HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-03-04 PL-REZ-2023-000053 Sidney Fuke Response to Rhoades' Letter From: Sidney Fuke
To: Andrews.Jessica
Cc: Jackson. Maiia; Robert Hamilton; Kalysa Hamilton;Gail Rhoades
Subject: Manono Corner Rezoning-Response to Rhoades
Date: Monday, March 4, 2024 5:28:11 AM
Attachments: Response to Rhoades.pdf
Good morning Jessica,
Please find attached our response to the Rhoades' letter. This was uploaded into
EPIC. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you very much!
Sid
SidneyFUke, Planning Consultant
P.O.Box 1345 a Hilo,Hawaii 96720 •Planning•Variance•Zoning
�� Cell:(808)989-0640 -Subdivision-Land Use Permits
E-mail:sidneyfuke@gmail.com •Environmental Reports
March 3, 2024
Mr. Zendo Kern, Director
Planning Department
COUNTY OF HAWAII
101 Pauahi Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Mr. Kern:
Subject: Rezoning Application—Manono Corner, LLC
South Hilo,HI, TMK: 2-2-036: 076 (PL-REZ-2023-000053)
This is in response to the letter from Lou and Gail Rhoades letter, dated February 20,
2024. We appreciate their comments, as they did bring up some very important points,
which I believe can be addressed.
First on the matter of the prior use of the property with the possibility of having
underground fuel tanks, the Applicant will confer with the State Department of Health to
ascertain that prospect and, if confirmed, will comply with the appropriate removal and/or
mitigation requirements of said agency. Understandably, the Applicant wants to take every
reasonable precaution to assure the safety of future tenants of the project and appreciate that
comment.
In that regard,the Applicant would have no objection to a condition of the zone
change that addresses that comment. It could read as follows:
"Prior to submittal of plans for Plan Approval, the Applicant shall confer with the
State Department of Health regarding the need for any environmental remediation of the
subject property. The remediation, if needed,shall occur prior to issuance of a building
permit for the proposed development."
The Rhoades also expressed traffic-related and "unconstitutional taking" due to
property diminution concerns and asked that the request be denied. While we believe we
have addressed traffic-related concerns with suggested mitigation in our February 22, 2024,
letter, the Applicant has a different view of the "unconstitutional taking" issue. Rather than
delve into that legal question, however, the Applicant feels it would be more prudent and
productive to specifically address their proposed conditions.
On the matter of limiting uses, we understand that "cherry picking" which uses can
or cannot be allowed in a rezoning ordinance would be tantamount to a"contract" zoning,
which has been judicially determined to be illegal. As such, while the Applicant recognizes
the concerns, to address that concern, we had proposed several conditions. The first would
be to enable the Director to review each use through the Plan Approval process and require,
Mr. Zendo Kern, Director
March 3, 2024
Page 2
if deemed necessary, additional parking. The other was to require a traffic assessment with
appropriate mitigation approved by the Department of Public Works for"drive thru"uses or
uses requiring off-street loading spaces.
On the matter of traffic control, they suggest restricting outbound movements to
right-turn only with the installation of traffic control measures to discourage/prohibit that
type of movement. Thus, persons wishing to drive/travel northbound on Manono Street
would have to exit the property on East Lanikaula Street and then turn right on Manono
Street. While the applicant can live with that, it would prefer deferring that decision to the
Department of Public Works and not mandated as a condition of the rezoning.
The Applicant is also willing to limit the hours of operation between 6am to 1 Opm,
with a sunset of this condition upon the commercial/industrial rezoning of adjoining single-
family residential properties. On dust mitigation, which has already been addressed in the
February 22 proposal.
Finally, the Applicant cannot agree on the establishment of a mitigation fund. It
would require special legislation that would apply universally. As such,to address this
concern, the Applicant proposed, as noted in the February 22 letter, the following:
"Further, upon the project's completion, the applicant or its successors of assigns
shall provide to the County Planning Department and immediately adjacent single-
family residentially zoned property owners the contact information of the owner or
persons) or management company responsible to ensure compliance with
appropriate State and County regulations regarding noise and parking."
The Applicant has made every reasonable effort to address the concerns and have
proposed some unprecedented conditions for a proposed project that is consistent with the
General Plan and meets other regulatory tests. We trust that while the proposals may not be
the ideal panacea, they go a long way.
If not or if there are questions relating to this matter, please feel free to direct them to
me. Thank you very much.
'ncere ,
�'
S NE M. FUKE
Planning Consultant
Copy—Robert and Kalysa Hamilton via email
Lou and Gail Rhoades via email