HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-08 TAmendment to PC Rules
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
DECEMBER 8, 2005
AMENDMENTS TO PLANNING THE PLANNING
A regularly advertised hearing on the
COMMISSION RULES
was called to order at 3:54 p.m. in Waikoloa Beach Marriott Hotel,
Alii Ballroom II, 69-275 Waikoloa Beach Drive, Waikoloa, Hawaii with Second Vice-Chairman
Kimo Alameda presiding.
PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED:
Jeffrey McCallAllen Salavea
Fred Galdones
William R. GrahamHannah Springer
Rene Siracusa
Chris Yuen, Deputy Planning Director
Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager
Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner
Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner
Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel
And approximately 2 people from the public in attendance.
Amendments to appropriate sections of Planning Commission Rule 6 (Special Permits), Rule 7
(Use Permit), Rule 8 (Shoreline Setback), Rule 9 (Special Management Area), Rule 11 (Zoning
Amendments), Rule 12 (Geothermal Resource Permits), Rule 13 (State LandUse District
Boundary Amendment), Rule 15 (Project Districts), and Rule 16 (Agricultural Project Districts)
by requiring the posting of signs for public notification as part of the application process. The
amendments to be included in the rules are as follows:
Posting of Signs for Public Notification.
1.Withintendaysofbeingnotifiedoftheacceptanceofanapplication,theapplicantshall
post a sign on the subject property notifying the public of the following:
a.Thenatureoftheapplication;
b.The proposed use of the property;
c.The size of the property;
d.The tax map key(s) of the property;
e.That the public may contact the planning department for additional information;
and
f.The address and telephone number of the planning department.
2.The sign shall remain posted until the application has been granted, denied, or withdrawn.
The applicant shall remove the sign promptly after such action.
EXHIBIT C
1
3.Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the sign shall be not less than nine square
feet and not more than twelve square feet in area, with letters not less than one inch high.
No pictures, drawings, or promotional materials shall be permitted on the sign. The sign
shall be posted at or near the property boundary adjacent to a public road bordering the
property and shall be visible from said public road. If more than one public road borders
the property, the applicant shall post the sign to be readable from the more heavily
traveled public road. The sign shall, in all other respects, be in compliance with Chapter 3
(signs) Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 edition).
4.The applicant shall file an affidavit with the planning department not more than five days
after posting the sign stating that a sign has been posted in compliance with this rule, and
that the applicant and its agents will not remove the sign until the application has been
granted, denied, or withdrawn. A photograph of the sign in place shall accompany the
affidavit.
ALAMEDA:The Hawaii County Planning Commission is now back in order. Right
nowourthirdagendaitemfortoday,thelastagendaitem.Thisisinregardstotheamendments
to appropriate sections of the Planning Commission Rule 6, Rule 7, Rule 8, Rule 9, Rule 11,
Rule 12, Rule 13, Rule 15, and Rule 16. The amendments to be included and well just turn it
over to staff. Staff?
HAYASHI:Thank you Mr., testing, testing are we on? Thank you. Basically these
rule changes are a result of the amendments that were adopted for changes to the zoning and
subdivision code relative to posting of signs for notification. As you recall we all had hearings
on these changes to the code and at that time the Planning Commission also indicated that we
would amend the appropriate section of the various rules. So, these are the changes that are
being proposed. All of you have copies of the proposed changes. I do have one change however
and thats a typo and thats if you look at one of the rules proposed rules it says, item number C
if you take a look at the first one which is rule number 6 second page item C. Are we all on the
same page? And it says, notwithstanding any provisions of the law the sign shall not be less that,
and that should be than, so all of the changes will be made accordingly. And these are typos and
I was the one that typed it so I apologize for that. Other than that theres nothing more to add on
this I think its-. And just to let you know for some of the rezoning applications that recently
came in, the applicants did post signs. So, some of these at one point in time if you may see
this, drive around you may be seeing these signs. Are there any questions?
ALAMEDA:Yes Commissioner Siracusa question?
SIRACUSA:Yes, could you remind me Norman is there any kind of provision in the
event that the sign is either removed or tampered with by person or persons unknown. Is there
any provision for whose responsibility it is to replace it if there is such a responsibility
anywhere?
HAYASHI:Theres nothing in the provisions, neither in the code or the proposed rules
regarding that matter. Theres nothing stated in the existing code, subdivision or zoning code as
EXHIBIT C
2
well as the proposed rules regarding the-, ifin the event that if someone were to remove the signs
or vandalize the signs that they would have to be replaced again, placed back on site. We dont
have anything in the provisions in any of the rules to cover that.
SIRACUSA:Thats too bad you know because there are people with attitudes who you
know would see something disapprove of it and say ah, you know, just get angry, pull out the
sign, disappear it and then it could be the very next day and then no one is going to know about
it.
HAYASHI:Unfortunately, the intent is to make sure that the applicant posts these
signs. Its unfortunate that somebody may go there, opposed to the project, opposed to the
posting, takes these signs down. By requiring the applicant to go back and place these signs
again we may be penalizing him for you know something that he or she was not responsible for.
ALAMEDA:Thank you Commissioner Siracusa. Norman I have a question then. How
do we respond to the, the language that suggests that it shall remain posted? Even if it was taken
downbyanotherperson?
