Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-04 WINDWARD TRANSCRIPT VENTI WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 4, 2011 CHRISTOPHER AND LATISHA VENTI A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (REZ 11-138) was called to order at 9:47 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Zendo Kern presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Zendo Kern, Dean Au, Wallace Ishibashi, and Raylene Moses STAFF PRESENT: Julie Mecklenburg (Deputy Corporation Counsel), B. J. Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner) and Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner). And eight people from the public in attendance ABSENT & EXCUSED: Takashi Domingo and Stephen Ono CHRISTOPHER AND LATISHA VENTI (REZ 11-138) Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential–10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a Village Commercial–10,000 square feet (CV-10) zoned district for approximately 10,609 square feet of land. The subject property is located on the north side of Pahoa Village Road, across from the Pahoa Cash and Carry Store employee's parking lot at Nānāwale Homesteads, Pāhoa, Puna, Hawai‘i, TMK: 1-5-11: 11. KERN: Our next item on the agenda, Item No. 5, Christopher and Latisha Venti (REZ 11-138), Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential–10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a Village Commercial–10,000 square feet (CV-10). Maija. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next application is a request for a change of zone. And if I can direct your attention to the screen, the subject property is located in the Puna district, within the town of Pahoa. And you can see here on the slide the Pahoa Bypass runs along the north, east side of the slide. You can see Pahoa Village Road running through the middle of the slide, and then Post Office Road leading from Pahoa Village Road, the Bypass in this location here. The subject property is outlined black in this location. It is currently zoned Single-Family Residential - 10,000 square feet, which is shown in the yellow color. And there is not a big difference between the two colors but the yellow closer to town here is zoned Single-Family Residential - 10,000 square feet. The lighter yellow just outside of town here and over here is zoned Agricultural – 1 acre. All of the areas in light purple are currently zoned Village Commercial, which is the zoning that the applicant is requesting. The General Plan designation for the property is Medium Density Urban, and that is shown in the darker green. And just outside of that is an area of Low Density Urban in the yellow color. This is a map of the Pahoa Village from the Puna Community Development Plan. You can see the Village 1 EXHIBIT A Center boundary shown with the dotted black line. And it’s very hard to see but the subject property is located right about in this location here, which is within the Village Center boundary. The applicant is requesting a change of zoned from Single-Family Residential - 10,000 square feet to Village Commercial - 10,000 square feet. They have no current plans for developing the property. Currently there is a house on the property that they want to continue to use as a vacation rental. And their primary reason for requesting the change of zone is to increase their property’s value. This is a plot plan of the lots with the existing house on it here. This is the house; and there are some shed structures attached by roof. And then you see Pahoa Village Road here on the bottom of the slide. This is a photo of the property. Again you have Pahoa Village Road in the front. There’s a gravel driveway and the house, and the view of the house, the gravel drive way. And this is Pahoa Village Road looking towards further into town, and a view of Pahoa Village Road and the driveway looking back towards the Keaau direction. The Planning Director is recommending that the Commission send a favorable recommendation to the County Council for this change of zone request. And we did receive an email testimony from Rob th Tucker dated July 28. You should have that in your folders. And you should also have a letter from th the applicant’s representative, All Aina Services, dated July 5. Are there any questions? KERN: Any questions for staff? I have a question. COTTLE: Sure. KERN: On the plot plan it showed the building being right up on the property line. COTTLE: Yes. KERN: Has that already been taken care of by a variance or –? COTTLE: This is a very old structure. It was built probably prior to the Zoning Code being established; and so it is considered a nonconforming structure. If the structures were to be destroyed, or if they were to the demolish it, they would have to comply with the new Zoning Code regulations for the property setbacks. KERN: Okay, good. Thank you. Any other questions? MOSES: Maija, you said that there is a correspondence from, I believe it was the fifth, there was th another correspondence on the 5. COTTLE: Yeah. MOSES: I don’t have that. 2 EXHIBIT A COTTLE: You know, Sarah may have sent that to you with your main package, but let me give you my copy. LEITHEAD TODD: She mentioned Rob Tucker, right? KERN: Yeah. LEITHEAD TODD: Rob Tucker is in here. th KERN: Yeah, Rob Tucker was in our folder and then the letter from All Aina Services