HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-29 PL-SMA-2025-000070 Testimony from Justin Hertz and Rebecca Chacko From: J
To: W PCtesti mony
Cc: Becky Chacko
Subject: Written Testimony re:SMA Application PL-SMA-2025-000070 for 9/4/2025 Hearing
Date: Friday,August 29, 2025 9:54:20 AM
Attachments: 20250828 SMA Written Testimony PL-SMA-2025-000070.odf
Aloha Windward Planning Commission.
Please find attached our written testimony for the Thursday, September 4, 2025
WPC Public Hearing. This is regarding:
PL-SMA-2025-000070
32-962 Hawaii Belt Road
TMK(3) 3-2-003:001
Owners: Dustin & Eszter Hollenback
Please acknowledge receipt of this email and the PDF attachment.
Mahalo for your review and consideration.
Justin Hertz
(520) 257-5513
Rebecca Chacko
(520) 331-8023
SMA Application PL-SMA-2025-000070
32-962 Hawaii Belt Road
TMK (3) 3-2-003:001
Owners: Dustin & Eszter Hollenback
We are neighbors adjoining TMK(3) 3-2-003:001 owned by Eszter and Dustin Hollenback.
We are providing this written testimony regarding the SMA Use Permit Application PL-SMA-2025-000070 for a farm
dwelling and commercial agricultural structure.
We have serious concerns regarding this SMA Application, especially in light of a pattern of not respecting setbacks and
Conservation District land use. We, as neighbors, are very concerned about disruption commercial agriculture will bring to
this unique 3 parcel neighborhood. Given the unique topography of this parcel of land, a considerable amount of grading
and excavation will be required. We are concerned about destabilization of this coastline. Any coastal erosion will directly
affect our property and its value.
Below is a summary of the key points and concerns we have regarding this SMA Application. The Summary is followed by
Details regarding each item.
Thank you for your consideration.
Justin Hertz & Rebecca Chacko
8/28/2025
Summary
1. SMA Application Omissions
a. The SMA Application fails to disclose a permanent Yurt base built within 7 feet of our property line and
situated entirely within 40 foot setback from the pali.
b. Construction of a tree house on conservation land on Haiku point.
c. The SMA Application fails to mention an IBC water tank within 40 foot setback of the pali.
d. There is no indication of catchment or irrigation infrastructure. County water is specified for the farm
dwelling only.
e. There is no reference to roadways across the length of the property on the Site Plan for commercial
agricultural access or harvesting produce.
f. The Site Plan does not identify where the existing apiary will be relocated to.
2. SMA Application clarifications
a. The proposed site was not used for growing commercial sugar cane.This site is located makai of the old
sugarcane railroad tracks and was hand cultivated for subsistence farming.
b. The shoreline, especially next to the proposed development is a sheer and undercut cliff, not an "average
gradient of 50%".
c. This SMA Application repeatedly refers to the "2.5 acre parcel". While accurate, it is important to note that
only about 1.2 acres is actually farmable land.
3. SMA Application Concerns
a. Shoreline survey waiver was requested by the applicant. Applicant has requested a waiver but has not
shown good faith in locating structures within setbacks. Additionally, the sheer cliffs, evidence of erosion,
and undercutting warrant a shoreline survey.
b. Commercial agriculture will generate increased traffic.
i. Commercial agricultural traffic will flow directly across the center of one neighbor's lot and along
our property because of the circuitous nature of the RU-1 easement.
ii. Commercial agricultural activity in such close proximity will be intrusive and disruptive for adjoining
homeowners (TMK (3) 3-2-003:040 and TMK(3) 3-2-003:02). Property values are also likely to be
negatively affected.
c. Potential NON Agricultural Commercial activity. The recent acquisition of non-agricultural goods stockpiled
near the pali gives us grave concerns about a potential stream of non-agricultural business and associated
traffic.
d. No consideration of alternative access to the property on the Ka'aheiki stream side was addressed in the
SMA Application or Background Report.
e. Electrical, water, and access easements for this development chops the neighbors' property into small
sections that severely limits owner use/development.
f. Concern with coastal erosion. We are concerned that the unique topography of this parcel (very steep
gradient on both sides of the View Corridor)will require extensive grading which may destabilize the
shoreline and lead to coastal erosion.
g. Observed pattern of establishing and abandoning projects/equipment on this property.
h. Scenic and Open Resources— In this section of the SMA Application it is noted that "the subject property is
not visible from any public thoroughfare in the vicinity including The Hawaii Belt Road".While not visible
from the Hawaii Belt Road,the subject property is quite visible to tourists who pass the shoreline via cruise
ships, helicopters, and airlines. It does have a substantial impact on the scenic views experienced by
immediate neighbors and their guests.
