Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-03-07 Hearing Transcript - William Quinn Pahoa Farm & GardenWINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT MARCH 7, 2019 A regularly advertised continued hearing on the application of WILLIAM S. QUINN — PAHOA FARM & GARDEN, LLC (SPP 18-000199) was called to order at 3:36 p.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Joseph Clarkson presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Gilbert Aguinaldo, Joseph Clarkson, Donn Dela Cruz, Donald Ikeda, John Replogle. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Thomas Raffipiy. ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Malia Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager) (9:02 a.m. to 1:50 p.m. & 3:36 p.m. to 4:35 p.m.), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner), Alex Roy (Planner) (9:02 a.m. to 12:05 p.m. & 3:27 p.m. to 4:35 p.m.), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 3 members from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: WILLIAM S. QUINN - PAHOA FARM & GARDEN, LLC (SPP 18-000199) Continued hearing on an application for a Special Permit to allow the development of a 3,600 square -foot farm and garden retail store and related improvements on 32,670 square feet of land in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located on the mauka (west) side of the Pahoa Bypass Road, approximately 1,800 feet southwest of its intersection with Post Office Road, Pahoa, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 1-5-005:024. CLARKSON: We'll be considering now Item No. 4 on the agenda, Pahoa Farm & Garden. This has been continued for many months, so I'm going to ask staff to do a quick recap of the, this Special Permit application. KAY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Planning Commission. If I could turn your attention to the screen. Again, this is a Special Permit application. Location of the subject parcel shown here, outlined or filled in, in red, is in the Puna District of Hawaii Island; more specifically, in the Pahoa area. The Applicant is requesting a Special Permit to allow the development of a 3,600 -square foot farm and garden retail store and related improvements on a 32,670 -square foot parcel of land. The proposed farm and garden retail store will stock and sell various products related to farming, animal care, and agriculture maintenance including the following. Primarily Hawaii grown agricultural products, vegetables, herbs, fruits, coconut trees, native plants, fragrant/seasonal 10V1111.11 11 flowers, ground covers, palms, trees, plants conducive to bee pollination and medicinal plants and other non-agricultural products—farm feed, scratch feed, pet food, dog and cat wormers, fish food, aquaculture products, plant pots, pesticides and herbicides, various birds, live fish, egg laying chickens, and agriculture related tools. The proposed improvements on the parcel include a 3,600 -square foot building, including an office, storage, and retail space to display products and conduct transactions; approximately 3,000 square feet of outside nursery space to grow and house various live plants; a greenhouse; and a compacted gravel parking area with 15 regular parking stalls and one ADA parking stall. The Applicant is proposing, anticipates the need for seven full-time employees and one part-time employee. Proposed hours of operation include Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Saturday and Sunday from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. The Applicant proposes to complete construction within one year of receiving all the necessary planning and building permits. The estimated cost of the project is $150,000. The zoning for the subject parcel is Agricultural – 1 acre as indicated in the light green. Again, the subject parcel is located along the Pahoa Bypass Road. Parcels along, across the Bypass Road are Agricultural – 1 acre; to the southwest of the subject parcel, Agricultural – 5 acres; and then Pahoa Town is generally indicated in this mix of zoning which is Village Commercial, Multiple -Family Residential, and Single -Family Residential zonings. The subject parcel and much of the surrounding area is designated as Agricultural by the State Land Use Boundary Map designation, and then the areas surrounding Pahoa Village are Urban as indicated in the pink color. The General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map designates the subject parcel and much of the surrounding area to the west and north and south as Low Density Urban. Areas more in line with the Pahoa Village is designated Medium Density Urban. Across the Bypass Road, there is some Extensive Agriculture and some Important Agricultural Land designations. Here's a map of the Puna CDP, that came out of the Puna CDP, and this is boundaries for the Pahoa Regional Town Center as indicated by the dotted lines. The subject parcel is located here, again along the Pahoa Bypass Road outside of that designated regional town center boundary. Here's an aerial photograph of the subject parcel outlined in red. Again, we've got Pahoa Bypass Road running generally north -south. This is an older aerial photograph that shows a lot of vegetation. The subject parcel has since been cleared and grubbed and graded. This is the Applicant's proposed site plan. Again, in this, in this image, the Pahoa Bypass Road is running generally east -west. Driveway access coming off of the Bypass Road. Parking toward the front of the parcel. The main dwelling, oh pardon me, the main structure toward the back of the parcel. The area for plants and retail in the greenhouse area indicated on the left side of the image. Here are some photos of the subject property from across the Pahoa Bypass Road. This is looking toward Pahoa High School, the subject parcel on the right-hand side. You can generally see the area where the driveway is existing. Here, on this upper right, it's a little bit more EXHIBIT D 2 zoomed in. Again, the subject parcel on the right-hand side, and the driveway in this area. And, this is a looking directly across Pahoa Bypass Road showing the existing driveway area. And, here are some photos of the Pahoa Bypass Road. In this, both left-hand photos are looking north toward Hilo. As you can see, the subject parcel in this case is on the left. The driveway is located generally in this area. This small, white image here is the top of the County vehicle that was parked in the driveway, and so this is again kind of showing that the subject access along a curve, and then this, on the right-hand side is looking toward Pahoa High School, the subject parcel being generally on the right-hand side here. Again, the driveway access being generally along this curb, pardon me, curve. These bottom two images are from the current driveway. This bottom left is looking toward Hilo, and then I just turned around and took a picture looking toward Pahoa High School to show an idea of sight lines for oncoming traffic. The Applicant, pardon me, the Planning Director is recommending denial of the application for several reasons. I won't read them here because I'll cover them a little bit more in depth. Here, the first is the proposed use will not promote the effectiveness and objectives of Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended. The request fails to establish an effective land use pattern in the area. Pahoa Town has been established as the central commercial area for such services for this particular section of Puna. The proposed retail commercial use will be located outside of the Pahoa commercial area and along the Pahoa Bypass Road which functions to quickly move Bypass traffic around Pahoa Town, and was not meant to provide access to a secondary commercial corridor. Thus, the proposed retail commercial use is an inappropriate land use for this particular area. The second reason the Director is recommending denial is the proposed use is inconsistent with the objectives to be sought to be accomplished by the land use law and regulations, and the proposed use could unreasonably burden public agencies to provide further infrastructure. The Planning Department has sought to concentrate retail commercial and similar types of uses within the Pahoa Town to focus traffic and related infrastructure improvements within that localized area. There is the potential for encouraging strip commercial development that may attract the infilling of lands along the Pahoa Bypass by other commercial developments, and the Director is concerned about setting a precedence in this case. Such strip development would create rapid growth increase and adverse impacts to traffic as multiple access points would be required for such developments along the Pahoa Bypass Road. The County and State have no plans to provide infrastructure to accommodate commercial uses along the Pahoa Bypass Road; therefore, it would not be prudent to sanction the spread of such traffic generating commercial uses. There are also traffic safety concerns. Both the Planning Department and members of the public have serious public safety concerns over the potential traffic hazards caused by locating a retail commercial use along the Pahoa Bypass Road. The frontage of the subject parcel is located on the inside of a blind curve of the Bypass Road on a hill with limited sight distance, potentially making turning movements in and out of the proposed business hazardous to impending traffic, pardon me, and impeding traffic functions on the Bypass Road. To determine that the access is safe and appropriate for commercial uses, the State Department of Transportation is recommending that prior to the Planning Commission granting a Special Permit, the Applicant EXHIBIT D 3 be required to submit an access assessment prepared by a professional engineer for review and acceptance by the Department of Transportation. The assessment should include both verification of sight distance and an evaluation of the driveway for commercial operation. The Applicant has chosen not to conduct the required access assessment prior to the Planning Commission hearing or approval of the permit essentially. The Planning Director cannot support a Special Permit for a commercial use if a safe access for that commercial use cannot be ensured. The request is contrary