dated July 5, it was actually mailed. I got mine in the mail. LEITHEAD TODD: Well, I’ve got from All Aina in here. Is it different? AU: It’s on the back. LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah, cause I got them here. MOSES: Oh, there it is. Got it. Got it. Thank you. KERN: Everything in order? MOSES: Yes, thank you. KERN: Good, cool. We do not have any more questions. So thank you, Maija -. COTTLE: Thank you. KERN: I appreciate it. Can I get the applicant or representative to please come forward. Good morning. I’ll get you to raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? MIKKELSON: I do. KERN: Okay, very good. Name and mailing address and you may begin. MIKKELSON: My name is Lori Mikkelson. My address is Post Office Box 291, Laupahoehoe 96764; and I am here to represent the applicant. KERN: Okay, and you guys have taken a look at the recommendation and conditions? MIKKELSON: Yes. KERN: And you guys are okay with those? MIKKELSON: Yes. 3 EXHIBIT A KERN: Is there anything else you'd like to add? MIKKELSON: Not unless you have any questions. KERN: Any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, you may have a seat. Thank you. Public testimony, we've got two. I'll call you both up at the same time, Jill Raznov and Tiffany Edwards Hunt. You may come forward and have a seat. Okay, can you all raise your right hand, whoever is going to speak. Do you all swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes. KERN: Okay very good. We'll start with Jill Raznov. State your name and area you represent, and you may begin. RAZNOV: Do I need to hold this? KERN: Yes, Please. Hold that and talk into it. RAZNOV: Okay. Sorry. KERN: No worries. RAZNOV: My name is Jill Raznov. I’m an attorney in Hawaii. I represent Jeff and Tiffany Hunt who are with me today, present at this hearing. I’m actually especially appearing on behalf of the Hunts. The Hunts have a regular attorney to represent them in this matter; her name is Sandra Song. She could not be here today and so I have offered to assist the Hunts only today with regard to testimony on their behalf. The Hunts have an interest in this matter as they are business owners in the vicinity and, if fact, right next door to the applicant’s property. The Hunts request that this application be denied; and I’ll give you the reasons for that request. According to the Zoning Code, my understanding of the Zoning Code, all rezonings must be in the public interest and for the general welfare. Applications for rezoning must include, besides other things, at a minimum an environmental assessment, the existing structures and uses on the property, and the proposed uses under the rezoning. The Venti’s application does not address any of these minimum requirements, and is therefore deficient. Their application in fact omits crucial information regarding the existing uses to where that is a vacation rental. The application only says that it is a residential dwelling unit. The application requests zoning for commercial use, rezoning for commercial use, but fails to state what that use is or what it will be and also fails to state its existing commercial use, which is permissible actually under the current zoning. It is clear from the Venti’s application that their only reason for requesting rezoning is for monetary gain and speculative purposes; and, in fact, we just heard that that’s why they’re requesting a rezoning, so they can have an increase in the value of their property. These reasons do not conform to the 4 EXHIBIT A standard for rezoning which, again, is in the public interest and for the general welfare. Speculation and making more money is not in the general welfare. In addition, the omission of any plans at this stage does not allow for public comment on eventual changes to the existing use which they could do under the new rezoning. Thus, if the Venti’s application is approved at this stage and in the future the Venti’s or THE new owner could change the existing use or the existing structures. Their plans would go to the Planning Department on those changes but the community, the general community that would be affected by those changes, would not be able to comment on things such as traffic uses, parking, water, sufficiency of water pipes, things like that, that would affect the general welfare and public interest of the community. Speculation and increase in the value is not in the general welfare of public interest. The Commission should deny this request for this reason. If you do not deny it, the Commission would create a dangerous precedence for development without community input or approval. That would not create a stable and happy community. Therefore, once again, we respectfully request that the Commission deny this application. Thank you. KERN: Thank you. Are there any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, Tiffany Edwards Hunt. T. HUNT: Aloha. KERN: Name and area you represent, then you may begin. T. HUNT: My name is Tiffany Edwards Hunt. My husband and I live at 16-1021 Waiokele Road in Kurtistown, Hawaii. We regularly do business in Pahoa at 15-2883 Pahoa Village Road. I’m actually testifying as the president of Pahoa Mainstreet Association. I apologize that we did not submit written testimony for this application. What happened is Mainstreet Pahoa Association submitted a