Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-05HEARINGTRANSCRIPT-WALTERTAVARESSPP1212 WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 5, 2014 Walter Tavares, Jr. (SPP 1212) A regularly advertised hearing on the application of 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 Pro Tem Myles Miyasato presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Myles Miyasato, Gregory Henkel, Raylene Moses, and Stephen Ono. ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Charles Heaukulani and Wallace A. Ishibashi, Jr. ALSO PRESENT: Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Margaret Masunaga (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Jennifer Ng (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), Sarah Hata-Finley (Secretary), Kim Tanaka (Secretary), and Melissa Dacayanan (Planning Commission Support Technician). And approximately 23 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: WALTER TAVARES, JR. (Amend SPP 1212) Amendment to Special Permit No. 1212, which allowed the establishment of a towing and auto repair business on one acre of land situated in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The amendment is to eliminate the five (5) year permit life or extend the permit life for an additional ten (10) years, and to eliminate the landscaping requirement along all property boundaries. The rd property is located along the makai side of Uluhe Street (33 Avenue), approximately 1,620 feet northwest of Maku‘u Drive, Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision, Kea‘au, Puna, Hawai‘i, TMK: 1-5-016:148. MIYASATO: Item No. 3 on the agenda, Walter Tavares, Jr. COTTLE: Okay, the next item on the agenda is also an amendment. This is for an amendment to a Special Permit, and the applicant is Walter Tavares, Jr. The property is also located in the Puna District. It is in the Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision. You can see the Kea‘au-Pāhoa Road running through the middle of the slide generally in a north-south direction. You have Paradise Drive coming off the top of the slide, off of the highway, and Maku‘u Drive towards the bottom of the slide, also coming off of the highway. rd The property is located along 33 Avenue, which is shown in this general area here. And, you can see it outlined in red. The zoning for this area is Agricultural – 1 acre. It’s mainly composed of one acre lots. And the General Plan designation for the property also is Rural. You can see 1 EXHIBIT C most of this area is designated Rural with the exception of the Orchidland Center which is designated Medium Density Urban, that allows more commercial uses. This is an aerial view of the property and the surrounding area. There—this image is old. It’s from 2013. There have been a few changes to the property since then. This structure here which was a temporary tent was located in the setback. That’s been removed. And there’s another little structure right here that was also a temporary tent that’s since been removed. Other than that, this fairly accurately represents the existing use of the property. You have the auto shop, the existing auto shop building, located here, next to the front of the property. And then, right next to that is an approximately 300 square foot office, that’s used in conjunction with the auto shop business. Surrounding uses, there is a baseyard for a water hauling business right across the street. You may be familiar with this. This property is owned by Carnor Sumida, and he recently came in for a Special Permit amendment that the Commission granted a 10-year permit life on. There’s also another water hauling business further down the road, closer to Maku‘u. And then most of the properties directly adjacent are either vacant or in residential use. Special Permit No. 1212 was issued in 2003 to allow the establishment of a towing and auto repair business on the one acre. The permit had a five-year life at that time, and one of the conditions of the permit required thick landscaping around all the property boundaries. In 2004, the applicant submitted plans for Plan Approval, and those were approved showing minimal landscaping near the front property line, even though the permit condition required thick landscaping around all property boundaries. In 2008, the Planning Commission granted another five-year extension to the permit life. And that brings us to today. The applicant’s requesting to amend the permit to eliminate the five-year permit life and allow the Special Permit to continue for as long as the applicant maintains the auto repair business on the property or as an alternative, to extend the permit life an additional ten years. He’s also requesting to eliminate the landscaping requirement along all property boundaries. This is the applicant’s site plan. It is an old site plan, so as I mentioned, this structure is not located on the property, but it shows the access driveway over on the right side of the slide, and you have parking in the front, and then you can see the auto shop building towards the front of the property. There is the 300-square foot office that’s generally located in this location here that’s not shown on the plot plan. And, this is a view of the auto shop. This is the auto shop structure, and then the little office building. You can see the access driveway and parking in the front of the property. There is some existing landscaping. There are some shrubs located here as well as along the front of the property. This is a view of the auto shop along the front of the property. And then, this is a view of the parking area. This is along the north property line. It does not look like there’s landscaping along that property boundary. 