HAYASHI:You asking me?
ALAMEDA:Yes sir. Yes, Im asking you how do we respond then? Cause if you, you
just, I heard you just say that you know if it was a community member that maybe is opposed to
the project that goes and takes down the sign, thats all good. But its the rule or the language
suggests that it still remain posted. So Im wondering, how do fix that or we change the
language or what we do?
SIRACUSA:I just want to say that cause otherwise its the public thats being penalized
by being, not knowing you know if this project is going to happen?
WATANABE:I thought this came up in discussion?
ALAMEDA:Commissioner? Or how about Director?
YUEN:Well, this was discussed. This sign posting thing was an initiative of
Councilmember Jacobson and in order not to make it an undue burden on the applicant it is part
of the understanding and part of the ordinance that were just implementing by changing the
rules that the applicants job is simply to post the sign. And theyre also obligated not to take it
down themselves. But if somebody does knock the sign down, steal it or do something then
theyre not obligated to re-post. That is the way its, thats the rule. Thats the way the
ordinance is written and thats the way is proposed to be written.
ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa?
SIRACUSA:Yeah, I was under the impression that the intent of the ordinance was not
to make the applicant post a sign but to inform the general public about potent- you know,
potential developments. Thats why I question that.
EXHIBIT C
3
ALAMEDA:Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE:You know, actually I think that came up in discussion in the Council
meeting when the ordinance was approved and what not. And I, as I recall one of the comments
that was made by the contractor was that he saw very minimal risk of that occurring and-. You
know in the example that you gave. I mean if I were against a project Id be pointing to it, I
wouldnt get rid of the sign because Im trying to draw attention to it. Do you follow what Im
saying, the logic behind that? So I, its more maybe vandalism that youd be concerned with like
young kids or something. But hopefully that the risk is minimal.
ALAMEDA:How about on this side? Commissioner Graham, Commissioner McCall
any thoughts? Commissioner McCall?
MCCALL:Yeah, just I think I remember the same discussions I mean there was
discussion about you know what you could do and the idea that you didnt want to burden the
landownerwithhavingtoputthesignupeverydayifsomebodydecidestotearitdown.AndI
recall the thought, its the same thing as that you have to post it in the public paper and the
population is supposed to see it in the paper. If they dont see it in the paper its not the
applicants fault and like hes gotta go put it in the paper you know more times.
ALAMEDA:Yeah.
MCCALL:I mean hes done his job and thats about, you know thats all they could
ask.
ALAMEDA:Okay. Norman I have a question. So you know when they post the sign is
it, does it get documented somewhere?
HAYASHI:Yes, theyre required to file an affidavit stating that they had posted a sign.
They also would be required to submit photos of the-,
ALAMEDA:Oh yeah?
HAYASHI:-posting, the sign being in place.
ALAMEDA:Okay so that at least it shows the initial you know sign posting and kind of
like thats due diligence already right there as far as Im concerned. Any Commissioners any
other thoughts? More thoughts on that? Commissioner Siracusa?
SIRACUSA:Well I think that lets let it go for now. If down the line it looks like there
are you know, were getting a lot of those signs vandalized then we can I guess always look at
making some changes on how were going to address that.
ALAMEDA:Okay.
EXHIBIT C
4
SIRACUSA:But for now lets assume that Rodney is right and that if somebodys
against the project theyre not going to take the sign down and that its only going to be
vandalism maybe that does that. Im willing to wait and see.
ALAMEDA:Okay. Other thoughts? Commissioner McCall?
MCCALL:Yeah, just, I mean, my understanding these rules are basically set up to be
the same as what the Council passed. And so you know were trying to stay in you knowIdont
think we should be making new rules that are that, go either beyond one way or the other with
what you know. I mean itd be one thing if we, if we decide this is a problem we should go talk
to our Council member and get them to change the ordinance but not, we shouldnt be making
our own rules.
ALAMEDA:Good point. Okay, Commissioner Watanabe? You have a question?
WATANABE:No question. I was-.
ALAMEDA:Oh okay. Comment?
WATANABE:No. Ready to make a motion.
ALAMEDA:Okay, I was just going to ask. Whats the procedures on this particular
item?Isitamotionitemorisitaconsensusitem?
TORIGOE:Itshouldhaveamotion.
ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE:Okay, I move that the, we adopt, the Planning Commission adopt the
amendments to the Planning Commission Rule number 6, Rule 7, Rule 8, Rule 9, Rule 11, Rule
12, Rule 13, Rule 15 and Rule 16 with regard to this posting of signs.
SIRACUSA:Second.
ALAMEDA:Motion was made by Commissioner Watanabe. Seconded by
Commissioner Siracusa. Any further discussion on this particular agenda item? Very well
seeing none staff?
HAYASHI:Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE:Aye.
HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa?
SIRACUSA:Aye.
EXHIBIT C
5
HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham?
GRAHAM:Aye.
HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall?
MCCALL:Aye.
HAYASHI:Chair Alameda?
ALAMED:Aye.
HAYASHI:Thank you motion carries.
ALAMEDA:Thank you.
This discussion ended 4:10 p.m.
Respectfullysubmitted,
Lynette Marushige, West Hawaii Secretary
EXHIBIT C
6