letter on th May 5 for another rezoning that has since been delayed. It’s from the same planning consultant and mirrors this Venti application. But inadvertently the letter was not put into this packet. And I will read from this letter and then make some comments. Also, and I apologize that Jeff Hunt’s Surf Boards did not submit written testimony. We’ve been travelling and this kind of like came up really fast. So needless to say -. This is from Mainstreet Pahoa Association: “Aloha, Mainstreet Pahoa Association was founded in 1992 to establish and maintain Pahoa Village as the social, cultural and commercial center of lower Puna. Our primary goals are to enhance the economic vitality and quality of life of our community. “It has recently come to our attention that two properties in down town Pahoa, 15-2881 & 15-2885 Pahoa Village Rd., have recently applied for changes in zoning from residential to commercial status without accompanying a specific plan or intention for doing so. This lack of pertinent information, we believe, lends itself to real estate speculation as well as unforeseen changes to our village charm. We ask that you require a plan for the use of these properties when you review their applications so neighbors and local stake holders can be better informed about such significant changes. 5 EXHIBIT A “We are currently challenged by the fact that many folks approaching Pahoa consider the new Woodland Center (KFC, Burger King, Longs) and the Malama Market complex to be the extent of our town. The members of the Main Street Pahoa are invested in doing everything we can to support the economic and historic vitality of Pahoa Village. Please help us to keep our commercial enterprises ‘above the boards’ and consistent with the community’s vision when you review rezoning requests. ” Is this a three-minute limit? KERN: No. T. EDWARDS: Okay. I just really need to emphasize some points here. The Zoning Code is meant to protect the public interest and general welfare. When you require an application you ask for an environmental assessment and you're supposed to show existing structures and their uses. What is most glaring about the Venti application is that it doesn't even state that it is currently a vacation rental and that there are no plans for a commercial use. So you have to wonder why pay more in real property tax revenue if you are going to continue to allow the same use? They are doing this to increase the value. For somebody to say that they're doing it to increase the value is outrageous. Why do we even bother having community development plans if we’re going to allow for stuff like this? We also, not having a plan, you can’t get into things like how much parking should there be, will there be a traffic impact? As you can see from the photo we have encroachment problems in Pahoa Village. We don't have sidewalks. There are a number of things that we have issues with as far as utilities and public infrastructure. And so by allowing rezonings without having any plans, to me, it compounds an existing problem. There is also, according to the Department of Water Supply, an issue with the waterline here. And as the neighbor, we have some concerns about that. Basically our lawyer, Sandra Song, has been doing work with land use and planning for 35 years and she has never seen such a sloppier deficient application; and it is incomplete and premature. We just feel like you should, you will be setting a dangerous precedent if you allow something like this, without a plan. We have standards that we, I've as a reporter covered cases in Hawai‘i, or in Hawai‘i County, and seen developers put through so much. And if you are just allowing somebody to come through without a specific plan and yet requiring so much of developers I don't think that is fair. And I think that the public would be outraged to see something passed like this. And I also just want to point out that by not having a plan, they have a whole shopping list of uses that they could choose from if they receive this commercial rezoning. And for someone who represents Mainstreet Pahoa Association trying to preserve the economic vitality and the historic charm of the village, I just really honestly think that that is very dangerous. So I just urge you to use caution and to look at this with more scrutiny. I'm also shocked that the applicants themselves are not here to be able to state more clearly what is their intention for this property. We really want to emphasize there is nothing personal but we just really want to maintain the historic charm of the village. Thank you very much. Aloha KERN: Thank you. Any questions for the testifier? AU: Chair -? 