HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-19 Leeward Exh B - Zoning Code Ag Tourism
LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
APRIL 19, 2012
PLANNING DIRECTOR INITIATED AMENDMENT
A regularly advertised hearing on the
TO CHAPTER 25, RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL TOURISM
was called to order at 11:50
a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole
Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chair Geraldine Giffin presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Geraldine Giffin, Brandi Beaudet, Lani Bowman,
Thomas Hickcox, Richard Nelson and Thomas Whittemore
ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Wayne Iokepa
ALSO PRESENT: Ivan Torigoe (Deputy Corporation Counsel), BJ Leithead Todd (Planning
Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Planner) and Noriko Sauer
(Commission Secretary)
And three people from the public in attendance.
APPLICANT: PLANNING DIRECTOR INITIATED
Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawai‘i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as
amended) relating to Agricultural Tourism. The proposed amendment will specifically amend
Sections 25-1-5(b), 25-2-71, 25-2-75, 25-2-76 and 25-4-15 relating to definitions, plan approval
requirements, and use regulations, respectively, as they are related to agricultural tourism.
GIFFIN: Agenda Item No. 4, the applicant is the Planning Director and she has initiated an
amendment to Chapter 25, the Zoning Code, for the Hawai‘i County Code relating to agricultural
tourism. The proposed amendment will specifically amend Sections 25-1-5(b), 25-2-71, 25-2-75,
25-2-76 and 25-4-15. Planning Director?
LEITHEAD TODD: I was just going to say that this is something I’ve been working on for a while;
it was in response to concerns from a number of farmers that we had received. Sometime ago the
state legislature passed state law making it a permitted use to have agricultural tourism on lands that
are classified Agriculture under the state land use classification system. But in order to effectuate
agricultural tourism, it required the counties to pass an agricultural tourism ordinance. We are the
only county that has done so. However, because there had been an amendment to plan approval,
which put in a drainage study under plan approval, the requirement for plan approval under
agricultural tourism triggers a drainage study, and for the farmers, that translates into a $5,000 or
$6,000 cost. And so what we are trying to do is for the smaller operations, get rid of the plan
approval, so they don’t have the expenditure, so that if they want to put up a sign and say “farm
tours,” if they want to have more than just, you know, their coffee, they want to have coffee cups
that they sell with the names of their farm on it at their farm and put a sign up, they can do that
without having to go through a big expense. So what we have is some -. The current law allows
you to have up to 30,000 visitors a year before you have to go get a special use permit. What I did
is I took that and I tried to break it up into two different categories: minor tourism which would be
up to 15,000 visitors a year, and major tourism which would be from 15,000 to 30,000. And then
1
EXHIBIT B
the language regarding special use permits would still be there in that if you have more than 30,000,
you need a special use permit. And what I tried to do to differentiate between 15 and, the minor and
major is that for minor tourism we have a limitation on the numbers per week, we have a limitation
on the size of the vehicles; so basically, if you are going to have a minor tourism operation, the
vehicles accessing your property basically have to be 15-passenger vans as opposed to having
Jack’s Tours show up. And the reason I made that distinction was that I didn’t think the 15-
passenger van really required much more parking than what you currently have for a farm truck.
But the concern with smaller farms and particularly with rural areas and old homestead roads is
some of these roads are not designed for big buses. The Old Māmalahoa in Kona, you’ve got sight
distance issues. And so, basically, I was trying to balance some basic safety issues that I could see
with the larger scale operations while trying to make it easier and cheaper for the smaller operations
and the smaller farmers to engage in some ag tourism. So that’s what the bill reflects. And we have
taken it out to the Hawai‘i Agricultural Tourism Association, you know, and we’ve got a favorable
response. It was really in response to their concerns that I made these amendments. We’ve also
shared it with the Mayor’s Agricultural Advisory Committee and, you know, basically it’s been
favorable. There have been a few concerns here and there, but everyone seems to agree that this is
going in the right direction because the intent of the state was to allow this as a permitted use. And
so I’m trying not to make it too onerous on the farmers to allow them to have it. The current law,
they still can’t have overnight visitors; so this is just a daytime type of a thing. But, and there’s still
some requirements there about, you know, them having actual agricultural activity, so it’s not just
tourism. We, you know, as this goes forward, we may want to add additional definitions like
botanical gardens or something like that, because there are some things that I might not have
caught. But basically, I think it’s a pretty good bill, goes in the right direction. And the other
counties are waiting for us, and whatever we pass, they are going to use as the model to pass a bill
on their island. Maui County is particularly interested; they’ve been waiting because their feeling
was that they didn’t want to reinvent the wheel. So they are going to look at what we do.
GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions of the Director?
BOWMAN: I had one but I’ve got to look for it again.
ARAI: Madam Chairwoman?
GIFFIN: Yes, Daryn.
ARAI: Just a quick note. This bill was heard by the Windward Planning Commission at its April 4
meeting, I think it was. And they did vote to postpone action on it for additional -. So I’m going to
basically bring it back before them on their May 3 hearing.
GIFFIN: Okay. Commissioner Bowman.
BOWMAN: I think I know what my question was; I was reading this late one night and I wrote this
comment, but I don’t know what it was. This is in regards to (6), which you are taking out, “Gross
revenues from agricultural tourism ….” That’s all excluded, right? On Page 6.
GIFFIN: Of the background report -?
LEITHEAD TODD: The bill?
2
EXHIBIT B
BOWMAN: Section 6.
GIFFIN: Yeah, of the background report?
BOWMAN: Of the, yeah.
GIFFIN: Okay, what page?
BOWMAN: Six.
GIFFIN: Page 6, Section 6. Yes?
BOWMAN: Right? So that whole section is taken out. Am I on the right -?
LEITHEAD TODD: Under this proposal, yes, it is.
BOWMAN: Okay. So, my comment was, “so there is no money amount from ag,” but I don’t
know why I made the comment.
LEITHEAD TODD: There is – hang on, I’m looking – on Page 6, at the top of Page 6, there is a
requirement that major operations have a minimum of $10,000 in verifiable gross sales.
BOWMAN: From, from, exclusive of any agricultural tourism -.
LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah.
BOWMAN: Okay, so that’s ag itself. So there is no, anything about how much they can make
from agricultural tourism as long as they have the $10,000 verifiable from ag.
LEITHEAD TODD: This had more to do with the fact that I didn’t think it was realistic that I was
going to be examining people’s books in terms of, you know, having them come in, provide their
gross revenues, provide, you know -. I looked at how realistic it was. I think you can have a
threshold that says, hey, you have to show me that you have a certain amount of sales; but to require
that I’m going to examine their book and determine what their revenues are, look at their returns
and stuff, I just thought I’m not going to go -. I don’t do it for anybody and I don’t do this for any
other agricultural activity; I don’t review anybody’s ag activity for how much income they make,
you know. So I just thought that this was something that I’m not going to do, and I thought that it
would be very tough to require it. So I thought that the minimum for the major was, you know,
okay, but this other stuff, I just felt like, the reality that, cause this implies that I’m going to review
your books to see whether you comply with this, and I just had a problem with that. I don’t have a
problem with saying that they have to have legitimate agricultural activity, but -.
BOWMAN: So my question is it’s $10,000 for major, which brings in, I don’t know, 30,000
people, 15,000 to 30,000 a year -. Did any of the ag tourism have any comment on this?
LEITHEAD TODD: I didn’t get, I think they wanted me to retain some, you know, connection to
actual agriculture. So I wouldn’t be adverse to just getting rid of the word “major,” and just say
“agricultural tourism operations must have a minimum of $10,000 in verifiable gross sales …,” and
then that would include both major and minor.
3
EXHIBIT B
BOWMAN: But then you have a minor that might not because -.
LEITHEAD TODD: Well, if you are not doing $10,000 in gross sales, then are you really doing -.
That’s gross; that’s not net.
BOWMAN: Okay, that’s gross.
LEITHEAD TODD: So are you really a real farmer or is this a backyard -?
GIFFIN: Hobby.
LEITHEAD TODD: Cause the intent is to try and make, supplement the income, if I was -. And
part of it is if you are doing any crop that is seasonal, what you have is you have monthly
expenditures for fertilizer, water and labor but you are waiting for your harvest, and so you -. This
is an attempt by the Legislature to try and allow farmers to have income that comes in on a monthly
basis that helps supplement them waiting for the actual sale of their crop. You know, if you have
some crops that are two years before you harvest, then this would allow you to have some income
from a tour of your farm. It would allow you to have, if you have a really cool name for your
coffee, you know, you could sell the coffee mugs and stuff like that; so you could have some
income that comes in. Because they wanted to help them balance it out. Because for some guys,
you know, you are waiting a long time and you are borrowing the money, and in the meantime you
don’t have income coming in. So the farmers were asking for something that would help them.
