Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-05 Hearing Transcript - Hawaii Johns SPP 09-082WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 5, 2017 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of HAWAII JOHNS INC. (SPP 09-000082) was called to order at 9:02 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Gregory Henkel presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Joe Clarkson, Gregory Henkel, Myles Miyasato, and Thomas Raffipiy. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Donn Dela Cruz and Donald Ikeda. ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Malia Ho Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner), Shancy Watanabe (Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 4 members from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: HAWAII JOHNS INC. (SPP 09-000082) Request to amend Special Permit No. 09-82, which allowed the temporary storage of portable toilets, parking for employee and business vehicles and office use on an approximately 1.65 -acre portion of a 4.033 -acre property within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The amendment request seeks delete Condition No. 2, which placed a 5 -year life on the Special Permit. The property is located at the southwest corner of Highway 19 and Ka16pa Lower Road intersection, Ka16pa Homesteads, Hamakua, Hawaii, TMK: 4-4-003:Portion of 050. HENKEL: And, with that, we'll proceed with today's first agenda item, which is Hawaii Johns Inc., SPP 09-82. And, Christian will be making the presentation. KAY: Yes, thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. Glad to see you on a rainy Thursday morning. We're just gonna very quickly get into this. The application as you said is for an amendment to a Special Permit which was, originally allowed, which originally allowed the temporary storage of portable toilets, parking for employee and business vehicles, and an office use on approximately 1.65 acres of a 4.033 -acre property. So, if I can turn your attention to the presentation screen, just give you a quick idea of where the property is located. Here, circled in red, it is in the Hamakua District of Hawaii Island; more specifically, in the Ka16p5 Homestead area. To the west here, you see Honoka`a Town. EXHIBIT A The Applicant is requesting to amend Special Permit 09-82 by deleting Condition No. 2 which placed a 5 -year time limit on the life of the Special Permit with the possibility of an administrative time extension in order for the Applicant to find more appropriate accommodations for their business. Deleting this condition would allow the Special Permit use indefinitely. The reason for the request is in 2011, the Applicant was able to acquire a commercially zoned parcel in Hilo. However, as the business serves the entire island, the Applicant feels that the Hilo location is unsuitable to allow them to service the north and west sides of the island. The Applicant has been searching for locations in Hamakua, Waimea, and South Kona for 6-1/2 years, but have been unable to find any properties that meet their criteria which is price point, proper zoning, and reasonable location. Retaining the use in perpetuity at the current location would allow them to serve the north and west sides of the island. Just a quick history and timeline. In June of 2009, the Planning Director forwarded a denial recommendation to the Windward Planning Commission citing the proposed use's lack of consistency with criteria for granting a Special Permit due mainly to the site being located on Land Study Bureau Class "B" Soils and ALISH "Prime" Agricultural Lands. The PC at the time voted to approve the Special Permit with a condition requiring that five year life of the permit in order to allow the Applicant time to find an alternative site for their operation. In 2011, the Applicant purchased a commercial property in Hilo that is used as a base yard for their East Hawaii operations. And, in 2014, the Applicant was granted a five-year administrative time extension which extended the life of the permit to July 20, 2019. The—this is a County zoning map. It's showing, again, for reference, we've got Hawaii Belt Road running east -west through the slide. Access to the property is off of Ka16pa Lower Road. Here is the subject parcel outlined in red, and in the dashed line is the roughly 1.65 -acre permit area. Zoning for the property is Agricultural – 5 acres, which is similar to much of the surrounding zoning, and some Ag -40 as indicated in blue in the upper right hand corner. The State Land Use Boundary designation for the subject parcel and the surrounding area is Agricultural. The General Plan designates the parcel and the surrounding area as Important Agricultural Lands. Here's an aerial photograph of the subject parcel, again, outlined in red. We've got Hawaii Belt Road or Highway 19 running east -west. As you can see, much of the permit area is dedicated to storage of the porta johns and trucks and equipment and, again, we've got the single-family dwelling here that also doubles as an office for the business. The rest of the parcel is used for cattle grazing and much of the surrounding properties