to both the General Plan and the Puna Community Development plan. The General Plan Course of Action 14.3.5.1.2(a) states that centralization of commercial activities in Pahoa Town rather than along the Pahoa Bypass to serve the residents of lower Puna shall be encouraged. The subject property is located outside of the Pahoa Regional Town Center boundaries designated in the Puna CDP and, therefore, is inconsistent with the preferred CDP land use pattern. Further, in 2012, the County Council passed Ordinance 12-89 amending the LUPAG Map in the area to support the CDP concept of developing Pahoa as a regional town center by designating land area for higher density Urban uses in the town center and directing commercial and industrial uses away from the Bypass. Finally, the Director typically does not recommend approval for Special Permits on lands located in Urban General Plan designations as changing the zoning of the property is a more suitable land use entitlement process. For the reasons previously stated, the Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission deny the application for Special Permit. Since the last hearing, the Applicant has submitted a letter to us asking us to reconsider or giving us an update on what he's done to try and identify alternative access from Pahoa Village Road, and then has also indicated that he has engaged an engineer the line of sight issues brought up by Department of Transportation. Just to be clear, DOT asked for not only a sight distance evaluation but also an evaluation of the driveway for a commercial operation. In the February 4th letter to the Commission, the Applicant indicated that they did hire an engineer. They went out to do a sight distance evaluation, but the Applicant was not willing to pay the money before a determination was made on the Special Permit to come up with a report. Again, just to reiterate, DOT asked that all of that be cleared away and approved by DOT prior to us granting the permit. The Applicant has chosen not to do that. There was also another piece of correspondence that came in, and this was a January 29th memo from Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division, saying that they had no objections to the Special Permit on archaeological or historical resource grounds. Just to kind of reiterate what we said the last time, the Director feels like this is a good project, but it's located in the wrong place. It's something that from the beginning when the Applicant's representative came in to kind of touch base with us and see generally how we'd support this, we told them right along that this was the wrong place and gave them all the reasons that we stated EXHIBIT D 4 in our denial recommendation. So, with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that the Commission may have at this point. CLARKSON: Any questions for staff? KAY: Thank you. CLARKSON: If not, at this time, we'd like to have the Applicant and the Applicant's—or the Applicant's representative come forward. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission today? KERN: Yes. QUINN: I do. CLARKSON: Please introduce yourself and then proceed. Please concentrate on issues, particularly issues that are new since our last hearing if you can. KERN: Very good, excuse meZendo Kern, planning consultant representing the Applicant, Mr. William Quinn to my right here. I'm glad we get the end the day with a nice, simple one, right? No, it's been a long day for you all, so we'll try to not go too much back in the past, but I think there is, there are some points to reiterate. I'm pretty sure all the, most of the Commissioners were here on the last go -around. I'm going to try to be relatively quick on my points, and I'm going to let Mr. Quinn do the talking because this is a really big deal for him. We did take the opportunity during this time to look at a secondary access or an alternative access off the side road there, and when we started getting into the complexity of it and the topography and what it would cost to come in off of there was extremely cost prohibitive, and at this point in time, with the way it's, you know it's already a tough time out in Pahoa, and it's already a small business. To burden the Applicant with any more expense is just, is just a challenge. Same kind of situation with the engineer. He did have an engineer come out there. It has line of sight. I'll let him speak the specifics of that, but we choose not to, he choose not to pay the additional amount of money on that, especially with the challenge of this. He has no problem doing that. Be happy to have that as part of the condition, and this is kind of the fine line. Obviously, if it was a favorable recommendation, I think he would have no problem paying for that, but at this point in time, you know, it's kind of on the fence, so I think we can do some of this through a condition. I think the big, the big issue here is this is Pahoa Farm and Garden. This is agriculture. This isn't a convenience store. This isn't a gas station. This isn't a clothing store. This is on ag land, and when the Applicant got the land, he thought he was actually going to be