Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-02-21 Leeward Exh B (REZ 18-232) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT FEBRUARY 21, 2019 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of 64-560 MAMALAHOA LLC (REZ 18-000232) was called to order at 9:55 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Keith F. Unger presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Keith F. Unger, Nancy Carr Smith, Scott Church, Perry Kealoha, Sonny Shimaoka and Michael Vitousek ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Faye Yates ALSO PRESENT: Malia Hall, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Michael Yee (Planning Director), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Christian Kay (Planner), Jessica Andrews (Planner) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And eight people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: 64-560 MAMALAHOA LLC (REZ 18-000232) Application for a Change of Zone from an Agricultural-40 acre (A-40a) to an Agricultural-5 acre (A-5a) zoning district for approximately 10.94 acres of land. The parcel is situated on the north side of Māmalahoa Highway, approximately 0.42 miles west of White Road and approximately 150 feet east of Puʻu Manu Place, Puʻukapu Homesteads, 2nd Series, South Kohala, Hawaiʻi, TMK: (3) 6-4-017:043. UNGER: Item No. 4, Applicant 64-560 Mamalahoa LLC, REZ 18-000232, application for a Change of Zone from Agricultural-40 acre, A-40a, to an Agricultural-5 acre, A-5a, zoning district for approximately 10.94 acres of land. The parcel is situated on the north side of Māmalahoa Highway, approximately 0.42 miles west of White Road and approximately 150 feet east of Puʻu Manu Place, Puʻukapu Homesteads, 2nd Series, South Kohala, Hawaiʻi, TMK (3) 6-4-017:Parcel 43. Thank you, staff, presentation, please. KAY: Yes, thank you and good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Leeward Planning Commission. If I can direct your attention to the screen. As the Chair read, this is a Change of Zone application. The subject parcel is located in the South Kohala District of Hawai‘i Island and outlined in red here. For reference we’ve got Māmalahoa Highway running generally east-west through the slide, and this area here in green is the Ho‘onani Subdivision, Waimea Town being here to the west. The applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from an Agricultural 40-acre zoning district to an Agricultural 5-acre zoning district for approximately 10.94 acres of land. The applicant intends to subdivide the property into two lots; one lot would be comprised of an existing dwelling and be approximately five acres in size and the second lot, approximately 5.94 acres in size, would be a flag 1 EXHIBIT B lot with the flag pole being on the eastern side of the property. Subdivision improvements are estimated to cost approximately 20,000 dollars, and the applicant hopes to have the land subdivided before the end of 2019. The zoning for the subject parcel is Agricultural-40 acres as indicated in the blue. There is some Agricultural-1 acre zoning and indicated in the green. And I apologize about these other designations here that was just a mistake; those are, there is no General Commercial in that area. Again, the properties directly adjacent to the east have been rezoned from Agricultural-40 acres to Agricultural-5 acres, in the case of the property directly adjacent, back in 2011. The State Land Use Boundary designation for the subject parcel and surrounding area is Agricultural. And the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map designation for the subject parcel is split between Important Agricultural Land as indicated in the green on the southern portion of the property and Extensive Agricultural on the northern portion of the property. Again, the Ho‘onani Subdivision here is designated as Rural and the rest of the surrounding area is a mix of those Important Agricultural Lands, Extensive Agriculture and then Low Density Urban as indicated mustard color to the west. The South Kohala Community Development Plan went through and had town conceptual plans for Waimea, and this comes from the CDP. The subject parcel is located generally in this area and is designated in what they call the Small Farms and Ranches Preservation Program; that’s a group of about 40 lots from Mud Lane going west, and the designation there is just these are lots that are generally still used for agriculture and have not been rezoned and subdivided for residential purposes. And the intention of the CDP conceptual plan in that area was to maintain that, so generally for open space and character of the area. The two lots subdivision, the Director believes, would maintain the requirement, or support the requirement in the CDP. Here is an aerial photograph, two aerial photographs, of the subject parcel. Again, on the left hand side we’ve got the subject parcel here, the Ho‘onani Subdivision, Māmalahoa Highway running generally east-west. And on the lower right I’ve got a more zoomed-in photo of the subject parcel. There is an existing dwelling by the highway of the subject parcel. Again, Māmalahoa Highway is here, and the dwelling currently takes access on the west side of the property. The flagpole area that is being proposed is here. Based on comments from the Department of Public Works, they, which Māmalahoa Highway in this area is a DPW-maintained road, they will not allow two accesses off of the Māmalahoa Highway there, so they are requiring a single access for both lots, and we’ll get into that a little bit later on. Here is the applicant’s site plan. On the left hand side is Māmalahoa Highway. Again, this is the subject parcel here, with the existing dwelling closest to the highway, and then the flagpole being proposed here with the upper lot being 5.94 acres and the lower lot being approximately five acres. These lines here are indications of flood zone areas. So this area around the southern portion, or covering most of the lower lot, is the AO flood zone, and that will have some bearing later on in the discussion. And the lower right is just a zoom-in of the intersection, again, with the highway, showing the existing dwelling. They’ve proposed an intersection to the highway, as well as the 2 EXHIBIT B existing access, and the AO flood zone being to the, I guess, to the bottom of the dwelling at this point. Here’s some views of the property from Māmalahoa Highway. This is the existing dwelling on the lower portion of the property and the existing driveway access to the highway. This is the other side of the, Honoka‘a side of the parcel where the proposed intersection for the flag lot is. Here is a view, on the upper left, of Māmalahoa Highway looking west toward Waimea, subject property on the right, and the view of Māmalahoa Highway looking east toward Honoka‘a, with the subject property on the left. The Planning Director is – oh, let me, actually, before I get into that – we did send out a proposed revision to the recommendation and condition of approval for this, Condition E, and that was the condition, which originally was going to require the flagpole be located on the western side of the subject parcel outside of the AO flood zone as was advised by the Department of Public Works not wanting the intersection of the driveway to be within the flood zone. As we took a closer look at this, unfortunately, it creates, created a situation – pardon me – situation where if we put the flagpole lot on the west side, it would, basically that would be part of the new lot and the structure here would then be nonconforming in terms of setbacks. In the Ag district the side yard setbacks are 20 feet, so we would have created a situation where this would then be nonconforming to the setback requirement. We went back and spoke with Public Works just to confirm that their advice to come out of the flood zone is just a recommendation and not a requirement. So we then, Applicant then spoke with Public Works Engineering Division, Robyn Matsumoto, and she indicated that, again, it was just a recommendation, not a requirement, and there was a possibility to make that intersection work out of the flood zone, and so confirmed what their recommendation was. So she sent in just yesterday this, an email talking about this and this draft proposed intersection that would work to satisfy that, and also satisfy the setback