That’s why we sometimes have B&B operations on actual farms, because they are trying to
supplement that, because that gives them regular -. But we don’t put a requirement on a B&B
operation that there be a nexus to agriculture; we haven’t put any requirements that it can’t exceed
their agricultural sales. This is the only place where I’ve seen this language is in agricultural
tourism. And I think it came out of the prior Director’s concern that he didn’t want just tourism but
no actual agriculture going on a property, and yet you’ve got tourism that is non-agricultural. It’s
probably open-area recreational things like Ziplines, and those are permitted; open-area recreation is
a permitted use on Ag land, and yet you’ve got no what we think of as typically agricultural activity
necessarily going on. So anyway, I was trying to kind of tweak the existing language, make it a
little bit easier without totally gutting everything that was in it, and making it just, you know,
whatever the farmers want to do. I think some farmers would like me to just really loosen it up
even more, but this was an attempt to go within what we already have to make it a little bit easier
but not completely throw out the ordinance.
GIFFIN: Commissioners, any other questions of the Director?
BOWMAN: So just to clarify, it’s still going to be major agricultural tourism operations then,
right?
LEITHEAD TODD: The language that I have here is “major.” But if the Commission wishes to
recommend that the word “major” be taken out and just say “agricultural tourism operations must
have a minimum of $10,000 in verifiable gross sales …,” I don’t have an objection to that, because
the original bill required, whether you are having one visitor or 30,000 visitors, to have $10,000 in
sales.
4
EXHIBIT B
GIFFIN: Commissioners? Hearing none, there is a member of the public that signed up to testify
on this agenda item: Lani Weigert? Did I pronounce your last name correctly?
WEIGERT: Yes.
GIFFIN: Thank you. Will you please raise your right hand? Thank you. Do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Hawai‘i County Planning Commission?
WEIGERT: Yes.
GIFFIN: Please state your name.
WEIGERT: My name is Lani Weigert. I am the president of the Hawai‘i Agri Tourism
Association, which is a 501(c)(3) state-wide organization. And I’m also the founder and owner of
Ali‘i Kula Lavender Farm on the Island of Maui, although I reside here.
GIFFIN: Lani, please go ahead.
WEIGERT: So I am in support of the changes and amendments that the Director has made. And I
just wanted to be available here to see if any of the Commissioners had any questions with regard to
ag tourism. The changes that the Director have made has really helped a lot of the farms. And let
me explain to you why that is. The original intent to do an agri tourism bill was to allow farmers to
do this legally, but also to allow them a way to provide supplemental income to their farms, largely
for the reasons that the Director has mentioned, because many of the farms have seasonal crops and
they have to wait to make more income. A case in point would be a farm here that maybe some of
you might know, it is the Hawaiian Vanilla Company. And his very laborious crop does not
always, it’s not always in season, and so he has been able to survive by doing ag tourism activities
such as offer different types of luncheons at his property, as well as the walking tours. And I do
understand that with regard to the amount of money he makes on his raw crop versus his ag tourism
activities, it’s probably 30 percent in raw crops sales versus 70 percent in ag tourism activities. For
my farm, which does lavender, we have twelve percent in raw crop sales and all the rest in ag
tourism activities. So can you imagine if that was not allowed? Now, we had to go the special use
permit route, and the special use permit route will cost any farmer anywhere from $30,000 to
$60,000 with regard to all of the consultants and engineers that would be required to come.
So the Director is absolutely correct that every county is watching this bill with bated breath,
because it will then open the gates for the entire state to allow ag tourism across the different farms.
And right now there is an allowance that was made by Representative Angus McKelvey that allows
educational walking tours at farms across the state; however, this would actually seal it completely
by having an ordinance in every county, which allows for value-added products to be sold at farms,
etc. So ag tourism with regard to making sure that there’s some type of active agricultural operation
on the farm is very important, because that’s the reason people want to come to these farms. And
the way that the Director has written it really grounds that first, and so the Hawai‘i Farm Bureau
Federation is also in support in how this is written as well.
GIFFIN: Director.
5
EXHIBIT B
LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah, I have to point out that I was looking at the wrong one and so were you,
Lani; the revised recommendation is on the yellow paper and in the revised recommendation, we’ve
kept the minimum of $10,000 for both major and minor.
BOWMAN: Oh, sorry, okay.