4. Recent Developments(Post SMA Application Submission)
a. The applicant is moving to the mainland. We were told by the applicant that this will be used as a vacation
home, not a primary residence.
b. A massive 20x20x20ft high tent/shed structure was erected within 10 feet of the pali.
c. A 40 foot container was placed on the site location designated for the farm dwelling.
5. Actions requested of the Windward Planning Committee
a. We request a shoreline survey to determine stability of shoreline and whether the proposed development
is appropriate given the topography and geologic structure of the property.
b. We request that the Conservation District boundary along with the required setbacks be clearly identified
and marked on the site.
c. We request a site visit be conducted to gain understanding of the topographical challenges this property
presents for commercial agriculture and construction.Additionally to appraise the nature(temporary or
permanent) and location of existing structures, especially those within setbacks.
d. We request removal of structures that do not comply with land use regulation.
e. Have the Planning Department request that the applicant explore consolidation and relocation of the
electrical,water, and vehicle access easements to the Ka'aheiki stream side of the property which will
provide the following substantial benefits:
i. More direct access to applicant's property;
ii. Removes all traffic from across neighbors' properties;
iii. Precludes the need for excavation and retaining walls adjoining both properties;
iv. Allows the property owner of RU-1 to develop the land makai of RU-1;
v. Retains RU-1 for utility access only.
f. Provide feedback to the two immediate home owners (TMK(3) 3-2-003:040 and TMK(3) 3-2-003:02) as we
are the only ones directly affected by this development.
Details
1. SMA Application Omissions Details
a. Permanent yurt base:
The SMA Application identifies "a small resin storage shed, a viewing platform, and two dirt-floor tarp sheds." It
fails to disclose a yurt platform currently hidden by overgrown guinea grass.This, approximately 20 ft round
base, is built on 10-12 reinforced concrete footings 2-3 feet deep. It is located between the Shed indicated on
the Site Plan and the Waikolu stream, which is entirely within the 40 foot setback from the pali. It is located 7
feet from the neighbor's property line and 24 feet from the pali.
v .
t..
Figure 1 -Yurt Footings Figure 2-Yurt Platform(note fence/pali proximity)
b. Tree House on conservation land on Haiku point:A treehouse was built by the applicant in an ironwood
tree on the edge of Haiku Point. Access to the treehouse is over aluminum ladders and ropes. Applicant has
been using this tree house and brings visitors out onto it as a unique way to experience the shoreline.
4
-
� �M
A
r
4 r-
ti� m
6
Figure 3-Tree House on Haiku Point
6 r,, , •r V
_ a
AI
i
Figure 4-Tree House on Haiku Point
c. IBC water tank within 40 foot setback of the pali:
A 350 gallon IBC water tank has been left in the very corner of the property on the Waikolu Stream side,
tucked next to the bamboo on conservation land. It has sat there unused for about 2 years. The source of
water for this tank is a pump and hose line to the Waikolo Stream just as it crests into a waterfall.
d e ,
Figure 5—IBC Water Tank
d. There is no indication on the site map of catchment or of irrigation infrastructure. The Planning
Department Recommendation specifies that water from the County is for the farm dwelling only. The
catchment system location would need to be on the Ka'aheiki Stream side of the property (proximate to
roofs). However, water would need to support agriculture across the entire length of this property and over
to the Waikolu Stream side. How large of a tank, and where will it be sited?
e. There is no indication on the site map of roadways for commercial agricultural access or harvesting
produce across the length of the property.
f. Apiary relocation:The current"viewing platform" houses several hives. No indication is given of the bees'
ultimate home on the Site Plan. We are concerned about proximity to neighboring homes.
2. SMA Application Clarifications
a. Archaeological, Historic and Cultural Resources: The SMA Application states "The subject property has
apparently been used for sugarcane cultivation during the 20th century."We do not believe that to be
accurate. We verified how this land was used with a senior sugar cane manager who also previously owned
this land. This parcel was hand cultivated by a single family for many years, raising vegetables and fruits.