requirement. So this is just information in terms of the proposed change. Also this proposed revision to Condition E, and our revision of the recommendation, the two paragraphs up top would replace the discussion in on Page 8 of the recommendation, and the new language of the Condition E would read, “The intersection of the proposed driveway access and the Māmalahoa Highway should be located outside of the AO flood zone,” and I want to suggest one more change and that would be, “and meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works.” So that way we make sure that the design of the intersection would be appropriate, meeting with their approval, and satisfy all of their concerns and our issues with Zoning Code. We were able to send out to you all of the correspondence that we received in the last several days since the recommendation came out, but there was a, the previously mentioned email from Department of Public Work, as well as a comment letter from the adjacent property owner on the west side, Waimea side, Mr. William Davis. And then the other thing I just want to double check, as asked by the community members, is we did send out an email with several videos that indicated flooding in the area, as well as send out some DVDs with the same videos on them. The advice that we got from our Corporation Counsel was as long as you were able to view them and consider them prior, we wouldn’t have to play them here, but it’s up to you folks if you want to play them here. UNGER: Did everybody see them? Did everybody get a chance to look at them? 3 EXHIBIT B CHURCH: It jammed up my computer, so I couldn’t turn my computer on \[inaudible\]— KAY: Oh, no— UNGER: The photos in the background, yeah, was pretty explicit also, so, right? Let’s— KAY: Yeah, the photographs also show the flooding issue; the videos are just a moving photograph that shows those— UNGER: I think we are okay for now. KAY: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. With that, the Director is recommending a favorable recommendation to the County Council for Change of Zone Application 18-232, with those proposed condition changes. UNGER: Great, thank you. KAY: You’re welcome. UNGER: Commissioners, questions? VITOUSEK: Sure. Just, my question is how do you guys define development-generated runoff? KAY: So, any, any runoff or drainage issues that may be caused by any construction on the property. So anything having to do with the development, be that structures, be that earth movement, be that driveways, or anything like that. There are three conditions in the proposed, in the recommendation that do address those issues. They are fairly standard conditions of approval that we put in most of our, most of our rezone approvals. And that’s Condition – pardon me – Condition J, “All development generated runoff shall be disposed of onsite and not be directed toward any adjacent properties”; so in that case any runoff there would have to be engineered to stay onsite, be that in drainage ditches or drywells or anything like that. And then Condition K is a floodplain, so, “All development shall comply with Chapter 27, Floodplain Management, of the Hawai‘i County Code.” And then Condition L, which is, “All earthwork and grading activity shall conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sediment Control, of the Hawai‘i County Code. So these conditions are intended to ensure that any impact from the development are maintained onsite and not spread to adjoining properties. VITOUSEK: And, basically, that’s, again, just the development-generated runoff itself that’s the water that’s coming off of the roads or that kind of stuff, not the stuff that’s already coming down now without the development. KAY: That’s correct, yeah, because much of the – pardon me – much of the property and adjoining properties are already in the AO flood zone, which is considered a special zone, which accounts for annual flooding of one to three feet. And so the videos that you’ve seen and the photos that you’ve seen kind of play that out. So, basically, the applicant, successors or assigns 4 EXHIBIT B would be responsible for dealing with any additional runoff or any additional flooding that may occur because of their development; they can’t be required and they won’t be required to deal with what’s already there because it’s in a flood zone. VITOUSEK: Got you. KAY: Yeah. VITOUSEK: Next question, I saw that the Department of Water Supply reviewed the previous submittal— KAY: Yeah, so, yeah – sorry, go ahead and ask your question. VIOUTSEK: Just wondering if they had any similar comments on the current proposed layout. KAY: So, the issue with – I should step back – the applicant initially came in with a Change of Zone from Agricultural-40 acres to Family Agricultural-1 acre for a six-lot subdivision. Midstream they changed their request to Ag-5A, being more consistent with the surrounding zoning, more consistent with the General Plan and the CDP. The comment letter that we got form Water Supply was addressing the six-lot subdivision; the two, I guess, northernmost lots would have been out of their pressure zone, the service pressure zone, from the Department of Water Supply. Now with the new proposed subdivision, the upper lot would be within the elevation, the proper elevation, that Water could service the lot. So we asked for an additional comment to supplement what they had, we did not receive it, but based on their initial comment, based on our understanding of where the pressure zone is, we didn’t think it would be an issue to get water to the second lot. UNGER: Go ahead. SHIMAOKA: Were there, with the previous owners, were there previous applications to zone changes? KAY: Not that I’m aware of for this property, other than just the original request, which was to FA-1 at the beginning of this rezone process. But I’m not aware of any rezone requests for this particular parcel in the past. SHIMAOKA: What there has been, because I know this property— KAY: Okay. SHIMAOKA: —and so the question is the rezoning requests got continually turned down, but this one is being approved. Do you know why? KAY: Um— SHIMAOKA: I know the previous owners of this property. 5 EXHIBIT B KAY: Okay, I, looking back through the file for this, we didn’t, I didn’t see anything. I am not aware, so I wouldn’t be able to answer that question. Maybe the applicant can address that, if they are aware of that. Or we can— DARROW: Commissioner Shimaoka, there were, there were meetings that were held with, I believe, the previous owner. They had come in several times and met with staff, and the proposal was similar to the original proposal, and the issue that we were having at that point was the site building width wasn’t able to meet it, and so that’s what we were struggling with. So it wasn’t that an application was submitted; it was that there was this continual dialogue on how to try to create these small lots on this very skinny long lot and meet these minimum building width standards. And so I think that might be what you are thinking of. But this, as far as we know, the original FA-1 acre application was our first one. Thank you. KAY: Thank you. CARR SMITH: I’m a little bit concerned due to the fact that the background report and all of the department input and the testimony was all based on the previous request. And so – wouldn’t the applicant have to reapply, if they are changing their request? KAY: So what we looked at, when we were asked this question, is that the comment letters that we received from the agencies weren’t very hard-hitting in terms of what their requirements would be, and actually, because the original request was for a proposal that would allow for more density as opposed to less, we didn’t think the comments would change. In fact, again, with the example of the Department of Water Supply, they were able to, this new proposed two-lot subdivision would actually rectify Water Supply’s issue. In terms of public testimony, we did require the applicant to send out a notice to surrounding property owners of the proposed change in resulting zoning, instead of FA-1, Ag-5. And most of the testimony, the earlier testimony may have addressed the FA-1 zoning, but there was an opportunity for surrounding property owners and the public to see that that was changed. So we didn’t, didn’t feel like it was necessary to make them go through and resubmit an entirely new project or application. There was an addendum that was Exhibit 1 of the background report, and in the background report I just articulated that what the issue was, and that in some cases the information and the addendum would supplement or supplant the original application. Does that answer your question? CARR SMITH: Yes, I guess I must have missed the fact that they submitted notice to the property, surrounding property owners. Is that in here? KAY: We don’t normally put that in the background and recommendation report; that’s just a requirement of our code for surrounding property owner notice. But, yeah, we did require that. CARR SMITH: And so you know for a fact that it was done in a timely manner with sufficient notice. KAY: That’s correct. In fact, this hearing was supposed to be last month, but to allow for that time to make sure that surrounding property owners were properly notified, the applicant requested to move it to this month’s hearing. 