able to do this. And, it was only until afterwards and going through the process that it came out to this, and I'll let him explain more to that. So, I think the issue that was coming up before as far as setting precedence, I think this is different. I really do, because it's agriculture on ag land, and it hits that nuance where a Special EXHIBIT D 5 Permit is appearing to be needed, but it's not, you know, it's not a convenience store. It's not a restaurant. It's not it's not, it's not a cafe, and I think that's, I think that's a really, really big thing to consider. Also, the other big factor, I know I said this before, this is Puna, and Puna can be very controversial. We have close to 250 signatures of support. We have two letters of opposition. That's unprecedented in Puna. It really is. And, I think that's a testament to Mr. Quinn and his family and his business here. So, I'm going to let Mr. Quinn speak his mind, and I can help fill in anywhere I can. Mr. Quinn? QUINN: Thank you folks very—yeah, thank you folks very much for having me back. We have put great thought into the concern, concerns of this council, especially with regards to customer safety and traffic safety. In 19 years of doing business in Pahoa, we have not had one liability claim or traffic incident where we are presently located. We play, we pay close attention to our customers and their needs. We do not advertise our business. No big grand openings. We rely on word of mouth advertisement. We feel it is important to note that both the geographic and demographic criteria of Puna is very specific. I do not believe big business will target this area due to the nature of our small town. We want to thank the Planning Department and the Department of Transportation for bringing to our attention the line of sight issue. Also, there were two opposition letters. One of them expressed concern about hydroplaning. So, what we had done is we had gone down to the Department of Transportation on Makaala Street— HALL: Please speak into the mic QUINN: —and I spoke to a gentleman over there. He was very nice. He made a copy of the book that the Department of Transportation uses as a guideline for the line of sight issue that the Planning Department feels is not there. So, after getting the two copies in this book that the Department of Transportation uses, he gave me two pages, and these two pages will express the amount of feet that you need at a certain rate of speed. On the first sheet, travelling at 35 miles an hour, and it is a 45 mile an hour zone, it would require 250 feet stopping sight. If you're travelling at 45 miles per hour, you would require 360 stopping sight distance. On this other sheet that came out of this—that the Department of Transportation uses, travelling at 35 miles per hour, you would need 250 feet. Travelling at 45 miles per hour, you would need 360 feet line of sight. What we had done is we had done a preliminary check with a licensed engineer who came out to the parcel. To just do a preliminary line of sight distance, it cost us a $150. The request of a hard copy put in writing could be furnished to you folks. That cost would be $700. So, we paid the initial one hundred and fifty, and what he came up with is, the sight distance towards Kalapana is 350 feet. We're short ten feet going right. If you were to look left towards Kea`au, we have 465 feet. We surpass the requirements on this book by over a 150 feet, I think it is. What has to be done is the side of the road has to be maintained with the California grass. We feel if that was maintained, and it's something we could do on a regular basis, we would be able to acquire the extra ten feet to make that line of sight, and we can also furnish you with a hard EXHIBIT D 6 copy from an engineer showing that, yes, we do have the line of sight. The line of sight we have is enough and meets the requirements of the Department of Transportation. So, that we know for sure. In regards to the hydroplaning, safety to our visitors and residents would be better served if the speed limit were lowered to 35 miles per hour as it is down the road by HAAS School and the Post Office Road. It's a liability issue for the State and the County, the hydroplaning. We did a little research, and this is what we found. Dynamic hydroplaning occurs when a moving tire is completely separated from the pavement by a layer of water. Dynamic hydroplaning usually occurs at speeds above 45 miles per hour. By lowering it to 35, the liability issue of the State and the County would be diminished greatly. At 45 miles per hour, there's a possibility, but according to the studies that they do on dynamic hydroplaning, it does not exist at 45 miles per hour and lower. It would be a consideration that I feel if the State or the County looked at would possibly save the State and the County liability issues moving forward. In November of 2017, the Planning Department furnished our family a map and zoning rules for ag lands before the land was even purchased. The map they printed me is this map right here. There were three people working that day in November of 2017a gentleman by the name of Geoff, a