The plot was too small and makai of the sugar cane railroad tracks—making it impractical for commercial
sugarcane cultivation. The proposed site was never used for growing sugar cane. It was hand cultivated for
subsistence farming not commercial agriculture.
b. Coastal Hazards: The SMA Application states that the average gradient from the top of the pali to the
shoreline is "about 50%".We believe this to be very misleading. Averaging in Haiku Point gradient is
inappropriate when building next to a cliff. More than half of the applicant's ocean front property is sheer
cliff. Drone imagery shows undercutting by wave action in the area closest to the proposed development.
The gradient is closer to 95%along the portion of the cliff where most of the development will take place.
See Figures 6 & 7 below.
v e
Figure 6-Cliff Undercut
s
JS'
i
Figure 7—Evidence of Coastal Erosion
c. Actual Farmable Land:This SMA Application implies that the entire 2.5 acre parcel is available for farming.
We believe that less than half is actually available for farm use after Conservation Land, the farm dwelling,
and the commercial agriculture building are accounted for. Given the small size of farmable land,the size
of the farm dwelling (7,738 sq. ft. total) and commercial agricultural building (5,080 sq. ft.) seem
disproportionately large. See Figure 7 below.
32-962 Hawaii Belt Road Farming Property Actual Size
Sq Ft Acres Notes
Total Useable square feet 61,203 1.4 acres Calcuated using cleared area visible from Goole Maps
Farm Dwelling Footprint 5,000
Commercial Agriculture Building Footprint 2,400
Driveway(10x200) 2,000 Conservative Estimate
Farmable land (est) 51,803 1.2 acres
711
ECO F&,: ?elt y,/'Draw
X r�.
+
,7111
- 61.203 21 .-
v
1233.31
S�Your Map
rcerna,a.nAama en asnntr.,Ma.a,enoios� m a a n a
Figure 8—Farmable Land
3. SMA Application Concerns
a. Shoreline survey waiver requested by the applicant.
i. Drone pictures show a very steep cliff with erosion. See Figures 3, 6 and 7 above.
ii. The shoreline is the entire length of the makai side of this property. The extent of shoreline
exposure, erosion and undercutting warrants a shoreline survey.
iii. Property along the Hamakua shoreline has been documented as high risk for erosion and sloughing
into the ocean.
iv. In the SMA Application under E. Shoreline Survey: The applicant states that he intends to apply the
required setbacks from the top of the shoreline pali as the reason for not needing a shoreline
survey.
1. The applicant has not respected setbacks historically. Therefore a survey is warranted.
v. A shoreline survey should in fact help the applicant recognize the risks (if any) before committing
the significant resources required to bring the proposed development into fruition.
b. Commercial agriculture will generate increased traffic through this small residential area.
i. Of the 15 neighbors notified regarding this SMA Application, only two are adjoining neighbors (TMK
(3) 3-2-003:040 and TMK(3) 3-2-003:02)who will be substantially affected by the magnitude of the
commercial agriculture proposed.These three properties are bordered by Ka'aheiki stream,
Waikolu stream, the Pacific Ocean and the Hawaii Belt Road.
ii. Commercial agricultural traffic will flow directly across the center of one neighbor's lot and along
the other neighbors' property because of the circuitous nature of the RU-1 easement.
R
Traffic. Flow Over :.
RU-1 Easement
Figure 9—Traffic Flow
c. Property Values: Commercial agricultural activity in such close proximity will likely reduce property values
for adjoining homeowners (TMK(3) 3-2-003:040 and TMK (3) 3-2-003:02).
d. Potential NON agricultural commercial activity. Early to mid-June, 2025 a large storage structure was
erected for storing non-agricultural materials. As communicated to us, it contains retail items the owner
bought at auction from Amazon and Home Depot and shipped over from the mainland. We are very
concerned this could become a merchandising business drawing strangers into our neighborhood. If the
goods are accumulated on this property to be sold online (Craigslist)we will soon be littered with more
"temporary sheds"to house the goods.
e. Multiple easements on TMK(3) 3-2-003:02). Electrical,water, and access easements for this development
chops this neighbors' property into small sections that severely limit the owner's use and development.
f. Alternative access to the property on the Ka'aheiki Stream side was not addressed in the SMA
Application or Background Report. We recommend a consolidation of the easements as shown below in
Figure 10 will provide the following substantial benefits. The feasibility of this alternative warrants serious
consideration.
i. More direct access to applicant's property;
ii. Removes all traffic from across neighbors' properties;
iii. Precludes the need for excavation and retaining walls adjoining both properties;
iv. Allows the property owner of RU-1 to develop the land makai of RU-1;
v. Retains RU-1 for utility access only.