6 EXHIBIT B CARR SMITH: Thank you. KAY: Mm-hmm. UNGER: Questions? VITOUSEK: Sure, one more question. So, the recommendation thing says that, you know, and discussed on the presentation, that the area is considered part of the, what is it, Small Farms and Ranches Preservation area. KAY: Yes. VITOUSEK: And the CDP indicates that ideally those aren’t going to be subdivided into smaller lots. Is that right? KAY: So the CDP has a few, these are recommendations, not requirements— VITOUSEK: Sure. KAY: —and they have a few situations where and which rezone and subdivision would be allowed; that’s four or fewer lots, and if those lots would then, they are intended to be conveyed to family members. In this case my understanding is the applicant intends to live on one of the lots and sell the second lot on the open market. So it doesn’t to the letter of the CDP meet the requirement. But what it does do is, we think, maintains the intent of the CDP, and that’s to keep the area in large enough lots for agriculture and open space. So there is a standard requirement that we, or a requirement, that we put in to this, limiting the ability to build an additional farm dwelling on the property, to help kind of address the additional density issue, and that’s partially in response to the intent of the CDP. VITOUSEK: Yeah, and that’s kind of one of the things that I’m a little bit curious about. I mean, it seems like, you know, the concept of creating this area is to allow for families to, you know, do agricultural practices and have family farms and that kind of thing, and I think having a, you know, second agricultural dwelling for family is part of that. KAY: So additional farm dwellings are meant to house farm workers, and we didn’t see any proposed agriculture, any existing or proposed agriculture, on the property. So we are kind of trying to balance what the CDP says in terms of wanting to maintain that area in agriculture and an open space with, I mean, the original request, if you read, would have allowed for six smaller lots, which would have allowed for theoretically a larger number of farm dwellings. But unfortunately, again, that was even farther outside of conformance with the CDP and the General Plan, as well as the FA, the Family Agricultural zoning, was not intended for parcels that were considered Prime, Unique or Other in the ALISH, and in this case the entire parcel is Prime and Other, so the zoning itself didn’t conform with this. So that was another reason that we would not have been supportive of that original zoning request. In this case because it is Agricultural-5 acres, it’s a two-lot subdivision, the Ag zoning designation doesn’t have those limitations and, again, only creating one additional lot, only allowing one additional dwelling, keeping the rest of the area an open space and creating a second lot large enough for productive agriculture in a 7 EXHIBIT B five-acre minimum lot, were the reasons that we, the Director decided to support this. Did that answer your question? VITOUSEK: Yeah, I mean, you know, I get it. I just, to me it kind of makes it seem like it’s, okay, this is now not really intended for agriculture, because they don’t have the opportunity to have an additional dwelling for, you know, farm work, but instead it’s like creating two kind of more seemingly residential parcels. KAY: Well, so there is a, in our General Plan, there is a policy in terms of agricultural, not subdividing – pardon me – “Important Agricultural Land shall not be rezoned to parcels too small to support economically viable farming units.” We consider “economically viable farming units” to be about five acres. We used to have an Agricultural-1 acre zoning designation; we no longer have that, our minimum Agricultural zoning designation is five acres for that reason. There are some, you know, crops that can be grown on smaller plats of land, but in this area, given that the lot is part of the Small Farms and Ranches kind of designation, given what the kind of requirements and the intent of the CDP was, and the policies, the language in the General Plan, we felt that the Agricultural-5 acre was more appropriate. Also, the adjacent properties kind of were also granted that in the last six or seven years. So there was a bit of a precedent for that. VITOUSEK: Got you. I guess the other question is that this isn’t, I mean, historically, it has never really been used for agriculture, for planting agriculture, but it’s been ranching. KAY: Understood. VITOUSEK: Has there been any like analysis on stocking density that would indicate whether what parcel size is economically viable for the stocking density in this area? KAY: I’m not familiar with that. Your Chair may know better than I. VITOUSEK: Yeah, I figured— \[Laughter.\] UNGER: One cow. KAY: One cow. \[Laughter.\] KAY: And there are other topographical issues as well; there is the flood zone area, there is the stream running across the property, there is, you know, at the upper portion of the property, is hilly and, so, I mean, the reality is these are all the kind of things that we balance in making a land use recommendation. Again, this is just a recommendation to the Planning Commission, then ultimately to the County Council. Should you disagree, you are welcome to do that. Should you want to suggest additional conditions to help address some of, or what you are looking for, you are welcome to do that as well. 8 EXHIBIT B VITOUSEK: Thank you. KAY: You’re welcome. UNGER: Thank you. KAY: Thank you. UNGER: Would the applicant come forward, please? KERN: Good morning, Mr. Chair. UNGER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission? KERN: Yes. UNGER: Please state your name and area of residence. KERN: Good morning, Mr. Chair. I’m Zendo Kern, planning consultant. I live in the Hilo area. Next to me is Dan Kenknight. He resides there on the property. He’s representing the applicant. UNGER: Oh, okay, okay. Have you read and reviewed the recommendation from the Planning Department, and do you agree with the recommendations? KERN: We’ve reviewed the background report and recommendations, and we agree with most of them and I’d like to have discussion about a couple of the other ones. UNGER: Great, okay. KERN: So, I’ll just get it – sorry, first of all, good morning, Mr. Chair, good morning, Members of the Leeward Planning Commission, thank you for your service, Mr. Planning Director, Corporation Counsel and the wonderful staff of the Planning Department. Thank you for the presentation. I think they went over everything very well. This is a, it’s an interesting lot because it’s a spaghetti lot, and that’s a, so spaghetti lot is the ones that are narrow and very, very long. This lot is about 150 feet wide and extremely long, which create about ten and a half acres, which makes it challenging at best. So the concept here was to be able to basically split it into the two parcels after obviously we came in with a little bit more aggressive zoning because we believed that the Waimea area does need smaller parcels so people can actually have a, live and do agriculture on their property and do it at a more affordable price point. So that was the concept, but it was a little bit, you know, obviously didn’t quite fit there at this time. So with the existing Agricultural-5a zoning right around it does seem to be a very logical approach to doing that. And in this case we are looking to splitting it into two parcels, which