6 EXHIBIT A KERN: Commissioner Au? AU: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Hunt, you mentioned that they are using the existing facility as a bed- and-breakfast. I heard you say that? T. HUNT: No. To my knowledge it's not a bed-and-breakfast. That's not required or an allowable use. It's advertised as Kapoho Townhouses. If you go on their website they offer rooms in Pahoa. So like vacation rental is what I see. AU: So they are like an office? T. HUNT: No, it is not even that. Basically these people moved out, they moved to their Kapoho house, and they have been renting out like for one-night/two-night stays in Pahoa, for recent history. And to us that is not a big impact. In fact it kind of is –. You know, something to emphasize here, is that anything that goes in there is going to benefit our business. The point is, is we want to preserve the historic charm of the village. AU: That leads to my next question. You know, a lot of us are, we are very aware of real estate, okay. And any time a real estate value can go up, wouldn’t it make your property go up as well? And wouldn’t you be happy with that? T. HUNT: But that's not, I'm not really concerned about the bottom line like that. You have to –. AU: Well, but, you know -. T. HUNT: Here’s the deal, across the street from all of these properties that we mentioned there is an 80-year-old couple, Mr. And Mrs. Kajiyama. They have lived there their entire life. They have raised children there. You have to consider those people when we make decisions like this. Because basically we’re saying, oh, this is Medium Density Urban, you know, no problem here. But yet these people are maintaining a residence here. And so you have to have like a sensitivity. And to me this is the stage where you look at those things and you say, you know, we are not going to like take the Kajiyamas out and say go to a nursing home cause we are ready to make this a commercial district. I am trying to look at it from that standpoint. Cause we actually live in Pahoa and we’re here for a quality of life, not just to get, you know, –. I am not intending to sell our business. We pay property taxes for our commercial zoning so we can maintain a commercial enterprise in Pahoa. And it adds to the, we believe it adds to the historic charm. We’ll keep the existing structure, and that is why we are concerned as the neighboring parcel, is because we don't want to see the Kajiyama's impacted by this and we don't want –. I mean the building itself was built in 1939. It has historic charm. There are a lot of factors that play. And I just urge you to look at it and use caution. KERN: Any other questions? Seeing none, you all may have a seat. T. HUNT: Thank you. KERN: Thank you very much. 7 EXHIBIT A LEITHEAD TODD: He’s not, he has not signed up -? KERN: He has not signed up. MECKLENBURG: But you swore him in. KERN: I swore him, yes. LEITHEAD TODD: Do you want to say something? KERN: Do you want to speak? T. HUNT: You want to, hold on. J. HUNT: No. T. HUNT: I’m the extrovert of the family. LEITHEAD TODD: Commissioners, I think I’d like to make a few comments. KERN: Yes, please do. LEITHEAD TODD: This is an unusual application in that typically when we have a request for rezoning, somebody comes in and has plans. So they let you know what the size of the building is going to be, what the proposed uses are. You have in an opportunity to evaluate whether it is going to generate the kind of traffic that might require off-site improvements, you know, whether you need a left-turn lane. This was unusual. But when we looked at it, we look at it based primarily on whether it was consistent with the General Plan and consistent with the Community Development Plan. It is not 100% consistent with the Community Development Plan in that the Community Development Plan envisions that you kind of know what is going to come in. And so it was, it did create some discussion amongst staff and myself as to whether we would recommend approval or not. And basically we ended up weighing in on the side of that fact that it was consistent with the General Plan and with the overall vision of the development of this area as a commercial center of Pahoa. But it is unusual. The other reason that we looked at it is ultimately when you get zoning for commercial you can do any one of the approved uses. You could get rezoning that is originally, if you know the Longs and Burger King area, that was originally zoned I think back in, maybe as far back as 1991, and it was originally envisioned as a super market. And yet what eventually got built there with the zoning was very different many years later. So when we looked at it we said even though they didn't say what they were going to build, we understood that even if they said they were going to build something, once they had zoning over time that those plans could change. Typically when something does come in, they are going to have to get plan approval. And at the plan approval stage we would be looking at whether they had to do traffic mitigation, Public Works would weigh in. At that point they would have to do probably curb, gutter, sidewalk, and they might have to do a left turn lane, depending on the size of the structure they were going to put in. And depending on the size of the structure they were going to put in, we might, if it looked like it was going to generate a number of trips or the number of traffic, 8 EXHIBIT A that would create the need for having a traffic impact analysis report done. So that would happen when they would come in for the plan approval. It is problematic because it is unusual to have a rezoning request come in without a specific plan. So I just wanted you to understand that it is different, it is unusual, and that we did have, you know, considerable discussion within the department but ended up basically going with the fact that it was consistent with General Plan, consistent with the Community Development Plan, even if we didn't know exactly what was going to go in on