Utility,Water&
/ s EIZ-11:
Utility W-3 Water
Easement - —
FU-1 _z-n
RU L RU-.L
E
3 9EJ
Proposed Easement
Consolidation
Figure 10—Proposed Easement Consolidation
g. Concern with coastal erosion:The SMA Application does not address the extent of grading/excavation
required for construction, irrigation, and roadways to support commercial agriculture. We are concerned
that the unique topography of this parcel (very steep gradient on both sides of the View Corridor)will
require extensive grading which may destabilize the shoreline and lead to coastal erosion. The red line on
Figure 11 below represents the steep drops on either side of the view corridor.
JL-1
Figure 11—Bell Shaped Contour of Property
h. Pattern of establishing and abandoning projects/equipment.
i. The owner had for over a year placed a large box that contained a chemical toilet near our property
line until the sun ate thru the packaging. It was finally moved away from our fence/property line
and sits unopened under a tarp about 20 feet away.
ii. The "viewing platform" was originally a platform for a yurt/tent.The tent was only used once and
eventually shredded by the wind (see figure below). It was left in a shredded state for nearly a year
before being cleared for the apiary.
.. S
Figure 10-Viewing Platform with Tent/Solar Panels
iii. A second yurt base was built in 2023 (see Figures 1 & 2 above). A yurt was purchased and located
on the base. Years later it still lies unopened on the yurt base hidden in the guinea grass. The IBC
water tank(and hose) used for the construction of the yurt base now lies abandoned near the
Waikolu waterfall. See Figure 5 above.
i. Scenic and Open Resources— In this section of the SMA Application it is noted that "the subject property is
not visible from any public thoroughfare in the vicinity including The Hawaii Belt Road".While not visible
from the Hawaii Belt Road,the subject property is quite visible to tourists who pass the shoreline via cruise
ships, helicopters, and airlines. It does have a substantial impact on the scenic views experienced by
immediate neighbors and their guests.
4. Recent Developments (Post SMA Application Submission)
a. No longer primary residence: As of mid-August 2025,we have been informed by the owners that they are
moving to California (mid-September, 2025).
i. They also communicated they intend use the "farm dwelling"when built as a vacation home.
However, the SMA application specifies that this home would serve as the applicant's primary
residence.
ii. That they intend to build the commercial agriculture building first.
b. A massive 20x20x20ft tent structure was erected within 10 feet of the pali. The same shed described in
#3.d above. This structure was erected in June 2025 (after the submission of this SMA Application)very
close to the pali. Huge industrial shelving systems were installed to store personal property. This gray tarp
monstrosity dominates the coastal view in that area. Hau trees were cut back to make room for it. It is
certainly within the 40 foot setback and possibly within designated conservation land.
a�t
o:e
Figure 11—POST SMA Application Shed Near Pali
c. In August 2025, a 40 foot container was delivered and situated/located on the exact location of the
proposed Farm Dwelling. The location of the container would suggest that the applicant does not plan to
build the farm dwelling first.
.K.
J.0
Figure 12—POST SMA Application Container on Farm Dwelling Site
5. Actions requested of the Windward Planning Committee
a. We request a shoreline survey to determine the extent of coastal erosion,the stability of cliff and whether
the proposed development is appropriate given the topography and geology.
b. We request that the Conservation District boundary along with the required setbacks be clearly identified
and marked on the site to preclude encroachment.
c. We request a site visit be conducted to gain understanding of the topographical challenges this property
presents for commercial agriculture and construction.Additionally to appraise the nature(temporary or
permanent) and location of existing structures, especially those within setbacks.
d. We request removal of structures that do not comply with land use regulation.
e. We request the Planning Department to have the applicant explore consolidation and relocation of the
electrical,water, and vehicle access easements to the Ka'aheiki Stream side of the property which will
provide substantial benefits described in#M above.
f. Provide feedback to the two immediate home owners (TMK(3) 3-2-003:040 and TMK(3) 3-2-003:02) as we
are the only ones directly affected by this development.
Respectfully submitted August 28, 2025
Justin Hertz
Rebecca Chacko
32-958 Hawaii Belt Road
TMK(3)3-2-003:040