are used for agricultural uses and some residential uses. Here is the Applicant's submitted site plan. Again, just showing what we saw in the aerial view with the permit area outlined here in black. And, here are some photographs of the subject parcel. Here is Lower Ka16pa Road looking toward the ocean; Lower Ka16pa Road looking toward the mountain with the storage area here on the right. EXHIBIT A 2 Here's Highway 19 looking south toward Hilo. I just put this picture in here because I wanted to show one of the requirements of the original permit was to plant some visual screening, and as we were driving out the other day to go visit, we passed it by `cause I couldn't see it. So, the visual screening has worked. Here in the lower left is photos of the portable toilet storage area, and on the right as well. So, the Planning Director is recommending to deny the request to delete Condition No. 2 to remove the life of the permit. The main reason is deleting the condition would be contrary to the reasons the Planning Commission originally granted the Special Permit. Ultimately, the original permit was meant to be temporary. The PC at the time was responding post -2008 economic downturn. They didn't want to have this business closed and have the employees out of jobs, so they found that this was a special situation and wanted to give an opportunity for the Applicant to move to a more appropriate place. And, again, they granted it with the understanding that it would be a temporary situation. The request to allow the Special Permit use in perpetuity would not satisfy the criteria for granting a Special Permit. Again, we added in your, in your report the original recommendation from the Planning Director at the time, if they would to come in today with a similar Special Permit request, we would recommend denial for the same reasons. The Planning Department has consistently recommended denial for Special Permits on lands with the highest agricultural potential to ensure that agricultural use in perpetuity. The recommendation is consistent with that precedent. And, finally, lands with the highest agricultural potential should be preserved for bona fide agriculture and should not be used to provide a cheaper alternative to more expensive industrial zoned lands. We did take a quick look. Although they tend to be more expensive, there are lands available in Kona and Kawaihae, both industrially and commercially zoned. And, another option, although it's probably not the best option, is a Special Permit on other agricultural lands that aren't of the highest quality soils. So, there are other options for the Applicant at this point. But, as a compromise, the Director felt it a good idea to allow the Applicant some additional time to find that alternative West Hawaii location. So, he's recommending amending Condition No. 2 so that the permit expires within five years of the effective date of this amended permit which should be around 2022. Just one more thing I want to add before we move on. Page 4, second to the last paragraph, fourth line down, I want to change, "The Applicant did this by leasing industrial zoned land in Hilo" to "purchasing commercially zoned land in Hilo." There's just some inconsistency in my report, and I just wanted to bring that up and change it. We have removed the condition for final plan approval since they already got final plan approval. And, we also removed the condition for an administra—the possibility for an administrative time extension. So, should the Applicant EXHIBIT A 3 want to come back in 2022 for more time, they'd have to come back to the Planning Commission. That's my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions that the Commission may have. HENKEL: Any questions of staff from the Commission? Thank you. KAY: Thank you. HENKEL: Then will, will the representative and/or the Applicant please come forward? KERN: Good morning. HENKEL: Good morning. Will you raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission? KERN/CUMMINGS: Yes. HENKEL: All right. Thank you. State your name and proceed. KERN: Good morning, Mr. Chair. I'm Zendo Kern. I'm the planning consultant. To my right here is John Cummings, the Applicant. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Planning Commission, Mr. Director, Corporation Counsel, and all the wonderful staff on the Planning Department. There's a Iota lot of hard work here. This is a bit of aobviously a bit of a tricky one. You're probably going to ask me if we reviewed the Recommendation and conditions, which we have reviewed the Recommendation and conditions. At this point, we're not comfortable with accepting them as they are. For the most part, the conditions themselves are fine except for the timeframe of it. We realize that the request came in to allow the operation to happen indefinitely. We're open to a conversation of, of what that would do or potentially a longer timeframe. This is a tricky situation obviously because of the nature of the land. If the land wasn't considered prime, it'd probably be a much different conversation we have here. I had the opportunity to sit on the Planning Commission during this original application and