the space. KERN: Thank you, Madam Director. Any questions for the Director on that? Okay, seeing none, I’d be willing to entertain a motion. ISHIBASHI: More comment, I just wanted to see where we are at with the, well, there's no plan so they have got to come back to us if they wanted to, no? LEITHEAD TODD: No. They don't come back to the Planning Commission. If they get their zoning, they don't go back to the County Council either. If they get their zoning then when they, at some point in time -- and it may be that they end up selling the property and somebody else comes in and they decide they are going to put up a store, or they're going to put up some other structure, anything that is permitted within the list of the zoning designation -- they would then have to come in for plan approval from the County. And that is where they have to come in and show the lot, show the layout, show where the parking is going to be. And the amount of parking that we would require would be based upon the square footage of the building that they were going to build. And at that point we would be looking at whether they needed to do additional studies, additional mitigation. There would be, their plans would be sent up for comment to the other departments, and so you might have comments come in from DPW. And so as part of plan approval there might be requirements that they do a left-turn pocket lane, that they do some mitigation, curb, gutter, sidewalk; and all of that would be incorporated into the plan approval stage. The reason we ended up recommending approval even though there wasn’t a plan is because we looked at the fact that even if somebody came in and said, hey, this is what I’m going to build today, with the zoning down the road they could change it. Just like it changed from a super market to Longs, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken and the service station, even though it originally was going to be a super market. KERN: Julie? MECKLENBURG: Yeah, I just wanted to clarify for the Commissioners’ benefit that the options at this point for you are to move to forward a favorable recommendation for the change of zone to the County Council. The Council is the one who is going to make the final decision. You can also propose to forward a negative recommendation, or you can move to continue the matter. We would have to have staff -. There is a requirement that the application be considered within 90 days or it is deemed an unfavorable recommendation, unless you get the agreement of the applicant to continue to take a longer time. So if we could maybe ask the staff where we are in relation to the 90-day requirement. 9 EXHIBIT A COTTLE: If you could give me just one minute, I’ll look it up. AU: I do have a question. KERN: Commissioner Au, in the meantime, yes. AU: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can I call the applicant up. I have a few questions for the applicant. Was she sworn in already? KERN: She’s sworn in, yeah. So go for it. MIKKELSON: Yes. AU: Okay, question. What, did the applicant give any indication of what they want to do, any ideas? MIKKELSON: Here’s how this happened. I was contacted by them and we had a long discussion over what to do, how to do, when to do it. The economy is affecting everyone right now. And he hesitates to put himself in a box. He does want to rezone. But he’s not sure exactly what the economy is going to, you know, allow for. And so his idea was this, is that if he could just rezone it, he’s willing to pay higher taxes; and he’s willing to wait and see, wait and see what, you know, what other development is happening there, what would be a practical development for the property and for the area. They are right next door to a surf shop which is a retail, and across the street from, and also next door to the 7-Eleven and all of that, and across the street from the Black Rock Café and all of that. So it’s pretty developed already. And so he was waiting to see, he just wants to see what other developments are going to happen in the meantime while the economy improves so that he can make the investment, if he can afford to. If not, then in the future he would have a piece of property that he could sell to someone else who could then do the development. AU: Well, you, know, this application is incomplete, okay. You need to, the applicant needs to propose what they’re going to do. And for peace of mind for the residents they want to know what’s going on. KERN: You may save some of that for discussion. AU: For discussion yeah. So I just want to know what the intent is. MIKKELSON: Well, like I said for him at this time he wanted to move forward with this rezoning. He may have the financial ability to do something in the future soon or maybe he’ll wait until the economy improves. But he wants to see what is best for the development down there before he, I mean he could say he’s going to put in a restaurant and then get rezoned and then turn around and put in another retail shop instead. So it would all be done by plan approval in this case. And, you know, and the plan approval would be pretty extensive, which would make it difficult. It’s very difficult to get commercial use with a 1939 structure. So, they would have to readdress the structure existing there. KERN: Thank you very much. And you’re good, Dean? 10 EXHIBIT