lady by the name of Tracie, and a lady by the name of Anne. When they printed out the map for our family and printed out the zoning rules for that particular parcel, they stood on the side, and they were talking to each other while I waited. When they came back to me, they said it's doable. They said it would be doable to put a nursery and a feed business over there, and the reason why they said it was doable was because of this flag that's on our parcel. As you can see, across the street, there are no flags. If you look on the Catholic parking lot, the land for the Catholic Church, there is a flag. There is also flags within Pahoa Town. So, this particular map that the Department of Planning gave our family has a flag, and it was flagged. They said it was doable. At that time, they also, like I expressed, gave me the zoning rules. Agricultural products processing, major and minor, that's a few of the items that we process at the feed store where we're at right now. Nurseries and greenhouses and similar uses dealing with the growing of plants. A dwelling can be put on the property, farm dwellings, and then they have the sections as permitted. And structures which are necessary for agricultural practices which is 75 percent of the business that we presently do in Pahoa at the location where we're at. This is a seed, this was a seed that came from the University of Hawaii. From the seed, we spouted it. From the sprout, we put it in a four -inch pot. This is eggplant, purple, the long one. That's Mamaki tea. Those are kind of hard to find. And Manoa lettuce. The Mamaki tea is a medicinal plant. We also have other varieties of medicinal plants in our nurseries that we sell a lot of. We sell a lot of the lettuce. We sell a lot of the eggplant presently. So, that's what happened in November of 2017 with the Planning Department when they furnished me this map, those three people. At that time, I went back in, I think it was March, March of 2018, when I went back in March of 2018, we turned in an agricultural -based commercial operation certification. That's what we were trying to achieve according to the three people that made me these copies. When we turned this inin, it was, I'm pretty sure it was December `cause I went down in November, in March, I went back. When I went back, Earl, a gentleman by the name of Earl, said that the Planning Department never received this because EXHIBIT D 7 there was an employee there that just retired, and she did not get this into the system. When I sat down with Earl, Earl told me this was the wrong process to go through. He expressed to me that I had to get a Special Permit, but this basically is the same stuff as, is we applied for the Special Permit. So, that's the reason we were moving forward on this, because the Planning Department, when they furnished me the map and the rules, expressed to me that it was doable, because there was a flag on that particular parcel, which I do not see on your maps up here. Taxes, over the 19 years that our family has been running this business, we've contributed GE tax, State tax, Federal tax. We have contributed well over $1 million in taxes. I understand that $1 million over a 19 -year period is not the same amount as a Walmart or any other big box store, but it is a considerable amount of money considering that the bill I just got from the tax people on this particular parcel went from an agricultural rate of $9 to a residential rate of $11.45. They just sent me this letter expressing to me that our taxes are going up, and we will be assessed at a residential. Ag, residential, commercial taxes go up. In the letter, it said even though we will be assessed at a residential rate, we cannot utilize this property as a residential zone, but we have to pay more money. The general excise tax on Monday when I was reading the paper was going up another half percent. Our family continues to pay our taxes on time. We've paid our taxes. We enjoy contributing to the community and to the State and to everybody else. So, for taxes, I just don't understand why the elimination of our business would be a benefit for the State or the County. The Special Permit required, when we first opened Pahoa Feed & Fertilizer, we ran the business for ten years without any Special Permit. A Special Permit was not required. The only reason why we have a Special Permit now is because we wanted to put a certified kitchen on the property where we are presently working. In order for us to put a certified kitchen on the property, we needed a Special Permit, but prior to wanting to put a certified kitchen on the property, there was no Special Permit required. The purpose of the certified kitchen was to help fishermen and farmers get their dried fish or their vegetables to market. They needed a certified kitchen to process and package their goods so that they could retail it. We also were going to use the certified kitchen with the Red Cross in the event of a natural disaster in the neighborhood. We were going to open up the house with the certified kitchen, the Red Cross, so that we could help out the neighborhood. We have three generations of customers, and