saw the process what happened there, what it went through. I think something that is extremely important that I'd like everybody to consider is what this does. So, this is on prime ag land, right? And, we want to preserve prime ag land. And, so, with this operation, what we have is, we have four acres. Part of it is in pasture, so it's being used as agricultural. It's being used ag. We have a home that the family lives in. The family lives there, and they operate out of a portion of it as the office for their business. The Applicant does not advertise on the site. There's no signs. As Christian had mentioned, they drove past it. The Applicant does not have customers coming over. It's not a place where it's like, you know, commercial operations where customers are coming over. They deal with the customers out in the field or by the phone. So, traffic is pretty much none. It's just what they do. EXHIBIT A 4 Now, if this application were to allow the Applicant to construct the building, construct the warehouse, have parking, what would that do? That would destroy the ag potential of the land, right? Cause all of a sudden you have a building there. You're gonna rip the building down? Of course now. But, this doesn't allow them to build any permanent structures. It allows them to operate out of their home and basically store the portable toilets there and store some trucks. So what does that essentially do? It preserves the ag land. If the Applicant were to stop using this, they'd take the toilets away. They'd take the trucks away. What do we have? Prime ag land. So, to me, on an island in the County of Hawaii, that's challenging. It's challenging to operate a business here. It's challenging to survive here. We love this place. I'm born and raised—this is my home, and we do what we have to do to survive here. And, so this to me is an almost ideal situation from a certain perspective where you have a family -based business. They operate out of their home. You have agriculture activity on over half of the land, and on one acre, you have storage of the portable toilets and trucks. This is a local family business. This is ag. And, this is a family living at their home. That's Big Island. Again, if this wasn't on prime, we'd probably be having a different situation. If you look at the other parcels in the area, there's not a lot of viable ag activity going on. At the same time, if it does become viable in the future, great! The land is still preserved. It does not take away the agriculture potential of this land. I think something else to really consider is the client, when the Applicant, when they had the original Special Permit issued, they went out and they worked on finding a new location. They found one in Hilo. They're using it. They looked on the other side. There's a letter in there from Caleb Yamanaka, who is their real estate agent, broker, that was searching for—and he sent a letter to me saying that, the challenges that they had. So, if the Applicant were able to find a suitable location in those areas, I think they'd be there. Obviously, price point, location, West Hawaii is, can be much more challenging than Hilo side. So, you know, here they are. They made—they made the effort. They went out there. They did it. It's not like we're not going to do anything, come back and, you know, ten years, and ask for it again. So, I think the Applicant showed good intentions. So, my ask is if the Commission isn't comfortable with, you know, having the permit run indefinitely, what would be a reasonable time frame? Cause right now, basically, the permit expires in about two years from now. So, the Recommendation as it sits now is to allow five years, so that's basically an additional three years. Would the Commission consider ten years from the date of the expiration of this? That would be reasonable, in my opinion, and again, by allowing it, it does not take away the potential of the prime ag land. It allows a family operation, family business to continue to go, and, you know, operate as they have been. We don't have anybodyI haven't received a call. I haven't received a letter of people that were in opposition of it from the neighbors. We sent out the notices to surrounding property owners. That tells me that they're doing something right. They're still in business. Excuse me—they're doing something right. EXHIBIT A 5 So, if you have any questions for me or Mr. Cummings, we'd be more than happy to answer those. Mr. Cummings did mention to me that one of the issues that they do face is theft from other sites. They don't have a theft issue on their property. Why? They live there. It's their home. You know, in Hilo, you've had a theft issue. Is that right, Mr. Cummings? CUMMINGS: They came and took two portables out of our property. KERN: So, you know, by expanding out, not to say that security can't be put in place, it's just the one more, further issue. So, you know, we sit here basically pleading with the Commission to, to look at it from, you know, the perspective of a family home-based business that has done their best. That have been working hard. They've been in business for, you know, almost 30 years. To stay in