2 EXHIBIT C The Planning Director is recommending approval of the request to extend the permit life. Although our reports say that we’re granting a 15-year extension, that was incorrect. It should say ten year. That is what the applicant requested, and the Director is supportive of that. The allowing the ten-year time extension would allow Mr. Tavares to continue to operate his business. He has been operating it for 11 years so far, but it also preserves the Department’s right—not right, but ability—to implement the long-range planning goals. The Puna CDP is supportive of this area transitioning to a Light Industrial area but only if certain infrastructure is put in place like water and road improvements. And, we do have a General Plan update coming up soon. We should be updating that plan within the next one to four years. It is possible that that area will be re-designated in the General Plan to Industrial or some designation that would allow the property owners to come in and rezone those properties to Light Industrial. So, that is why we are recommending that the permit still retains a permit life and know that it isn’t completely eliminated. As far as the landscaping goes, the Planning Director is recommending denial of the request to eliminate the landscaping but would like the Commission to consider maybe reducing the amount of landscaping required, that was previously required. The—Mr. Tavares actually owns, let me go back a little bit here. Mr. Tavares owns this property just right next door to his existing property, and I believe he told me that his brother owns the property next to that. So, we are recommending that there be really no requirement of landscaping. Mr. Tavares said that he’s going to use this property for grazing livestock. And, we are recommending landscaping for the rear property line. Although there is a lot of thick vegetation between the existing house in the back and Mr. Tavares’ property, there is no landscaping along the rear property line so we feel that there should be some there to buffer along here in case this property owner decides to clear out some of his vegetation or a future property owner. And then along the north property line, the Hilo side, we’re also recommending landscaping because these lots are currently vacant, and they could become developed with residences. ONO: I’m sorry I didn’t hear that. Could become? COTTLE: Could become developed with residences in the future. So let me go back to our recommendation here. Fast forward. Make sure I cover everything. Yep, I think that was it. I also want to bring your attention to a letter that we received this morning from the Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association regarding Mr. Tavares’ request for the extension of time and the landscaping requirements. And with that, that concludes my presentation. Are there any questions? MIYASATO: Commissioner Ono. ONO: I’m concerned about the landscaping suggestion that you’re making. COTTLE: Okay. 3 EXHIBIT C ONO: I’m not an environmentalist but I thought things like this were supposed to be for the muffling of sounds of the business area, and possibly to reduce the amount of pollution to the neighboring area. So, if you’re looking at—I don’t know--what is this thing about lipstick palms? Do they, are they bushy? Are they just— COTTLE: Lipstick palms are not bushy. They’re pretty tall. They grow pretty straight up. There actually is a picture of one existing lipstick palm right here. ONO: I see. So, they, my understanding was the original proposal was that, we’re looking at, the neighbors, should they—to muffle their or to make their residence more palatable, would your proposal for lower shrubbery thing be, would be, should the area be developed, would it be more conducive to business or to residence use? COTTLE: Yeah, the landscaping that we’re proposing is landscaping along the rear and north property line because we feel that those are the properties that would be most affected by this use. And the type of landscaping would be opaque, meaning you cannot see through it from the ground up to six feet in height. And then from six feet up to 20 feet, it can be intermittent landscaping, meaning, you know, the lipstick palms which typically grow to at least 20 feet would work in those areas. But, from the ground to six feet in height would be opaque. You would not be able to see through it. So they would have to use some kind of, something bushy or that would form a hedge. ONO: Okay, one more question and I’m done. The possibilities of using the vacant land for grazing would also mean fencing or, I mean, if you’re going to use the land for grazing you— COTTLE: Well, Mr. Tavares is proposing to graze on the adjacent lot, not on this particular lot. ONO: Yes— COTTLE: --Yes— ONO: --on the, so— COTTLE: so— ONO: --right now it looked—no improvement at all, there’s no— COTTLE: --right— ONO: fencing at all, so— COTTLE: There is a fence between Mr. Tavares’ auto shop property and his grazing property next door. I can, I can show it to you here. And he could probably speak a little bit more to that. 4 EXHIBIT C It’s very hard to see, Commissioner Ono, but you can kind of see—okay, so this is the property where the grazing would occur. ONO: Yeah, right— COTTLE: You can kind of see the little fence posts right along here, near here— ONO: Yeah, but you need fencing on the other side to keep, contain them, I would think— COTTLE: He can respond to whether the other side is fenced. I’m pretty sure it is. ONO: Okay, thank you. MIYASATO: Any other questions, Commissioners for staff? Thank you, Maija. Will the applicant please come forward? Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai‘i County Planning Commission? SONG & TAVARES: I do. MIYASATO: Could you please state your name and residence. SONG: I’m Sandra Song, and with me today is, and I’m representing Walter Tavares, Jr.—with me today is Wally Tavares, who is Walter’s son, and who runs the business with Walter. Also, Mrs. Tavares, Patricia Tavares, Walter’s wife, is sitting in the audience as well, and she’s involved with the business. This is a family business. It’s a small business. It’s been run for about ten years, and it’s a small repair shop. They do safety checks. They do auto repairs. They’ve done towing, and it’s mostly Walter and Wally that do the work. And the family, his daughter and granddaughters, granddaughter, do the office work, so it’s really a family business. They’ve asked for a time extension so they can continue the business. When we submitted our request, we asked that it be with no time limit, only so that Mr. Tavares could get bank financing for his business, so that some of these improvements, he can do faster than pay as you go, which is what he’s been doing now for the property. The Planning Director has recommended ten years. Mr. Tavares can live with the ten years, but he won’t be able to get bank financing. When the recommendation came out that we read yesterday that said 15 years, we were very excited because you can get bank financing for 15 years, but if the Commission decides to go with the Planning Department’s Recommendation as revised, my clients can live with that, and they’re also willing to put in the additional landscaping. And, as far as the landscaping that’s there now, in 2004, they went in—Walter went in, obtained Plan Approval, and then he went and planted everything in accordance with Plan Approval, so although the permit itself required more, he was, it was his understanding that he did all the planting that was necessary because that was approved by the Planning Department. So, at this time, they’re prepared to do the additional landscaping along the north 5 EXHIBIT C and the rear boundaries of the property. And, if you have any questions, either Wally or I should be able to answer them. MIYASATO: Thank you. Commissioners? Any questions for the applicant? If not, thank you. We do have one testifier signed up. ONO: Excuse me— MIYASATO: Oh, Commissioner Ono. ONO: Could I ask my previous question to staff regarding the use of that vacant lot. You’re really looking at using it as grazing land? TAVARES: Yes, right now, we only have off and on. My dad has a temporary lease up North Kulani, so we have one horse and one cow but they’re tied up, you know, so we have—we slowly making fence so they can run loose, but we just move them around as needed but, yeah, so, just a few animals that we have there for now, yeah? ONO: So you are looking at fencing that, that vacant lot for your grazing? TAVARES: Yes, and my dad’s future plan is to build his home in the back so he can kind of watch over the area, but that is still a plan, yeah, so— ONO: Okay, thank you. MIYASATO: Any further questions, Commissioners? Thank you. SONG: Thank you. MIYASATO: We do have one testifier that’s signed up, June Conant. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth to the Planning Commission? CONANT: I do. MIYASATO: Could you please state your name and residence. CONANT: My name is June Conant. I’m president of the HPP Owner’s Association, and we’re willing to go either 10 or 15 years. We just didn’t want it to have it be unlimited. We are in the process right now of updating the master plan for that area and still see that area as a possible future light industrial area. It just makes sense up there by the highway, and these businesses do help the Park in having people that live there not have to go into town or go somewhere else to get some of this work done, so we are definitely heading in that direction for that area, to have that. As far as the landscaping, as I explained in my letter, I did go out and talk to the, his dad, several months ago about that, and he was just concerned about having it be totally obscure 6 EXHIBIT C because of people breaking in. And he says there have been instances of people trying to. He has a wonderful neighbor across the road that kind of keeps an eye on the property, and as his son indicated, eventually, he’d like to build a home on the lot next door, so that he would be right next to the property, but we support this business, and we’re willing to try and help them in any way we can. MIYASATO: Thank you. Any questions, Commissioners, for the testifier? ONO: Yes, question. CONANT: Yes. ONO: You mentioned 10 to 15 years, so you’re, you’re willing to extend it for, to 15 years? CONANT: Yeah, we, as I said we just, when the original request came through for unlimited, we weren’t comfortable with that, but 10 or 15 years would be okay for us. ONO: I’m just kind of puzzled here. Mr. Kanuha? Is there a stipulation about the loan amount that they’re looking for, if it goes beyond fif—beyond ten years? There’s a, I guess I’m conflicted in the sense that we’re looking at a planning program for the next three year-four years for this area, but their request is for 15 years so that they could get some financing— CONANT: --Right-- ONO: --Am I correct on that? CONANT: Yeah, when I talked to Mr. Tavares senior, he indicated that that’s what he would really like to have because the banks would be willing to loan on that time period rather than the ten. I know when I used to do banking, we used to a ten, maybe a 30-year amortization with a ten year call, but I don’t know what banks are doing today, but he’s—he seemed to think that the 15 would give him a better chance to finance to build his home and improve the business. ONO: The home would be included in this 15-year proposal? Can he get a loan if it’s less than fifteen--ten years? CONANT: I don’t know. ONO: Has there been an inquiry on that? SONG: Mr. Chairman, I don’t he’s really looked into it, but most mortgage financing is a 15- year loan. You know, that—generally, they’re 30 year-loans, 20- or 30- year loans, but, but you can get mortgage financing for 15 years. 