a life for the special permit of five years. The location of the application is within the Puna District of Hawaii. More specifically we’re looking at the Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision on the makai side of the Keaau-Pahoa Road; and we have the Orchidland Subdivision on the mauka side. The line running in the middle of the map in a diagonal direction is the Keaau-Pahoa Road. The subject rd property is identified with a black outline and this is located on 33 Avenue off of Makuu Drive. EXHIBITA 1 rd This is an aerial photo of the area. It’s a little dark. This is 33 Avenue identified in white and the yellow line is the Keaau-Pahoa Road. And, again, the subject property is identified in a red outline. There is a 50-by-50 warehouse structure that has been constructed, as well as a dwelling in the rear of the property. The applicant is requesting a 5-year time extension to Condition No. 2 which, again, Condition No. 2 is the life of the permit. The original permit was approved to allow the construction of a 2500-square foot building for the establishment of a towing and auto repair business on one-acre rd of land. This is the site plan of the property. We have 33 Avenue running on the bottom portion of the site plan. We have the 50-by-50 warehouse structure, as well as the dwelling located in the back. The applicant is proposing paving identified in these particular areas. There was a portion of this condition that required, that stated that no extension of the permit would be rd granted unless 33 Avenue was paved. Recently the applicants within this area that have special permits have hui’d together and paved this road just past Mr. Tavares’s property. So this is a picture showing the warehouse structure, as well as the pavement on the road, and the pavement of the parking area on his property. Again, we see the recent paving that has been done. We can see the warehouse structure. The Planning Department is recommending an approval of the special permit amendment with conditions. I do have a few changes that I’d like to bring to your attention. Since this application was approved, or since the background and recommendation was submitted to the Planning Commission the applicants have done the paving. So we’re going to be deleting a portion of Condition No. 2. The latter portion that starts with “No extension of this permit shall be granted,” all the way until the end of that condition will be deleted because of the fact that the paving has been done at this point. So there’s no need for that condition. Additionally, on Condition No. 9 we’re going to be deleting the last sentence which states “Native species from the area shall be used when possible.” At this point we’re looking at podocarpus or particular types of palm trees that will really bring a hedge. So we’re looking at that type of landscaping. We would like to add in there “No signage shall be visible from Highway 130.” So that will be added on to the Final Plan Approval condition. Are there any questions? WATANABE: Fellow Commissioners, do we have any questions of Mr. Darrow? Yes, Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: Just to summarize real quick some of the changes in the conditions, so we’re deleting the “No extension of this permit” that whole sentence, right, in Condition 2? DARROW: Correct. ALAMEDA: We’re taking away native species in Condition 9 but we’re adding the hedge, foliage, yeah? DARROW: We’re adding in a sentence that will state “No signage shall be visible from Highway 130.” It will replace “Native species from the area shall be used when possible.” ALAMEDA: Oh. EXHIBITA 2 DARROW: There still is a requirement for landscaping, just above this. So at this point we’re not specifying that they use native species. WATANABE: Is that good? ALAMEDA: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Okay. Just for the record, I believe the reason we’re taking out the native foliage requirement is it doesn’t seem to provide the type of landscaping coverage Rule 17 attempts to achieve. Is that correct? DARROW: Correct. WATANABE: So we have no further questions? Okay, then may I have the applicant and their representative come up please. May I swear you in. Okay, would you raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? SONG: I do. W. TAVARES: Yeah. WATANABE: Thank you. And then I believe you’re going to begin your testimony, so would you state your name and address for the record, please. SONG: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I’m Sandra Song, my address is 10 Kamehameha Avenue in Hilo; and I represent the applicant Walter Tavares. Mr. Tavares is with me today. Also, since this is a family business that he operates with his son, his son Wally who’s also one of the mechanics with him, is present. Just to be brief, we’ve gone through the conditions. As you know, Mr. Tavares has spent a considerable amount of funds to improve the property. He’s operating his business there. There’s really no rd place for him to move. He has participated in the paving of 33 Avenue; and the cost was over $61,000 which only four property owners ended up sharing. So he has invested a lot; and he’s asking for this time extension. Prior to presenting this, Mr. Darrow went through the change in conditions on signage, no signage on Highway 130; and Mr. Tavares is agreeable to that change in condition. Otherwise, if you have any questions, we’d be glad to answer them. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions of the applicant or their representative? Yes, Mr. Yuen. YUEN: Yes. You’ve had this permit for five years and it doesn’t look like the landscaping has been put in that was required from five years ago. W. TAVARES: Yeah, when I came in for the five-year permit -. NOMURA: Microphone, please. W. TAVARES: You hear me now? EXHIBITA 3 SONG: Mr. Yuen, can I sort of answer part of that. Mr. Tavares applied for and obtained plan approval when he put up the building. For some reason when he obtained plan approval there were only a few plants drawn on the map, and he planted those. So, and I agree it doesn’t comply with the condition, but he did plant what was required for plan approval. He does understand that he has to go back now and put in many more plants than were approved in the prior plan approval. And I’m assuming your Department is going to require additional plan approval for the new planting. YUEN: Okay. WATANABE: Yeah, so no problems then. Any further questions? Mr. Alameda? ALAMEDA: No. I’m just ready to entertain a motion. WATANABE: Okay. You may be seated then. Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: Okay. Any testimony? WATANABE: Oh, I’m sorry. No, there was no public testimony, no one signed up. ALAMEDA: Okay. With regard to applicant Walter Tavares, Jr., Special Permit 1212, I move that the amendment request for a five-year time extension to Condition No. 2 of Special Permit No. 1212 be approved by the Planning Commission, also make note of the Condition No. 2, the elimination of, from the last sentence on Condition 2; and then the elimination of Condition 9, the last sentence reading “Native species from the area shall be used when possible,” instead just “No signage shall be visible from the Highway -.” WATANABE: One thirty? ALAMEDA: One thirty. DOMINGO: Second. WATANABE: Okay, we have a motion. Any further discussion on the matter? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Just one note here, as one of the conditions that should any zoned industrial area be established within a 4-mile radius, you know, I have some reservations about that. And I don’t think it’s being practical considering that the applicant and others have already invested a substantial amount with regards to improving the highway, the roadway adjacent to their property, and then establishing and putting in a permanent structure such as we see here and then should anything, should any industrial zoned land be established within a four-mile radius, then what we’re telling them is that they should relocate there. And, you know, I just want to emphasize my concern about it, and it will always be my concern. EXHIBITA 4 WATANABE: That’s correct. We just ran through the Puna Community Development Plan and there was some discussion as to whether this area would be designated as a, what is that, not Commercial, I don’t want to say Commercial, Industrial -. TORIGOE: Light Industrial? WATANABE: Light Industrial area. But I think that also needs to be worked out with the Association, etc. So I think your voicing your concern on the record is good, but there are other parties involved in this. Yeah? DOMINGO: You know, I think if you look in this particular area and according to the master plan by the Hawaiian Paradise Park Association or whatever, they established this particular area for that particular use. And then because of their support for that, they were permitted to establish the business there, and they supported that. And then we in turn granted them the special permit, but on the condition that if they should ever come across Industrial zoned lands then they should locate there. To me I think, you know, it’s not practical and it’s not being fair. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Yes, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the, what’s that, I can’t think of the correct phrase. But basically if you’re looking at it from a general planning principal perspective, my understanding of this provision is that because this is a special permit and we’re making an exception to normal zoning amendment procedures -. You know, I understand Commissioner Domingo’s concern but, and as practical matter I appreciate what he’s expressing, but the reality of how planning works, you know, if, to get to the place where Commissioner Domingo is suggesting, you know, would -. Basically what he’s saying is that this really ought to be, in effect, a rezoning. To get rezoning we’d have to change, you know, change the General Plan, change the LUPAGs, and all of that before they get to rezoning; and we skipped over all of that to make an exception because of the demand. And this provision is in here basically to protect the process; and the process is, you know, the rezoning process, the changing of the General Plan. So I appreciate the concern but, you know, as a Commissioner I view part of our responsibility as to protect our process, and so this really has to be there. I don’t think an expectation should be allowed to be created in the community that if you’re in an Ag area, you get a special permit and ultimately the time limits are going to disappear. You know, because there are places for uses like this. Because that really then would, you know, to the extent there’s going to be spot zoning then special permits in Ag areas would be a real easy way to go get spot zoning basically. So that would be my concern. Thank you, Mr. Chair. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Yeah, this is actually a provision that has no teeth. And the reason it has no teeth, it says within a reasonable period to effect the relocation. What does that mean? Nobody knows. And so I don’t think this is something that is a serious hindrance to their operation; and I would like to know if the applicant or his representative have a problem with the way this is worded. EXHIBITA 5 WATANABE: Ms. Song, would you like to come up since the question was directed towards the representative? SONG: I understand the concern about the process. But the reality is the only area th that is going to be designated within a four mile radius which is on, I believe, Paradise or 11 or something, it’s in Paradise Park, it’s unlikely that in the next five or even ten years it is going to be developed, because the development of water would be an enormous problem. So as far as is there going to be an area that’s zoned Industrial within the next five years, it’s very doubtful; and my client is willing at this point to live with this condition. He can’t move right now. You know, it’s a small family business. He would close his doors if he had to move today and if this permit was not granted and this time extension. So he will accept it with the conditions in the permit right now; and if problems arise later then he’ll try to have to deal with that. WOODWARD: Thank you very much. HOUSEL: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Housel. HOUSEL: Yeah, I had a question regarding the language you wanted to add or amend regarding the landscaping requirement, and what it says here is that along all property boundaries. Now I’m looking at the plot plan. Is it clear where that landscaping should go? Is it all the boundaries of the property there, or are there specific areas of the property boundaries? WATANABE: Well, they do have Landscaping Rule 17 in the Planning Department Rules, but I would really defer to staff for a more specific answer. Mr. Yuen, would you care to address that? YUEN: Well, it does refer to all boundaries. And if you think about the situation here, I don’t know specifically if there are persons living on either, the lots on either side. I believe they’re vacant. But the typical use that the owner has in mind of a lot in Paradise Park is to have a home there. And if you just take the overall landscaping rule for the County, if somebody had an industrial lot that was next to a residential lot, it would require, the Rule 17 requires very thick landscaping, it’s the most serious landscaping to screen a lot from the neighbor. And so that’s basically the idea here, is that we do not know what the neighbor wants to do, but typically they would want to build home, and if we’re going to let a warehouse be built next to it then we have a serious landscaping requirement for the adjacent property. HOUSEL: Okay. I was just trying to clarify so that the applicant understood where the landscaping should go. I wonder if that should be put on the site plan or the plot plan to be clear. WATANABE: It’s going to have to go through some approval processes; and as Ms. Song had indicated their original site plan did indicate only a handful of plants, and for whatever reason it was approved, and he did plant those few plants supposedly. So, but they are under the understanding that they need more substantial landscaping at the boundaries. And so I think the process will work itself out. EXHIBITA 6 HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Yeah. Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, in reading the background report and recommendation by the County I don’t have a problem with this application at all. I mean the applicants, I mean they complied with the pavement conditions, there’s no letter from angry neighbors, the place looks clean, well kept, they provide a good service to the community. So to me it’s a no-brainer, and they don’t have a concern about the five years as well. So I’m ready to vote. WATANABE: I would tend to agree. Any further discussion on the matter? Mr. Darrow? DARROW: With that, I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes six to zero. WATANABE: So you’ll all be notified in writing. SONG: Thank you. WATANABE: Thank you. EXHIBITA 7 The discussion ended at 9:41 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary EXHIBITA 8