business on the Big Island for 30 years is challenging as it is. And, they've been doing that. So, you know, we're here humbly asking to have this conversation to allow additional time. No disrespect to the Planning Department whatsoever. We completely understand how that works. When I was on the Commission, when BJ was the Planning Director, certain things would come in for a denial, and the Commission, we would actually go the other way. And, at one point we're having lunch, and I told BJ, I was like, "BJ, you know, I'm sorry. I keep voting against you." And, she's like, "you don't need to worry about that. As a department, we have certain criteria that we have to follow." That's what this is right now. The Planning Department has certain criteria. It's prime ag land. They can't say yes to a certain, to a certain extent. But, the Commission does have the flexibility to look at things and address them in a little bit different manner, and that's why the Commission exists. So, for the sake of time `cause I know the clock is ticking, I will yield the floor for a minute and answer any questions. Thank you. HENKEL: Thanks, Zendo. Any questions? Yes, Joe. CLARKSON: Yes, I do have a couple of questions. Is there any financial or other reason why a time limit, say every five years, come back and see whether—allow us to see or the Planning Commission to see whether circumstances have changed in Hamakua in terms of development of ag lands. Right now, there isn't much, and I live very near the Applicant. And, my, I'm personally not worried that there isn't enough ag land available for people to do whatever they want. But, is there any financial or other reason why a periodic renewal requirement is such a problem for the Applicant? KERN: Would you like me to answer that Mr. Cummings or? Well, from a monetary standpoint, obviously there's a cost associated with it. I don't sit up here for charity, but that's less of a concern. It's more so, I think, it's the concern in the mind and in the heart as they come along. You know, I spoke to—it happened by circumstance that I ended up speaking to Mrs. Cumming, Mrs. Cummings, John's wife a while back. And, she had talked to me about it. I said, "Hey, how's it going over there? How's your Special Permit going?" And, she's like, "Oh, it's, you know, we're doing good. We're doing good. We found the location in Hilo, but our EXHIBIT A 6 permits coming up for renewal." And, the stress of that, I think, is the biggest issue. But, at the same token, to come back isn't, isn't necessarily a problem. CUMMINGS: It's just we got always, you know, it always, at the end of the five years, gotta come back. You know what I mean? All I worried about is my children. Get them set up. I'm not healthiest clown in the world, but—when time to go, it's time to go, and I like make sure I die happy, you know? KERN: So, yeah, I think it's less of a monetary issue. I mean, the monetary issue isn't really— it's more of the other side of it. But, at the same time, that's what we're for a discussion. If the Commission says, "hey, we should look at this every so often," what's a reasonable timeframe for that? CLARKSON: Okay, and then the—thank you—the other question I have had to do with water use. I know that the items are just stored there, but I was wondering why the fairly large amount of water use. Are you filling them up with County water before trucking them out there? CUMMINGS: No. I have an endless pool. And, I had a transplant twelve years ago—excuse me. I have an endless pool that I swim in, but I cannot use chemicals. And, it's like about 2,000 gallons. So, every other month I gotta change the water because of my kidney. So, I cannot swim in it with the chemicals. So, every other month I change the water. That's why I use plenty water. My trucks fill up at the sewage treatment plants before they come back, so every day they done. They fill up the water there and then they come back. CLARKSON: Okay. CUMMINGS: And, I get cattle and I get like six troughs, hundred fifty gallons a trough, and it's dry over there. So, they gotta drink water. CLARKSON: It's raining this morning. KERN: It is. Can I add to that? CUMMINGS: Out there is [inaudible]. KERN: We had looked at that. That was a comment that came back from Department of Water Supply saying hey, they, it, you know, the water usage is greater so I spoke to Mrs. Cummings and she had mentioned that, you know, Mr. Cummings has the endless pool which is the kind of pool where there's a flow in it. So, it's almost like a treadmill type pool, right? And, so you said, yeah, John likes, John needs to, you know, refill the pool every so often. So, I said, you know, this is an issue. You know, we can't have the water usage going above what you're allowed to from the Water Department. So, we looked at it and I said you're going to have either two options. One is to get your water usage down so it meets that criteria, or ask for an additional water meter for additional usage, or potentially have a holding tank. You know, like a catchment tank that could be used for more of the agriculture activities on, 10,000-15,000 gallons holding tank that could be filled from, you