my family personally has three generations working at that storemyself, my kids, and my grandchildren. I just wanted to share this with you about the U.S. Department of Agriculture and what they do. We provide leadership on food. Right over here, these plants will generate food, [referring to eggplant, Mamaki tea plant, and Manoa lettuce on the table] agriculture, natural resources, rural development—we are in a rural development areanutrition, and related issues based on public policy, the best available science and effective management. We have a vision to provide economic opportunity. That's what we're trying to do on this agricultural -zoned property through innovation. Helping rural America to thrive, we are in a rural area. To promote agricultural production, that better nourishes Americans, while also helping feed others throughout the world and to preserve our nation's natural resources through conservation, 10V1111.11 11 restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy private working lands. We strongly feel that the business that we run now, 75 percent of it is agriculture. We only have designated 800 square feet. The building we're in now is 2,400 square feet. Eight hundred square feet of that building is designated for pet food—chicken feed, cows, horses, dogs, cats. So, we only designate 800 square feet to do—everything else is agricultural, and it's with the plants that we grow, the greenhouse we have, the soils we sell. We also work with the State in regards to fire ants, coqui frogs. We honor the State's programs on selling fire ant bait. We sell the bait that the State recommends, and we work in conjunction with the State to help in that area. We are out there to help the State and the consumers in our neighborhood. And, that's what I really wanted to share with you, but the most important thing we found out, we do have the proper line of sight. I can furnish that report. It will cost us another $550 which we can come up with, but we do have the line of sight. It's not on a curve where you can't see. It's not a blood bath out in Pahoa on that highway. There's clear visibility both sides. You have a traffic light regulating cars coming from the high school side. My question is has anybody gone out and seen our store or our operation? Has anybody gone out to this lot with the exception of that gentleman right there and looked at it and actually and physically seen the dangers of it? That's all I had a question was to ask you folks if you've been out there or if you've been to our family business to see, you know, what we offer and what we have. It's not a big deal, big box. We don't advertise. It's just word of mouth, and it's been that way for over 19 years, and I just want to thank each and every one of you for hearing me out. CLARKSON: You're welcome. Any questions for the Applicant or his representative? AGUI NALDO: No, but to answer his question, I've been there. You know, I had to buy—my egg layers, buy chicken feed. Yeah, Mr. Quinn is a good man. What he's trying to do is he's not competing with anybody, and, yeah, you know, he has, you know, I think was fish as well. It's a small operation, family operation, and his plants. I see he got some Hawaiian plants like the Mamaki tea. You cannot find them out in the wild. Cannot, you know, and that's something that I did, Mr. Quinn. I've been there, you know, multiple times at your place so I know your operation. CLARKSON: Any further questions? QUINN: I have one thing that I forgot to express to you folks. The developmental options that we have after looking at that back road off of the church parking lot, we finally came up with justin my heart, one thing, and that would be to sell fertilizer, feed, have a nursery, access the property right -turn in, right -turn out, 12 delineator sticks on the center line heading towards Kea`au, and if, possibly, lowering that speed limit from 45 to 35. The delineator sticks would prevent people from making the left, the traffic would flow, our customers that I've talked to, they see no hardship in right -turn in, right -turn out, and that's the only other thing I forgot to mention. KERN: And, just to fill in on the right -turn in, right -turn out, we have a 465 -foot line of sight. REPLOGLE: It's what? EXHIBIT D 9 KERN: Four hundred and sixty-five feet. QUINN: Line of sight. CLARKSON: Any further questions for the Applicant? If not, thank you. At this time, we'll take public testimony. We have one person who is still her signed up to speak. Another person had to leave [Alohalani Dietz]. She wanted the Commission to know that she is in favor of the Special Permit. Would you please raise your right hand? SIRACUSA: Aloha, my name is Rene Siracusa. I have lived in Kaohe Homesteads HALL: Excuse me, sorry SIRACUSA: —for 39 years— HALL: —You have to get sworn in first. Hold on one moment. He has to swear you in. Raise your right hand. CLARKSON: Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission? SIRACUSA: I do. CLARKSON: Please introduce yourself SIRACUSA: I live in Kaohe Homesteads CLARKSON: —Well, you have done that already SIRACUSA: —for 39 years. And, I have 200 tangerine