A AU: Yes. I’ll save the rest for discussion. KERN: You may have a seat. Thanks. Daryn. ARAI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to Commissioner Au’s comments, for the record, I just wanted to say that the Planning Department did deem the application complete. If it wasn’t complete we wouldn’t have brought it before you. KERN: Okay. And Maija? st COTTLE: Yes. So if the Commission would like they can continue to the September 1 hearing next month. KERN: Thank you very much. Madam Director. LEITHEAD TODD: I did have one more comment that I wanted to bring to the attention of the Commission. You know, typically when we do a rezoning we have timelines on performance. And then if they, you know, can’t complete within five years, then they have an additional five years, if we give them an administrative approval; and then beyond the 10-year period they would have to go back for a time extension before the Commission and the County Council. Because this application didn’t have a specific use that was proposed, we don’t have a specific timeline on it; and that is a little different from what we normally have in a proposed ordinance. KERN: Thank you, Madam Director. Okay, with, Daryn. No? ARAI: Thanks for allowing me to jump in again. And maybe I should explain why we deemed the application complete. While the Code does identify that an application should include any existing or proposed structures or uses, now if the applicant is not proposing anything specific, then there is nothing to disclose. It doesn’t demand that you must, like build a proposed, new structure or anything. It’s just that if it’s in your plans, you should disclose it to the Commission. So it is not a requirement. So I just wanted to make that part of it clear. I think there were comments raised about the environmental report. One was done. I wanted to make it clear that the environmental report required for change of zone applications is not the same type of environmental report you would under State law, like for an EIS for example. So there is a distinction. KERN: Thank you for that, Daryn. Anybody have any questions for Daryn to clarify any of that? Thanks, Daryn, appreciate it. All right, we’re at that time where we make a motion. Commissioner Au. AU: I move to send a favorable recommendation for the change of zone to the County Council for the reasons and with the conditions recommended by the Planning Director. KERN: Is there a second? Is there a second? I do not see one. So with that the motion fails. Okay, you want to try again? LEITHEAD TODD: The other option is to make a motion to send a negative recommendation. 11 EXHIBIT A KERN: So we have a couple of different options. One is a motion to send a negative or unfavorable recommendation. The other is we can move to executive session if anybody has any points of clarification they’d like to make. Or somebody could move to continue. MOSES: I’d like to make a motion to continue, move to continue. KERN: Is there a second on that? MECKLENBURG: To continue to the next meeting? MOSES: Yes. ISHIBASHI: Yeah, second. KERN: Okay. Discussion? What would be the point of continuing? MOSES: Chair Kern, I actually do not feel comfortable with moving this forward until, and I would prefer to get the letter from Mainstreet in writing and have that to look at and the concerns and things that were brought up with testimony before we move forward. I would feel much more comfortable with that. KERN: Commissioner Au? AU: You know, I disagree with my fellow Commissioners. I think we should move this forward; and I think we should have the County Council hash it out, cause the County Council will catch this. They want to know what the proposed use is, maybe. But, you know, I strongly, I think we should move it through, either with a favorable or a negative recommendation. KERN: Any other discussion? Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Yeah, Brother Chair. I just got a problem without the plan, no planning and no -. You know, that’s the only thing I’ve got a problem with. Speculative, yeah, everybody like make money, they’d like to increase the value of their property. So I can understand why he would be requesting. But to go into one permit without a plan, I’ve got a hard time supporting that. KERN: Commissioner Au. AU: Yeah, Fellow Commissioners, I do agree with that. You know, the comment I made about the application being incomplete, I take that back. You know, it’s not for me to say it’s complete/incomplete. But I personally feel it’s inadequate. You know, any time you come up for anything you should have some kind of a plan, A or B; and you just don’t have anything. And, you know, everybody is willing, well, I take that back. But not everybody has money to spend like that. The property taxes is going to be way higher. And it seems to me the applicant has an agenda and I’d like to know that agenda. So, yes, I do agree with my fellow Commissioners on that, but I still think that we should move this through. 