know, typical rain catchment system that we EXHIBIT A 7 have a lot here on the Big Island that could be used for, you know, the cattle and things of that nature. Obviously, it wouldn't work for the pool because it needs to, you know, County water's the cleanest. So, definitely measures are in place to mitigate that. I went through it with her and I said, you know, how, what's your, what's your water usage, and we looked at it. And, even on, you know, some of the better months I was like you're still exceeding it, we have to do something about that. That has to change. With those two options, three optionsreduction, additional water from the Water Department or a catchment tank. That can be accomplished. CUMMINGS: A few times, my water line broke. The cattle, they step on `em, and they break `em and I don't know `cause they're way on the other end. But, I find it and I fix it, but one time, two days was running. HENKEL: Any other questions? Myles. MIYASATO: Chair, I have a question. You know, I'm just going to assume that the reason you're coming in two years prior to the expiration is `cause of your health and your concern and, you know, instead of waiting for closer to the expiration date. And, for me, you know, I like to be consistent in what we do. Whether we need to, you know, view every case and identify every case for its own merit, it does set precedence, and I'm just not comfortable with that word, "indefinitely," yeah? I can just see every other applicant coming back in and requesting the same, but, you know, what is reasonable? And, I can see ten years. We granted ten years in the past. I can see ten years from the effective date of this application. HENKEL: Any other questions? I have a comment, too. You present a compelling argument, and I, tooI couldn't see just, you know, I think five years was a compromise, and I could see another five years on that. Ten years would work for me, too, so thanks, Zendo, and do you have anything else? KERN: Yeah, I would like just to add I do realize that, you know, the word "indefinite" could set a precedence, and we talked about that withI talked about that with the Applicant at the beginning, and, you know, that would be, that's the ideal. You know, but it, but it makes sense that, you know, again, we don't want to set a precedence that, you know, it's not comfortable with. And, I think in that range of, you know, ten years from the date of, if this gets approved, is reasonable, and we can look at that. They'll still be making, you know efforts to find other locations, etc. And, then if need be, you know, we come back as Commissioner Clarkson said, we come back and we, you know, we look at it at that time. And, if possibly, if that would be the case, it'd probably be a little bit early again to, you know, save the stress of it that, you know, who knows? You never know what's going to happen, right? I think that would beI think that's reasonable. HENKEL: Okay, thank you. Anything, anybody else have a question? Thank you. You may return to your seats. We don't have anyone signed up to testify, so we could look for a motion to close public testimony. EXHIBIT A CLARKSON: So moved. HENKEL: Second? RAFFIPIY: I second. HENKEL: It's been moved and seconded to close public testimony. All in favor say, "aye?" COMMISSIONERS: Aye. HENKEL: Opposed? Public testimony is closed. Next, we'll be looking for a discussion and a motion for action. RAFFIPIY: Question. HENKEL: Yes, Thomas. RAFFIPIY: If, if we are to, you know, extend you know, instead of five years and we extend it to ten years, you know, is there any big issue about that? Anybody have any big issue with that? HENKEL: I personally don't have an issue because I think Zendo, you know, explained how it's not going to change the character of that prime ag land. It's still going to be prime ag land. Anybody else? Yes, Director. YEE: Yeah, I would chime in. Nono, I don't have a problem with ten years. HENKEL: Any more discussion. Then, I would look for a motion. MIYASATO: I'll give it a shot here. I move that the application to amend Special Permit No. 09-82 be approved that Condition No. 2 be amended to ten years and based on the other Planning Director's recommendations and proposed conditions which shall be adopted. RAFFIPIY: I second. HENKEL: It's been moved and seconded to approve with an amendment on the conditions. Can we have a roll call vote? KAY: Yes, thank you HALL: Sorry, just for clarification. From the effective date of this amendment, right? MIYASATO: Yes. HALL: Okay, thank you. KAY: Thank you. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Miyasato? EXHIBIT A 9 MIYASATO: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Raffipiy? RAFFIPIY: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Clarkson? CLARKSON: Aye. KAY: And, Chair Henkel. HENKEL: Aye. KAY: Okay, thank you. Motion carries four, nothing. HENKEL: Motion carries, and you'll be notified in writing of the determination. Thank you both for coming in. KERN (from audience): Thank you all very much. CUMMINGS (from audience): Thanks for your guys time. The discussion ended at 9:29 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission EXHIBIT A 10