will still allow it to be used for agriculture, certainly not extensive agriculture at that; so actually with the, you know, greenhouses and strawberries and whatnot there, there is 9 EXHIBIT B potential there, if somebody needs, has the desire to do it. So overall, I think it takes a challenge parcel and makes it a bit less challenging. And I was talking to another rancher, he said that, you know, even just fencing parcels like this, one that really long and narrow, it’s really challenging when you take a lineal foot of fencing versus more rectangular square parcels actually a lot less in there. So that gentleman actually agreed with this structure as well. So I can, just a couple of things, I’m happy to answer any questions from you folks, I’m happy to get into the conditions, as well as address some of the testimony that has come in so far. UNGER: Yeah, why don’t you go ahead and talk about the conditions and the testimony that’s come in, and answer questions afterwards – unless, Commissioners, if you want to interject, that’s fine. KERN: Sure. First off I think we’ll get into the conversation about additional farm dwelling on there. We are kind of, I think it’s the same thing, it is a pretty standard condition even on residential rezonings that are, which will allow an ‘ohana, they take that density away. The challenge is, well, this property may not be in an extensive agricultural use right now; it could be, and that’s the concept to keeping it five acres. And it’s challenge because it limits the ability to have an additional farm dwelling on there, if there goes into, you know, agriculture. In order to get an additional farm dwelling application, agreement, it’s not just granted; you actually have to go through a farm plan and show a farm plan and show, you know, how many hours of working was proposed, what you are growing and what kind of crops you are doing, and then that’s reviewed by the Planning Department and either approved or denied. So allowing that to be there doesn’t automatically happen, but it still gives that option. I think that, I think it’s worth considering especially when it’s still five acres in size, which does allow for agriculture. So our request would be to allow the additional farm dwellings to remain. That would be the first one. The second one would be the access point, limiting the access to a single access point off of there. When I talked to Robyn at the Department of Public Works, she said that, you know, that’s pretty much their standard condition. And so I looked into the Change of Zone that occurred just to the Honoka‘a side of it that was done in 2011, and that was a Change of Zone to A-5a as well, and I said, well, you know, that one had a condition that said that the connection to the Māmalahoa Highway shall conform to Chapter 22, no more than one lot will be permitted to have access taking – excuse me – have driveway taking direct access from Māmalahoa Highway and all the other lots will be provided access via the subdivision road, which essentially created two access points there. There was a lot that divided the road and the subdivision road. The challenge with this one is there is already an existing driveway there, the house is there, there is pavement on it, and the applicant would like the ability to leave that there and still, and then have the other access point coming up the flag as we are showing on this slide that has kind of that extension down there to get the access out of there. So that’s the other condition that we would like to see the two. So what happened was is that the original, the one in 2011, the same type of letter and condition came in from the Department of Public Works saying only one access point, and then that was changed obviously by Commission, Council, at the end of the day it was the Council that changed that. So it is possible to do that. I think it would be, as a potential middle ground, to say that as long as that dwelling exists. If that dwelling would be taken down, then, you know, maybe eliminate that, the additional access point. But right now there is already an existing access to the dwelling on the far side, and in order to come in on the other side, they 10 EXHIBIT B would have to shut down the driveway and additional, substantial improvements would have to be made to it. So it’s not asking for it, you know, in perpetuity per se, but because it’s there and existing, we’d like the ability to do that. Happy to have any discussion on those two requests. UNGER: Great, are you— KERN: I’m done with the, as far as addressing those two conditions. UNGER: Sure, we can address the, I guess, access point and the farm dwelling, which is— SHIMAOKA: Well, I just had a question because I know the family. Is the sale completed already? KERN: No. It’s in, it’s in contract. SHIMAOKA: Okay. CARR SMITH: Can you expound on that, please? So the property is in escrow? KERN: Correct. CARR SMITH: Okay. UNGER: Any more questions of the applicant? VITOUSEK: Sure, just a question on the flag. Is the topography feasible to allow for the construction of the long driveway? Would that be a pretty big grading project? KERN: Uh, it’s, it’s definitely feasible, yeah, definitely feasible. Some grading on there for sure, but it’s very feasible. VITOUSEK: Is that a, like, river kind of going, or a valley, dry gulch, going through the middle there? KERN: Yeah, it’s a gulch going through there. Wouldn’t necessarily consider it dry all the time, but it does get water going through, so— VITOUSEK: It does get some water. KERN: —they will have to, you know, mitigate that going through there. VITOUSEK: Some kind of a bridge or something? KERN: Something like that, absolutely. And the applicant is fully aware of that. 11 EXHIBIT B KEALOHA: Just to be clear, so the two driveways you are proposing are both coming off the Māmalahoa Highway. KERN: That’s correct. There is the flagpole one, which actually takes the lot and abuts the highway, so the— KEALOHA: So it’s two, two driveways within the 150-foot property? KERN: That’s correct. And it’s interesting as a driveway because the lot, the flag lot, technically then abuts the roadway, right, so you have two lots abutting the roadway. It would be different, if there was a road coming in there. CARR SMITH: So, for clarification, I didn’t catch the gentleman’s name sitting next to you. KENKNIGHT: Hi, I’m Dan Kenknight. CARR SMITH: Dan Kenknight. And you live in the home at the bottom of the property. KENKNIGHT: We rent the home and stay there when we are on the island and, yes, my partner in the deal lives there permanently, yes. CARR SMITH: So the Planning Department’s presentation mentioned that it was their understanding that the owner plan to live on the property and sell the other parcel. KENKNIGHT: Yeah, we are currently renting it, and we were looking at different plans with respect to the six-lot and, we are looking for the highest and best use for the property and what could, would fit into the community, as well as be good for the property. Our plans right now is to stay in the house. CARR SMITH: Are you related to the owner? KENKNIGHT: No, we are, we are partners in other businesses on the island. He’s been a longtime resident, I guess all of his life, in the Big Island and so— KERN: You mean the actual physical owner, the Mendes, right? KENKNIGHT: Oh, I’m sorry— KERN: Yeah. KENKNIGHT: —no, sorry. KERN: Mr. Kenknight, they were renting it and the property was up for sale, and they decided that they liked it, they saw the potential, and that they could actually potentially do something to bring it to the highest and best use. And so, the, obviously, the owners are fully aware of this and they had to sign off on the application, as well as the letter of authorization allowing me to, 12 EXHIBIT B you know, represent this and submit the application. So they are aware of it, they are okay with it, and Mr. Kenknight has been, they are trying to move this forward. KENKNIGHT: Yeah, I’m sorry, I misunderstood. CARR SMITH: No, that’s fine. So, is your sale contingent upon the rezoning of the property? KENKNIGHT: No, it is not. CHURCH: Let me understand – it’s probably just me – so along with the subdivision, then, the Department of Public Works wants just have one access and that would be the flag access, and what you want to do is maintain the existing access so that there would be two. Is that