LEITHEAD TODD: So that doesn’t need to be amended. The recommendation doesn’t have any
change to that. It did take out the gross revenues, and that really for me had more to do with the
fact that I just never envisioned that my Department would be that, you know -. To get started, I
don’t mind you showing me, you know, that you are a real farmer; but the idea that I’m going to
then come in every year and try and determine whether your agricultural sales are equal to or, you
know, less than what your revenues from the other stuff, I just thought that was a bookkeeping
nightmare, and that I couldn’t envision that my Department would be doing that.
GIFFIN: Any other comments of the testifier?
BOWMAN: I have a question. And I apologize – I know I ran out and I, that’s what I forgot to
bring. But then, again, the $10,000, you know, I live in Kohala where there is a lot of really small
farms, I would like to – and maybe I’m just talking off the top of my head, you know – would like
to afford an opportunity for some of our smaller farmers to benefit. Do you think, in your opinion,
the $10,000 for major and minor is correct? Because I’m not an agri farmer.
WEIGERT: Well, it sounds like you seem to be kind of skeptical about that amount as well, that
you think maybe it’s out of their reach of -.
BOWMAN: Of the small farmer.
WEIGERT: Yeah, for an annual income.
BOWMAN: Right.
GIFFIN: Gross.
WEIGERT: I’m not exactly sure how -.
BOWMAN: Gross, okay.
WEIGERT: Gross, right?
GIFFIN: Uh huh.
WEIGERT: I’m not exactly sure how that would be tracked unless that’s going to be a requirement
on the initial application, Director?
LEITHEAD TODD: The reason – and I have to kind of guess at why Chris picked $10,000 but –
this is not intended to help somebody who’s got a small backyard operation and it’s a very small
part of his income; this is really intended to help people who have a substantial portion of their
income coming in from farming or ranching or some other agriculturally related activity. Because
if you don’t have any kind of threshold, you know, which to a great extent is going to be self-
6
EXHIBIT B
monitored, but at least you can, you know, if you question -. It’s like, you know, somebody having
a couple of tangerine trees in the yard and then, or avocado trees, and then you harvest once a year
and you take it down and you sell it; that’s not a, that’s not a farmer. It’s someone who devotes a
piece of land to growing a crop and expects to earn a significant portion of their income from it.
And especially, if you are going to allow them now to have people come on the property and sell
coffee mugs and sell T-shirts and do farm tourism stuff, if you are not making $10,000 in gross
sales, and we are not even talking net, then I can’t see that as much of an operation, much of a
farming operation at all.
WEIGERT: So I understood the amount to be fair and it help differentiate the subsistence farmer,
the backyard farmer, from an actual commercial farmer that would open up their farm to have tours
and other activities going on. So there had to be something really clear so that you knew that, you
know, if you are just doing backyard aquaponics or, you know, you just had your ten papaya trees,
that wasn’t just going to cut it, you know. We needed to really be able to identify you as an ag
tourism venue.
GIFFIN: Lani, did you want to add to that?
BOWMAN: I just have a question. Is – and I may be throwing a spoke and may not even be
applicable – like, say, somebody had a couple acres or three acres or whatever and had a pick-your-
own, is that considered agricultural tourism or is that even allowed?
LEITHEAD TODD: That’s not necessarily agricultural tourism; that would be more like having a
fruit stand, which is permitted.
BOWMAN: Okay. I’m just trying to think of how people can promote their agricultural -.
LEITHEAD TODD: Well, because if you go through Kona and you see, you know -. You go
down towards Nāpo‘opo‘o, and there is a little stand on the side with leis and nobody is sitting
there. It’s an honor system; you can stop, buy the lei, put the money in. I’ve seen a few other
stands like that with papaya, avocado. And then they put a price on it and they have a little box that
you can throw your money in and it’s an honor system. Those are permissible; those fruit stands are
currently legal under the law. This envisions a little bit more in being able to sell more than just the
fruit, value added products; so you can sell the jam, right, you know, you can sell other things, you
can sell things that aren’t maybe 100 percent grown on the farm, you can sell the T-shirts. Like,
you know, I guess if I came to Kona and I saw some really cool label for coffee that was kind of
funny, I’d want to get the coffee cup to take back because it would be funny to, you know -. I’ve
seen some strange names that the guys, you know, like, put on their labels to attract attention. And
some have very beautiful designs, too. So sometimes, you know, you are interested in getting, not
just the coffee, but getting the other gifts to go along with it. But it’s really about recognizing that
farmers sometimes need to supplement the income on a monthly basis as opposed to waiting for the
crop to come in. And the Legislature did this in response to the requests from farmers. And so we
are just trying to figure out how to do it without it turning into, you know, the Waiki‘i Festival
without a special use permit, you know. That’s basically it. That’s why there has to be some
activity. That’s why there’s limits on whether it comes in buses or single cars and stuff.