12 EXHIBIT A KERN: Madam Director, did you have a comment that you wanted to make or not at this time? LEITHEAD TODD: Well, I was just going to say that, you know, you have those options. Somebody could make a motion to send this up with a negative recommendation, and unless there is a motion to -. Because there are only four of you a motion to continue would require all four, I believe. So if you can’t get four to continue, then you would have to have, you’ve already had a motion to send up a favorable which died for lack of a second. So the only option would be if there wasn’t four votes for continuance would be then to make a motion to send up with a negative recommendation. And whether you had four votes or not, even if you only had three votes in favor and one vote against, it would still go up with a negative recommendation because you need four votes for a favorable recommendation; and anything short of the four votes would be in effect a negative recommendation of the Commission. But I’m just saying that you could go ahead and make the motion, you have the motion for continuance. If you vote, if you don’t have the four votes, then it cannot continue, if I’ve got that right. Julie, right? MECKLENBURG: Right. LETHEAD TODD: And then it would have to be the motion in the other way. Okay? KERN: Thank you, Madam Director. Do you have a comment? COTTLE: Yes, Commissioner Kern. If I could just add a little bit more clarification. There seems to be a lot of questions about a use related to the property. And so I just wanted to explain a little bit about the difference between like a use permit and a change of zone request. Obviously if this were a request for a use permit of some kind, the applicant would have to identify the specific use that they want to propose for that property. Since this is a change in zoning which would allow a variety of different uses if it were approved, they don’t necessarily have to identify a specific use that they want to develop. For example, when Ms. Hunt came in to rezone her property in 2005 they had identified a specific development. They wanted to develop a surf board shop. Now they went through Planning Commission up to Council with that proposed development and they got their change of zone. They have every right today to come in and do a totally different commercial use on their property. Even something that’s different than what was represented to the Planning Commission or the County Council when the change of zone was approved. So just to keep in mind the difference between a use permit, change of zone and hopefully that clarifies things a little bit. KERN: Thank you, Maija. Commissioner Au. AU: Question for Maija. So basically what you’re saying is Mr. And Mrs. Hunt can knock down their building, go through the Planning Department, build a commercial use building, not have to come in front of the County Council, and not have to come in front of the Planning Commission. And if they get approved through the Building Department they could because they got the rezoning? COTTLE: That’s correct. They would have to come into the Planning Department and submit plans for plan approval, which is what we asked this applicant to do as a condition of this change of zone request. And then we would look at the plans for plan approval, look at the parking, the landscaping, 13 EXHIBIT A make sure that the drainage is correct. And then if it were, it would be approved by the Planning Director. They’d submit building permits to the Building Department for approval; and then they could construct their new building. AU: So both properties that are adjacent to each other, they fall under the same guidelines, same rules, the same -. Just because it’s so many years apart it’s the same thing? COTTLE: Correct. AU: They’re already zoned for commercial so they can go? COTTLE: That’s correct. AU: I just want to clarify that; and thank you. T. HUNT: Since you guys are bringing it up for discussion, can I address that? NOMURA: Microphone, please. KERN: I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary right now. I’d like to make a couple of comments. This one is a tricky one for me. Most folks know that I’m kind of a little bit flexible, and I like to see things happen. I know other folks that deal with development too and it does require, there is usually a timeframe on it. It does require them to meet conditions, meet a timeframe and pretty much move forward in a concise manner. This is kind of just wide open. It makes it very easy. I think anybody that would be doing real estate speculation would love this because this is an entitlement that would increase the property value tremendously. Knowing that if somebody came in with a plan, they said they want to do an office building or something like that and they changed their mind down the road and want to do something different, they could do that. But Puna is a small community, Pahoa is a small community; and there is something to me about when you come and represent something that I’m going to do such and such a type of use, there is an integrity issue in there. If you start changing that later and start going far right or left from that, the community sees that, the people see that. And they say, oh, okay, you might have got this one but next time you come up we know your game now. And with this, there isn’t any of that. It’s basically just saying what it is, I want to increase my property value which will allow them to make, you know, basically speculate on real estate. So to me it’s an integrity issue when people come in with a solid plan even though it can vary a little bit. And most times in my experience the plan doesn’t