correct? KERN: That’s correct. To allow the existing driveway, as well as the flagpole access, which would be the access for the second lot. And the primary reason is because that access is, the current one is, already in, it’s got, you know, pavement on it and it goes right up to the house in the appropriate location. CHURCH: But the flag lot access is so close to the main house. What’s the, what’s the problem with using that? KERN: The way that driveway enters in, it would be much easier just to come off right there, into the house right there. Do you want to add onto that, Mr. Kenknight? KENKNIGHT: Yes. To answer your question, also we get into the issue of, with the flag lot, the back lot people, I guess, if we were to sell the back lot, they would have to grant easement to the front lot, and then you’ll have, just a lot, to me, layperson, right, a lot more simple to have an access to each since there are only two lots and they both front the highway, instead of hav- so, so now you are in a situation where if we have it on the east side, then the house lot, the front lot, has to have easement over the other guy’s property, and then maybe not a problem now, but down the road and as you look at people, you know, the maintenance of that and that kind of thing, just makes it simpler and makes a lot cleaner and easier for us. And the thing is there already, so that was our thinking behind it. KERN: And, again, that ended up being the case where the change of zone that happened just on the Honoka‘a side of it. UNGER: Any other questions? Any other comments from the applicant? KERN: Not on the, not on those conditions, I think we’ve covered those conditions. I’ll be happy to let you guys, you know, discuss that. We have gotten some, obviously, some comments from the neighbors. And just to answer Commissioner Carr Smith’s question, the notice did go out; it went out on nd February 2 notifying all the surrounding property owners on the list, of the change to the current, to the current request. 13 EXHIBIT B And so just real briefly to touch, I’m just going to touch base on those, I know there are some folks here that are going to testify on it, and this is all part of the process and it’s good. So the first one regarding the flooding issue on this, we understand that there are obviously flooding on the bottom area. I think mitigating the entryway where the cars would come off of by doing the change to the bottom of the flag will help that drastically. This condition exists, it has existed and does exist, and what we are doing there doesn’t, doesn’t change that. We’re going to be required to, as Commissioner Vitousek talked about earlier, we are required to, you know, mitigate any additional water that would be generated from, you know, the house, pavement, anything else. And that actually is a County law in general even without a Change of Zone; you have to maintain your water on your property. So they’ll be doing that, they are fully aware of that. I think we could potentially do something more, if the flooding was coming from our property, you know, from the subject property, but it’s just coming through it, so there is not too much that we could really do there. We understand that’s an issue and, like I said, the applicant is prepared to address that along the highway and do what they can to, you know, mitigate that. So, that addresses the concern. There was a letter that was sent in by another property owner that is basically referring to the original request, and he talks about, you know, wanting to keep that area in a little bit larger size Ag parcels, and I believe this basically completely goes along with what he was hoping for, so that takes care that. And, you know, the other one from Mr. Davis that just came in, we looked over that, and, you know, we feel that our request really matches the area and actually takes a very challenged lot and makes it actually more achievable to actually have people do some type of agriculture on there. And, again, it meets the surrounding area. So from a land use perspective with the zoning, the surrounding zoning, and the lot, it meets all the criteria, and if it didn’t, the Planning Department would not be recommending a favorable recommendation on this. So, at that, at this point I think we’ll open it up, and then we’d like the opportunity to, you know, come back after testimony, and talk story. UNGER: Very good. Great— KERN: Thank you very much. UNGER: —thank you. You may be seated. At this time I’d like to open up the hearing to public testimony. We do have two people signed up – if you would both like to come up at the same time – Daniel Wadahara and Sherry Kalaniopio. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission? WADAHARA: Yes. UNGER: Please state your name and area of residence. 14 EXHIBIT B WADAHARA: Area of residence is Māmalahoa Highway, 64-556, it’s right next to his lot, his property, on the Honoka‘a side. My concern is the flag line site. If they put one road over there, what’s going to happen with all the flooding that’s coming across— HALL: Sorry, sir, can you please state your name? WADAHARA: Daniel, yeah. The flooding going across, coming down from the hill, going across their property, and coming into our place. It’s kind of intense already, and if they put a road over there, would that increase the flooding? Would they be addressing flooding issues on that? And also the setback. If you are going to have a setback on both sides, it’s going to be very narrow for putting in a road, uh? That’s my— UNGER: Okay— WADAHARA: Okay. UNGER: —we’ll, we’ll, you can ask these questions, and then maybe when you are done, we can bring County back up to talk about setbacks— WADAHARA: Oh, okay. UNGER: —and discuss your question. So you’ve got a question on— WADAHARA: The road— UNGER: The road, the flooding that— WADAHARA: —the road going on the flag line. UNGER: Right— WADAHARA: Yeah, I’m— UNGER: —that might increase— WADAHARA: —concerned about that. If it will increase the flooding, yeah. UNGER: Right. WADAHARA: You know, like a, it would be like a gateway, yeah. If it’s paved or graded, water is going to come that way, and it’s right adjacent to our property. UNGER: Okay, and then your second concern was setback? WADAHARA: Yeah, setback, where would the road be? On the flag line site. UNGER: Okay. All right, we’ll— 15 EXHIBIT B WADAHARA: Yeah, going up to, they’re going to go in the back, how far back and how far away from the property, from our property, where would the road be, that’s my concern. UNGER: Okay, thank you. WADAHARA: Yeah, okay. KALANIOPIO: I’m Sherry Kalaniopio. I live two lots down from this, Waimea side. And my concern is the flooding, for one thing, that happens already, that if there would be anything, that would continue to divert it even worse into our properties. You mentioned that the Department of Water said that up too high you wouldn’t be able to get water; so where would the other, requirement for the other dwelling be on the second lot, if it’s up too high, they’re not going to meet that standard anyway. What do you plan to do, I ask the owner, or the person that’s trying to buy the property, what are your plans— UNGER: If you could, yeah, if you could direct your questions to the Planning Commission, yeah. KALANIOPIO: What are their plans for using it for ag right now? Do they foresee, do they have a plan, or are they just trying to do a development and make money off of the property, you know, turn it into two feasibles? If your, you buy ten acres – we ranch on it, we have cattle on it – you can’t do much on that bottom lot. It’s all Ag. You can put one cow on it. Our concern is leaving it to be what our town wants it to be. That’s why we bought ours so that Pu‘u Nani wouldn’t keep coming over. We don’t want to see more development; we want to see the ranching to continue the way it is. UNGER: Great, thank you. Are there any other members of the public that would like to testify? Seeing none, I need a motion to close public testimony. KEALOHA: So move. CARR SMITH: Second. UNGER: Motion by Commissioner Kealoha, second by Commissioner Carr Smith. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. UNGER: Opposed? \[None.