WEIGERT: So what I really like about the amendments is the recognition of the major and minor,
cause I want you to know in ag tourism one size does not fit all. And the fact that the Director has
indicated the type of vehicles and that there needs to be ample parking and that kind of stuff is
7
EXHIBIT B
really important, because if people are allowed to do ag tourism activities but there is no structure
that controls the certain things -. The small farmer that has a small organic farm that is inviting the
school kids from the Waimea Elementary School, I mean they don’t need to have a whole plan
approval where they have to hire consultants and all that to do that. And that’s what I like about the
amendments is because, you know, the small mom-and-pop or multi-generational farms will be
allowed to do this under this, and it will allow, this plan will actually allow others within the state as
other counties follow it. So it’s really good that when an operation starts to get larger or more
significant with regard to volume of people that come to their farms, they need to jump through the
plan approval hoops. And that’s why I think that’s good, cause I don’t think that is restrictive at all;
I think that is right for the larger farms to do that, because it makes sure that there is public safety
and public consideration in doing that. But the small farmers, they don’t have the wherewithal with
all resource to do any of that. And so it’s important that this particular plan really recognizes the
difference with regards to the size, the volume or what farms will be handling on their properties.
GIFFIN: Any other comments of the testifier? Lani.
BOWMAN: Sorry. Cause, you know, I live in Kohala and we don’t even, the bus can’t even turn
around at the statue, so I guess I’m coming from a small rural, you know, perspective. But then I
think, and I know this bill isn’t for O‘ahu but, wow -. Anyway, I guess that was my comment that I
hear you when we can afford this to the smaller, I guess, farmers and prevent those big buses.
WEIGERT: And really the initial idea of having an ordinance like this was really for the beginner
farmer; it really, really was, so that the farmer could come out and try to supplement their income
and survive. So what happens is that all of the larger farms and ranches start to jump in on this.
No, no, no, you need to go the regular route and do what you need to do to make it legal for you. It
wasn’t meant for those sizes. So when I say – I’m trying to think of a larger agricultural system
here that has the buses coming in all the time – they have to go through, you know, like some of the
Kona coffee farms, you know, where they have the buses now, they were supposed to go through
plan approval to make that happen. They should in fact do drainage plans. But the smaller farmers
that have, you know, maybe one to three acres, they just don’t have the wherewithal to do that. And
I agree in Kohala there is a certain sense of place there, too, so maybe big buses don’t belong there.
You see, so that’s why there is certain things that the Director built into this that really protects the
sense of place as well.
BOWMAN: Thank you.
GIFFIN: Any other comments for the testifier? Thank you very much. Appreciate your being here
and all of your input. Commissioners, do you have any questions of staff or of the Director?
Hearing none, if you will turn to Page 3 of the yellow paper that was handed out, you will see at the
bottom of Page 3 the recommendation. Do I hear a motion? Commissioner Bowman.
BOWMAN: So I move that – shall I read this whole thing?
GIFFIN: You may do whatever you want.
BOWMAN: Okay, thank you, oh, boy, I don’t know. Okay, for the reason cited above that we
recommend the Planning, that we approve the Planning Director’s recommendations that the
Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation to the County Council for the amendment
8
EXHIBIT B
to Chapter 25, Zoning Code, of the Hawai‘i County Code 1983, 2005 Edition, as amended, relating
to agricultural tourism.
GIFFIN: Do I hear a second?
WHITTEMORE: Second.
GIFFIN: It has been moved by Commissioner Bowman and seconded by Commissioner
Whittemore that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council for the amendment to
Chapter 25 of the Hawai‘i County Code 1983, 2005 Edition, as amended, relating to agricultural
tourism. Any discussion? Hearing none, Daryn?
ARAI: Commissioner Bowman?
BOWMAN: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Whittemore?
WHITTEMORE: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Beaudet?
BEAUDET: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Hickcox?
HICKCOX: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Nelson?
NELSON: Aye.
ARAI: Madam Chairwoman?
GIFFIN: Aye.
ARAI: Madam Chairwoman, favorable motion carries with six aye votes.
GIFFIN: Thank you very much.
The discussion ended at 12:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Noriko Sauer, Secretary
Leeward Planning Commission
9
EXHIBIT B