7 EXHIBIT C ONO: Well, I’m assuming that we’re talking about a residential loan. This is a business loan. Business loans don’t—is not— CONANT: No, he, when I talked to him, he needs the loan also to, he’d like to build the office area bigger, and also put some extensions in the back, I think because right now they don’t have enough room to do some of the work that they need to do. ONO: So assuming, Mr. Kanuha, assuming that we do the ten year, in the process in, within the 10 years, you’ll have a 5-year time table so that the proposal for that total development of this area takes place, so that let’s assume that it goes into Industrial whatever district, does that mean that they would have to come back and ask for another 15 years to get this loan, or can we say that that’s part of the, you know, ten year, and then we only need to get, accept the proposal for another ten years? I’m just trying to help them out in terms of getting their financing, but it seems as though, you know, it’s---if something, it takes place in the next five years for a proposal, can we add this ten years so that we only add another five years so that they can get the loan or is--. How does that work? I’m totally confused about that. CONANT: Just to clarify, don’t think the residential loan has anything to do with it cause he has another home in HPP, and he was saying, you know, he would be willing to sell that to finance his home. ONO: Oh no, I’m sorry, I was thinking of the business portion of the loan. CONANT: Right. SONG: Mr. Tavares actually came to me with the former Planning Director and Mr. Sumida because they were interested in rezoning the property to Light Industrial, and when we met, we were told that the Planning Department is probably going to initiate a General Plan Amendment for that. So assuming that’s done, and the Planning Department review, then I believe that my client along with some of the other property owners, will apply to have the property rezoned to Light Industrial so they won’t need a Special Permit, so hopefully you won’t see him back again for another time extension, even with a 10-year period. ONO: Thank you. KANUHA: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can clarify something for Commissioner Ono here. The applicants came in, they were already, you know, they have five years, okay. So, their request was to have no limitation on the life of the Special Permit, or in the alternative, they said they’d be okay with a 10-year extension. As you know, ten years has been our normal recommendation for Special Permit extension conditions so in the course of reviewing this specific application, my comment to the staff was, you know, this is actually a 15-year extension, so the notion of granting extensions in order to allow the petitioners to secure financing, etc., you know, really doesn’t play into the, into the concepts. Special Permits are actually designed not to be there forever. That’s why—they’re like an exception, a variance to a land use. And so, in—we’re 8 EXHIBIT C kind of reluctant to recommend that there’s no end term to Special Permits. However, in this particular area, and this particular situation, you know as mentioned by the community association folks, it’s obviously an area in transition. You know, you folks all know there’s a multitude of Special Permits for primarily these kind of uses within there. The General Plan I think will eventually need to address that. The Puna CDP Plan has sought to address that, so I would agree that within you know, within ten years, at least I’m sure that there will be the appropriate land use designations put in place whereby these Special Permits will be more consistent with the General Plan, the community development plans, and eventually zoning. MIYASATO: Any other questions, Commissioners? If not, I’ll entertain a motion. HENKEL: I’d like to move that we approve Special Permit, the amendment to Special Permit 1212, with the Director’s recommendations. MOSES: Second. MIYASATO: It’s moved by Commissioner Henkel; second by Commissioner Moses. Do I have any discussion? ONO: For clarification. The Director’s recommendation also includes the denial of the landscaping so for the record, I’d like to have that clarified that the Director’s recommendation is to approve however what denial on the landscaping amendment. Is that agreeable? Okay. COTTLE: Mr. Chair, if I may just further clarify. The recommendation was denial of the landscaping, but we recommended landscaping along the north and rear property boundary. And that’s reflected in the changes to Condition 9. So, if you read Condition 9, it doesn’t completely eliminate all landscaping. It just eliminates it for two of the property boundaries. MIYASATO: Commissioner Henkel, is that your motion? HENKEL: Yeah, that’s fine. MOSES: Second. MIYASATO: Any further discussion? COTTLE: Okay, Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. 9 EXHIBIT C COTTLE: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. COTTLE: And Chair Miyasato. MIYASATO: Aye. COTTLE: Okay, the motion passes four, zero. MIYASATO: You’ll be notified in writing. The discussion ended at 10:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 10 EXHIBIT C