\] Motion carries. Public hearing is closed. Christian, did you want to address, why don’t you address the first two, the setback concern and again the flooding? KAY: Sure, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the flooding issue, again, I think, is covered with the three conditions that we have in there relative to floodplain, making sure that any project-related runoff is maintained onsite, and Chapter 10, which is grading and grubbing, erosion control. The reality is much of the lower lot and the adjacent lot is in the AO flood zone, so there is going to be flooding as part of that. And as I explained before, again, those conditions should address any 16 EXHIBIT B project-related runoff or flooding. So we didn’t feel like that would be a reason to provide an unfavorable recommendation. You know, the applicant would be required to engineer it such and follow the requirements to make sure that that’s mitigated. In terms of the setback – pardon me, let me try and get to this – again, this is just an image from Robyn Matsumoto’s proposed driveway design. Unfortunately, you can’t see the existing dwelling, it would be kind of in this area. The 20-foot roadway, the flag lot – and again, this is just her concept – would be roughly in, could be roughly in this area, and that should provide enough, that’s 20 feet, the side yard setback is going to be 20 feet, and there should be enough area in the front even with this extended driveway connection that’s 95 feet from the eastern property line to ensure that the front yard setback for the existing dwelling is met as well, so I don’t think the setbacks would be an issue from a zoning perspective, and that’s with this current driveway alignment. Does that— UNGER: Great— KAY: Okay. UNGER: —great, thank you. KAY: And there were, were there other— UNGER: Well, there was the, and I’ll try to do a summary based on what I heard and Commissioners can add as you see, but the – did you have a question? CHURCH: I had a question, yeah. KAY: Yes. CHURCH: Looking at the sketch right here, the applicant is asked to have, to maintain the existing access plus this flag lot. There has been no mention of safety here. And it seems to me, I don’t know to the extent that this type of sketch gets implemented or the Department of Public Works is going to require, but it seems to me that this kind of access would improve visibility and safety going both ways. And that would be another reason, I think, to be able to eliminate the existing access and service it from this area. Is that a factor or am I just making something up? KAY: Yes, so this design assumes a single access. Based on the conversations I’ve had with Robyn at Public Works, the single access is kind of a direction, it’s a non-negotiable, it’s a shall, whereas the access outside of the flood zone is a should or a recommendation. Based on the memo, it’s because this is a collector road and that’s their standard, and a lot of that, I think, comes off of safety as well given the proximity of the two accesses together. So that’s why we wrote that as such. Again, this is something that, if you disagree with that, you can suggest a change and ultimately up to the County Council. But I think the other thing is there is this Condition D that says, “The driveway connection to Māmalahoa Highway shall conform to Chapter 22, Streets, of the Hawai‘i County Code.” I’m not as familiar with that section, but there may be that, you know, that requirement may be in there, so if this condition stays in there, 17 EXHIBIT B then it may be a moot point because if Public Works says no, we are not going to allow two accesses, even taking that other mention out of the Condition D about a single access may be moot. We did request a representative from Public Works to be here this morning. Unfortunately, she’s not in today, so. UNGER: Great, thanks. KAY: Thank you. UNGER: Commissioner Carr Smith. CARR SMITH: Christian, I was curious. Do you know for fact whether this was suggested based upon the existing Māmalahoa Highway? It’s in the process of being widened right now. Is this after widening or— KAY: So, yeah, thank you for the question. If you see this area here, it says “15’ FRW”; that’s a 15-foot future road widening setback requirement. And that, I believe, is Condition F. CARR SMITH: Is that based on the way that the expansion is going to be completed or prior to? KAY: So this, the way this comes out now is it’s 80 feet from the existing property line to the future road widening setback, 95 feet, from the existing property line to the existing frontage along the highway. That’s not answering your question. CARR SMITH: Is the future road widening what is occurring right now? KAY: I am not aware of the project going on right now. The 15-foot road widening, future road widening setback, my understanding based on the conversation I had, would be kind of something into the future and not maybe what’s going on right now. Because sometimes we get comments from them and they say that it shall be subdivided and dedicated right away; in this case they said, “Upon the request of the Department of Public Works, the applicant, its successors or assigns shall dedicated the land encumbered by the future road widening setback to the County of Hawai‘i ….” My conversation with Robyn, she indicated that the County would actually pay for the subdivision itself, it’s just that the applicant would be required to dedicate the land once it was subdivided out. So that indicates to me that is possibly further into the future than what’s actually going on right now. CARR SMITH: Thank you. KAY: Yeah. UNGER: Commissioner Vitousek. VITOUSEK: Sure, basically in following up with the gentleman’s point about the flag lot and creating possible runoff. Has there been any kind of like engineering study to figure out what that grading is going to do to the runoff? Because by creating the flag lot, we are saying that this area is going to be graded in order to create access; so we are basically all but requiring that this 18 EXHIBIT B is where there is going to be a significant amount of grading. So, has there been any like analysis on the engineering level to figure out what that’s going to do to the drainage? KAY: Not that came in with the application, and, again, this is something that is, that condition requires appropriate engineering to keep project-related runoff on the property, so they would be required to do that. And if that didn’t happen, then they would be in violation of that condition of the ordinance. VITOUSEK: Right— KAY: If it’s carried through. VITOUSEK: Well, I mean, it just seems like that might be information that would be really helpful in making the determination on whether a subdivision like this is feasible, to have it in advance, rather than saying, oh, yeah, we can do this, we don’t know whether it’s going to work or not, but— KAY: Well, that’s also addressed at the subdivision portion of the process, so prior to subdivision that would have to be addressed to make sure that that condition could be met. VITOUSEK: Is there ever – I mean, you know, forgive me for not knowing – but is there ever any kind of situations where that would be identified in advance to this? Because basically this is like the first kick in getting the ball rolling, and it, you know, seems to me like it would be helpful to really understand all the ramifications of getting the ball rolling before we kick it. KAY: Yeah, based on my experience mostly for smaller subdivisions like this, I mean, if there is a proposed roadway, there may be some pre-engineering done, but for a subdivision like this where it is just a driveway lot, or a flag lot for a driveway, it’s not usual that that comes ahead of time. VITOUSEK: Then the, you know, again, on the question about the water and water service, is that, is that something that, because it’s touching the road, that considers it’s within the service pressure area and then the applicant is responsible— KAY: No, it has to do with elevation, the elevation of the lot. So, I don’t have the memo in front of me, but essentially what it said was from the original proposed subdivision, which is Figure 2 of that original application, indicated the lot, proposed Lot No. 99-5 and No. 99-6, would be considered out of the pressure zone, so— VITOUSEK: Okay, but 99-4 is in. KAY: Ninety-nine-four is in, and so 99-4, if you look at, if you look at the new proposed two-lot subdivision, the lower boundary of 99-4 is roughly where the lower boundary of the upper lot in the two-lot subdivision is, so that would be within, the new lot would be within that service area and water service could be made there, VITOUSEK: So if they were to locate their house in this area, it would be serviceable. 