trees and a whole lot of other types of fruit -bearing trees. Two acres of my property is devoted to anthurium forest and flowers and foliage. I have a large nursery where I also raise native plants, and I have livestock. For the last 19 years, I have been a customer of Pahoa Feed & Fertilizer. I believe that the Planning Department has mischaracterized the nature of this business. For example, right here on your agenda, it's, it talks about allow the development of a farm and garden retail store, leaving out completely the fact that a large component of this business is nursery, is plant sales. And, if you were to go to their current operation, you would see that about three quarters of the square footage of that whole operation is nursery, either the retail sales area of the plants or the two large shade houses where the plants are grown. I have purchased seed, and I have purchased flower pots and, yes, you cannot have a nursery without flower pots even though they come in from the mainland. I think any nursery you go to in this State will have mainland flower pots, because if you're going to ship here, your plants out EXHIBIT D 10 of state, you can't be growing them in the ground because of soil or microorganisms and nematodes. You have to have them certified, and so you need to grow them in pots. I have—here's another thing that you mischaracterized about this whole application and that is on the screen where you were—first you said these are the agricultural uses that are currently, and then you have the non-agricultural uses, and you were talking about livestock feed as being a non-agricultural use. I have yet to see a farm that is a diversified farm that doesn't have livestock, and yet, you're saying that livestock doesn't count as agriculture. Okay, I'm looking at Section 25-5-71, Permitted Uses, you have a lot of permitted uses that have nothing at all to do with agriculture—campgrounds, cemeteries, group living facilities, etc. And yet, on that permitted uses, item no. 6, item no. 12, 18, and 21 and 23 all have components that this building, that this business has that are strictly agricultural. So, my question to you is besides the fact that you really ought read, relook at your permitted uses here, is that you've, you've mislead this guy all along the thing that he needed a Special Permit. He doesn't need a Special Permit. He is ag. That's no question that, that this business is ag. The products he sells support agriculture, and the services that he provides support agriculture, and you can't have it, that he's the only one in all of lower Puna that is doing what he's doing, and the fact that he's been in business for 19 years, when so many other businesses have folded, should indicate to you that there is a real need for what he is providing and that you should decide that he does—that a Special Permit is not required. He is ag. Thank you. CLARKSON: You're welcome. Any questions from the Commission for this testifier? Apparently not. At this time, there being no further people in the audience who might want to testify, I'll ask for a motion for the closing of public testimony. AGUINALDO: Oh, wait, I get one. HALL: Wait AGUINALDO: No, Zendo and Mr. Quinn? QUINN: Yes, sir. AGUINALDO: You can come up. So, I HALL: Hold on CLARKSON: Wait, wait, wait AGUINALDO: Oh. CLARKSON: Gilbert, let's just close public testimony first and then AGUINALDO: Okay, okay. EXHIBIT D 11 CLARKSON: Do we have a motion for the closing of public testimony? REPLOGLE: I move that we close public testimony. DELA CRUZ: Second. CLARKSON: All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Opposed? Motion carried. Public testimony is closed. You wanted to further question AGUINALDO: Yeah CLARKSON: —from the Applicant? AGUINALDO: From our last meeting, last year pertaining to access of the road. Was that a possibility or an option as far as the Catholic Church allowing? KERN: We, myself and Mr. Quinn, we spoke to the Catholic Church. That road has an easement granted to a different individual over that road for the parcel that's to the Hilo side of it, and as far as it being a potentiality, I think that it exists as far as it being realistic and cost effective, that's what the, that's what the sticking point was. Cause there was some topography issues coming off from Mr. Quinn's down to the church, and when we talked, when we looked at doing the calculation of filling and it was like, brah, it's a bit much, you know. Now, if he were a different kind of business, you know, that might be a different story. But, he's a small business, focused on agriculture and farm and garden, so it's, it was very, it wasn't going to work. AGUINALDO: Okay. QUINN: It would require, Gilbert, it would require 30 to 4030 cubic yard truckloads of backfill to fill a 40- to 50 -yard stretch about 34 feet wide, and the backfill and trucking it in, the cost, then water runs down so we might have to build a culvert so that the water can flow through. It's just not as easy as gravel. KERN: It was closer to 2,000 cubic yards. QUINN: The entrance off of the highway, if the gentleman in the green sweater [Christian Kay] could bring the