vary that much from what their intention was because they have skin in the game, they’ve invested the money into it. They invested money into the plans, into the architect and to their consultants. So they may change, and very little bit, but it’s usually relatively on point with what they’re doing. And for the fact that this is kind of an interesting spot in Pahoa; and I grew up in that area. And you’ve got like the older part of Pahoa and then the kind of newer, older part of Pahoa like where the 7-Eleven and stuff; and this kind of merges those two areas together. And I think it takes some important thought and thoughtfulness on what is going to be. And if something specific is proposed there’s a greater chance for community input, to give their input and see and actually have something to bite into. Most folks don’t realize what a change of zone means. They may have seen it, they may have 14 EXHIBIT A seen the sign up but they don’t really know what that’s all about. If they knew, oh, they’re going to go with a 10,000-square foot building there, oh, hey, what does that mean, what is it going to look like, you know, what are you going to do there? So with that being said I don’t support this. I would like to see a plan. I’d like to see something solid, concrete, like everybody else does. And if that were the case and it made sense, I would support it. But in that case, I’m not going to. So that’s it for me. So the motion is, I’m still the chairman. I’ve got to keep it moving. LEITHEAD TODD: The motion on the floor is to continue. KERN: The motion on the floor is to continue with a -. And I personally would not, I understand why you’d like to continue. It’s pretty much, kind of after experiencing all of this, it’s somewhat cut and dry in my mind. And I’d rather see a negative recommendation myself, with all due respect to your continuance. So with that that’s open. We can either change that motion, or we can vote on it and see where that goes too. And if this motion fails we’re left with the motion of a negative recommendation. Is that right? LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah. KERN: So either we’re going to vote on it right now, or if you’d like to change your motion we could do that, too. And it’s completely up to you at this point in time, and if the person that seconded will second it, so -. MOSES: I’m willing to change the motion to proceed with an unfavorable recommendation. KERN: Okay, is there a -? Does the second agree? ISHIBASHI: Second, I agree. KERN: Okay. So motion on the floor now stands as an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council, and that has been seconded. So is there any discussion on that? Seeing none, Julie. MECKLENBURG: Right. If the Commission could just put forth the reasons for forwarding a negative recommendation. And, again, I’ll draw your attention back to the criteria that’s in the Statute which states that the district, I’m sorry, rezoning district classification can be recommended to be changed only where it would result in a more appropriate land use pattern that will further the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare, and be consistent with the goals, policies, and standards of the General Plan. And there are also the considerations that were raised under the CDP. So with those criteria in mind, if the Commission could please state why the negative recommendation would be put forward. KERN: I can help with that if you want. MOSES: Can you? 15 EXHIBIT A KERN: Yeah. MOSES: All right. KERN: Without the information, the specific information, we cannot determine if this will really promote the general welfare of the community and the basic town; and that’s one of the guiding principles and policies of the General Plan and of the Puna CDP, to promote better quality and welfare for the people. Right now this doesn’t do it. This says I’m going to promote for myself. LEITHEAD TODD: So if I understand what the Chair is saying, you’re basically saying that the reason for the negative recommendation is that without information on the proposed plan you cannot determine whether this is consistent with the general welfare and promotes the goals and policies of the General Plan and the Community Development Plan. Is that correct? KERN: Exactly. So you can say for the reasons so stated. MOSES: Yes, for the reasons associated I -. MECKLENBURG: So stated. KERN: So stated. MOSES: So stated, I move -. KERN: Yeah, that’s why you have your -. MOSES: Yes, I move that we go ahead with an unfavorable recommendation to proceed. KERN: Okay. MOSES: Thank you, Chair. KERN: Thank you. Okay, very good. So the ducks are in a row. Should I check with the second. MECKLENBURG: Commissioner Ishibashi, you seconded the motion. Are you also in agreement with the reasons stated? ISHIBASHI: Yes, for the reasons stated I concur and I agree. MECKLENBURG: Okay. KERN: Okay, very good. Any more comments? Any more discussion? Seeing none, Maija. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. 16 EXHIBIT A COTTLE: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chair? KERN: Aye. COTTLE: Okay, the motion to forward an unfavorable recommendation to County Council passes, four-zero. KERN: You’ll be notified in writing. The discussion ended at 10:36 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 17 EXHIBIT A