19 EXHIBIT B KAY: The language that they use is that the lot is within the area. I’m not sure— VITOUSEK: Portion of the lot. KAY: Yeah— VITOUSEK: Okay. KAY: —so, the portion of that lot is within the service area, therefore the lot could be serviced. VIOTUSEK: Got you. KAY: I’m not sure, and maybe Jeff can address it, if the home would have to be built within that area or if they can bring it up. I’m not as familiar with that as possible, so. Thanks, Jeff. DARROW: Thank you, Commissioner Vitousek. So my understanding is that the actual meter itself has to abut the lot, and so in this particular case I’m not sure if it’s going to be a situation where they can actually do the meter at the highway because they are proposing a flag lot. But the reality is even if they move it up to the lower portion of the upper lot, it would meet the requirement, then from there they can run a line. They would be responsible for the line from the meter to their house at that point. UNGER: And then the other question I heard was are there any plans for the applicant to actually do farming? As it sits now, is there a plan to begin farming? And I’ll summarize from what I’ve heard, and I can stand corrected when you come up and answer the question; it’s my understanding based on what I heard that there are no plans right now to farm. The only thing I heard about the possibility of farming would be if you were to get a farmer’s dwelling permit, part of that application then would be to submit a full farming plan showing exactly where, what crops are going to be planted, etcetera. But again, there are no plans to farm right now. If that’s correct, then we can, then we – would you like to speak? Yes, you can come up and address that. KERN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I’ll address the activities on the farming. The applicant basically doesn’t have immediate plans of doing it currently right now, and would make sense because they are in the process of acquiring the property. And what would occur in the future could be a different story. And with the ability, or the possibility, of having some intensive, intense agriculture on there or greater agriculture on there, the ability to have a farm dwelling would seem advantageous. Do you want to add to that, Mr. Kenknight? KENKNIGHT: Yeah, I would. It’s beautiful property and we became very interested in it because it was going to be sold. And so as we looked at it, there was a few cows on the property, a real nice guy named Bert, he lives Kona side, so he brings cows over. But really, and I’m a layperson on this, but really not viable for a fulltime kind of ranching situation. And so we know we want to do, we see that it’s going to be an ag, but we don’t have a specific plan for right now what with the flooding, and then the question with respect to the size of the lots, and things like that. But if we were to go for a, my understanding is you don’t automatically get an additional farm dwelling; you have to apply for a farm dwelling. So what we are asking is that we are not 20 EXHIBIT B precluded from applying for that. We don’t look it as a given. We understand, you know, that those would have to be – I hope that helps. UNGER: Sure. Questions? CARR SMITH: Sorry if I’m confused, but you are representing the property owner, right? The property – I’m talking to him – is the applicant, correct? KERN: The applicant is Mr. Kenknight and his partner who is buying the property from the owner who is selling it. CARR SMITH: I didn’t hear that anywhere that the tenant was the buyer. KERN: That’s what we talked about it was— CARR SMITH: Oh, okay— KERN: —that it was in the, that it was in the escrow. CARR SMITH: Okay, sorry, I didn’t hear that. KERN: No problem. CARR SMITH: Okay, I thought you were representing the property owner— KERN: I’m representing the applicant— CARR SMITH: —for the rezoning. KERN: —the property owner basically gave permission to the applicant, as well as to myself to represent the applicant in this matter, so they are fully aware of it and what’s, you know, what’s going on and they— CARR SMITH: Thank you. KERN: —consent to it. CHURCH: If there is no ag going on on the parcel right now – is that correct? KENKNIGHT: Yes, that’s correct. There were some cows but they are not there now. CHURCH: Okay, so my question is a little bit off the wall but I’m kind of interested; so if there is no ag that’s going on there and hasn’t been for some time, are the property tax is being paid based upon ag and there is no requirement for agricultural use? KENKNIGHT: I don’t know the answer to that question, but up until recently there were cows on the property. That’s all I can say. 21 EXHIBIT B CHURCH: Oh, so that was the ag going on, okay. KERN: And, if I could, I’ll just briefly talk about the flooding issue that came up with the roadway there. So what’s happened is with this flooding situation, the flood is coming up from mauka and it’s traveling down and it’s going to cross that road over. It will be addressed during the subdivision process of it of how any improvement to that area would affect the flooding. Now, the flooding is not derived from the property, derived from that road, then going over to the neighboring property. So in this case, depending on what they put there, they can’t, obviously, can’t increase the amount of water volume there, but as it’s flowing over it, there could be a gravel road, there could be a little swale there. They obviously can’t stop it, divert it, so they are going to have to do something that obviously works. But I think it’s just important to understand that the flooding isn’t derived from the property, therefore the roadway is just basically maintaining that the water, the current water, that’s moving, can move over that appropriately. VITOUSEK: Well, I mean, obviously, a road can also change the flow of water considerably. KERN: Absolutely, absolutely. VITOUSEK: Yeah. KERN: And that’s, that’s, that’s known, and the applicant is fully aware of that that is going to need to be addressed and it cannot increase. And then we talked about the 15-foot wider road set-aside that would go to the County in the future for future widening of that. The Water, the Department of Water Supply issue is that Department of Water Supply does allow one lot to be served out of the pressure zone, and in this case both lots would fall into the pressure zone and it would be on the applicant how they run their waterline up there. After the meter the Department of Water Supply they don’t really care; if you have a big leak, they higher bill, you know what I mean, we’ve all dealt with it. So in this case even if we had the lot up higher and the water, we were going to bring a waterline up there with the meter up top, the Department of Water Supply would allow one to be out the low pressure zone. So either case this will be in the pressure zone and then they’ll have to deal with that, they’ll have to deal with on that side of it. And I’d also like to point out that, you know, water is a challenge in the county in Change of Zones, for the concurrency law require water, and this property is one the few that actually has water. There are a lot of people that would like to do something with their property, split it, give one of the lots to their kids, and they can’t do it because it doesn’t have water. And so it’s a, that \[inaudible\] mitigates and regulates so much potential Change of Zones. And in this case we have that. And we have a very challenged lot, that this would be a much better configuration and we would fulfill, meet, basically the surrounding land uses, and as far as zoning goes, it’s compliant. So we humbly ask for your support. UNGER: Great, thank you. Any other questions? You may be seated. Commissioners, the floor is open for a motion. 22 EXHIBIT B SHIMAOKA: Yeah, I move that the Commission enter into executive session to consult with our Corporation Counsel regarding questions and issues pertaining to our powers, duties, privileges, liabilities pursuant to HRS 92-5. CHURCH: Second. UNGER: So we have a motion and a second. So move. Let’s take a – all in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. UNGER: Opposed? \[None.\] Let’s take a ten-minute break to break into executive session. Members of the public, applicants, if you could please leave the room. Thank you. Chairman Unger called a short recess at 11:04 a.m. and the room was cleared. The Commission went into executive session at 11:07 a.m. for the purpose of consulting with its counsel regarding questions and issues pertaining to the Commission’s powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities, pursuant to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes 92-5. At 11:11 a.m. it was moved by Commissioner Shimaoka and seconded by Commissioner Church that the Commission go out of executive session. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was reconvened at 11:12 a.m. UNGER: The meeting is called back into session. Commissioners, the floor is open for a motion. KEALOHA: I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the request to amend Change of Zone Ordinance No. 02 64 \[sic\], based on the Planning Director’s recommendation, which shall be adopted. Oh, amending Condition E. UNGER: I need a second. CHURCH: I’ll second. UNGER: Floor is open to discussion. KEALOHA: I’m inclined to vote favorably based on the County’s conditions for several reasons. One, under the current circumstance these parties would be able to apply for an additional farm dwelling now so that, so by changing the zoning with the County’s Condition I, it’s going to maintain the same density level as far as construction is concerned, so that’s important. And also, relocating the driveway under the current status of the property to accommodate an additional farm dwelling would also be possible. So by approving this with the conditions proposed by the County, it wouldn’t be impacting the surrounding areas as greatly as one might think. CARR SMITH: I will not be supporting the motion. I’m a Waimea resident, I’m a longtime realtor, and I definitely support property rights, but Waimea is unique and I think that the CDP 23 EXHIBIT B and the intention on small farms and ranches in those specific areas is important to pay attention to, and I think that the feasibility of ag use in that lower flooding area is not reasonable. And the applicant being the property owner and their intention to just sell the property, I think I would be a little bit more supportive or sympathetic, if there was family involved, but that’s not the case. So I’ll be voting no. UNGER: I’ll be voting in favor of it. I agree with Commissioner Kealoha. This will be a different discussion for me, if we were talking six lots on this parcel; we are not. I think a good settlement is one where nobody is happy. I think the neighbors will still have their concerns, I understand that. I think the applicant, it was mentioned highest and best use, six-lots certainly is a higher and better use, but two lots, considering everything including the flood issue, I think this is a good position to be in. I would not be in favor of allowing a second dwelling for farm dwelling, again, balanced against flooding issues; if flooding issues were not there, this would be a different discussion. I’m not in favor of using both driveways. Keeping the existing driveway, I, I’m hearing the applicant saying it’s more convenient to keep the first one, but the fact is that inconveniences the thousands of cars that are traveling in front of Māmalahoa Highway with two driveways there, and so yes to work through easements for the back lot. I understand that’s an inconvenience to the applicant, but not so much, but better for members of the public. So I will be voting in favor of the motion. SHIMAOKA: I’m not going to vote in favor primarily for two reasons. I’m not satisfied with the answer on how you are going to control flooding. I’ve been on two occasions driving past the property and the adjacent properties where you got above-knee height of water. That’s a lot on that highway when you get a deluge of water at, you know, a specific time, I mean there is a lot of water. And I’ve seen where, the particular house there, where the water came almost up to where the door is, and there’s like about four, five steps up to the door. The other issue is, yeah, of course, is the two entryways, you’ve got one that’s existing and the other one that – again, I don’t know if, and you guys couldn’t answer that, if the extension or the widening of the highway goes past that property, too, because they are working from Hilo towards Waimea Town on the widening of the highway. Jeff? I don’t know. KAY: Yeah, unfortunately, we were unaware of the extent of the project. The 15-foot road widening setback is for the future. UNGER: To clarify, if this motion gets approved, there will only be one driveway on the Honoka‘a side. KAY: As written, the driveway will be outside of the AO flood zone— UNGER: Correct, correct. KAY: — a single driveway outside of the AO flood zone. UNGER: Correct. SHIMAOKA: Yeah, but my issue was that’s two turn-ins that you’ve got there in that small area, yeah, okay. 24 EXHIBIT B CHURCH: Well, I’ve listened carefully to Commissioner Shimaoka and Commissioner Carr Smith, and I think they make pretty good arguments. I’m sitting on the fence here, but I think that the property as a single unit has a better chance of finding ag use, and it does chopping it up and – so I appreciate the arguments that they both have made. VITOUSEK: Sure, you know, my concern is that I don’t feel like we have enough information to fully understand the effects of the flooding. And I fully understand that it’s not something that you guys will normally be doing for a small subdivision of two lots, but in a situation where you are crossing two pretty major floodplains with an extended flag lot, to me, is going to have an effect, and I would want to know what that was before I was comfortable with it. UNGER: Any other comments? \[None.\] Hea inoa. Roll call. KAY: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Kealoha? KEALOHA: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Church? CHURCH: Nay. KAY: Commissioner Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: No. KAY: Commissioner Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Nay. KAY: Commissioner Shimaoka? SHIMAOKA: No. KAY: And Chair Unger? UNGER: Aye. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The motion fails, four to two. UNGER: You’ll be, Applicant, you’ll be notified in writing of the Commission’s decision. DARROW: Mr. Chairman, if I could make a recommendation. The motion before the Commission was a recommendation for a favorable recommendation, which did not pass. There could be an opportunity for another motion to be made at this time, and then again a roll call. 25 EXHIBIT B UNGER: Oh, okay, right, okay, got it, so that is required; we need to officially deny the, or make an unfavorable recommendation. So the floor is open for a motion. SHIMAOKA: Yeah, I move that an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for a Change of Zone, Docket No. REZ 18-000232, and that’s Condition I, too, yeah. And I already stated the reasons. UNGER: Right. CARR SMITH: Second. UNGER: We have a motion by Commissioner Shimaoka, second by Commissioner Carr Smith. The floor is open for further discussion. KAY: I do have one procedural question for Corporation Counsel. There were several stated reasons for not supporting the favorable recommendation. In terms of our reasons for an unfavorable recommendation, would we be citing all of those or just Commissioner Shimaoka’s reasons? HALL: The way that the motion was stated, it would just be his. If he likes to include everybody’s, then he would have to amend his motion. KAY: Thank you. UNGER: Commissioner Shimaoka, you have an opportunity to amend your motion to include more of the other Commissioners’ comments— SHIMAOKA: No, I’m satisfied with my reasons, so I’m not going to amend— KAY: Thank you. UNGER: Roll call. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Shimaoka? SHIMAOKA: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Church? CHURCH: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Kealoha? 26 EXHIBIT B KEALOHA: Nay. KAY: Commissioner Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. KAY: And Chair Unger? UNGER: Nay. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Motion carries, four to two. UNGER: Thank you. You’ll be notified in writing by the Commission. The discussion ended at 11:24 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 27 EXHIBIT B