picture back up of our driveway, I can tell you what the Department of Transportation told me, and we do meet that criteria. KERN: You're going to need the mic. QUINN: I gotta walk over there. EXHIBIT D 12 KAY: [Inaudible.] [Mr. Kay gave Mr. Quinn the PowerPoint clicker to use.] QUINN: Okay, this is not the—this is the permitted access area. If you see this embankment here—all I did was press it once, doggone it. [Referring to the PowerPoint screen.] AGUINALDO: Oh, too fast. QUINN: You're dealing with an old timer, buddy, and I just haven't caught up. I haven't caught up to all this technology. I'm so sorry. All right, which one with the light? Got it. Okay so, this embankment goes around here. The 30.1 -inch area—you see how this is angled in right here, this little piece of pavement? AGUINALDO: Right. QUINN: The 30 feet goes from that little section all the way to here, almost to this embankment. So, that's the 30 -feet, 1 -inch. Department of Transportation requirements is a 22 -foot front with 6 -foot sides, on the side coming out like this. We'll probably miss it by a foot on this side, and a foot on that side, and that's where I was going to go down and meet with Mr. Yee, and ask Mr. Yee because this land all over here is the State. If Mr. Yee would just grant me one foot, and one foot—and then we would have the required, Department of Transportation's 22 feet front with 6 -foot sides, and that's the requirements from Department of Transportation. We miss it by about two feet. CLARKSON: I'm still confused about the 2,000 yards. I mean, this area looks relatively flat KERN: —Yeah, so what the issue was is not there. Yeah, that would require no fill. There was this, the Jan's Barber Shop Road as it's kind of traditionally referred to, on the back side, there's a road that runs between this property and basically a long-time standing road in Pahoa that's an easement that at the last meeting we looked at that as a potential alternative access. CLARKSON: Can we see the aerial photo, please? I'm just, I want to get AGUINALDO: Mr. Quinn, you should hold tight. You should hold tight. Might get some rocks. Serious, yeah. HALL: Oh, Gilbert CLARKSON: The access to Mr. Quinn's property on the very Hilo side almost touches that road. KERN: No, the access to Mr. Quinn's property would be on the Pahoa side on the other the opposite side. So, where he was just pointing out as far as the permitted access goes would be on the opposite side. It would be on the lower side of the map. Christian, can you point at the Pahoa side where the permitted access area is now? EXHIBIT D 13 AGUINALDO: Right there. KERN: Chair Clarkson? CLARKSON: Yes? AGUINALDO: Right there. Yeah. KERN: That's the permitted access. CLARKSON: No, that's the—that's the access from the Pahoa Bypass. KERN: Yes, that's the permitted access. CLARKSON: Okay, but I'm talking about the potential access from the, from the Catholic Church side. DELA CRUZ: Right there on the left. There you go. AGUINALDO: That's part of that road, right there. DELA CRUZ: Right down there dips real heavy. AGUINALDO: Yeah. DELA CRUZ: Right down there is deep, right in that area. KERN: It's deep. DELA CRUZ: Yeah, deep. That road goes down, comes down from the church— AGUINALDO: Yeah, down. KERN: Yeah, and then back up to Mr. Quinn's property. QUINN: So, it's about a 40 -yard stretch from that road to that [inaudible]. KERN: It's about a 40-yard—it's about a 40 -yard stretch from that— QUINN: [Inaudible.] KERN: Mr. Quinn, you're going to need the mic, microphone. If you want to say anything, just speak to the microphone QUINN: Yeah, it's a 40, 40 -yard stretch, and then we would have to do the required 22 feet with the 6 -foot sides which is the requirement from Department of Transportation. So, it's safe to say EXHIBIT D 14 40 feet long, I mean, 40 yards long, 30 feet wide, and it would have to be filled, and it's about 20 feet deep, 25 feet deep, that little gully, getting to our property. CLARKSON: I see. KERN: So, that was, that was the biggest challenge with that. YEE: Zendo, I want to confirm that in 2009 when the Special Permit was issued, it was issued for a commercial kitchen, but also for the feed business and other related things. It wasn't just for the commercial kitchen. KERN: To my knowledge, and I was not part of that, and at the different location, to my knowledge, yes, it encompassed the entirety of it. YEE: Right, so, generally the business he's at, he needed a Special Permit then, so I would make assumption that if he was going to do a similar business again, he must have known that a Special Permit was necessary. QUINN: Mr. Yee, the house and the property that we were own was owned by the most honorable Yoso Kuwahara. He ran a 10 -acre anthurium farm over there, so he was following the guidelines of agricultural -zoned property. When we came in, the most honorable Yoso Kuwahara rented us that warehouse, no Special Permit, and we ran that business for eight to nine years, then we went to get certified kitchen. Mr. Kuwahara released the interest in the property. We took it over, and that's when we got the Special Permit, was for the certified kitchen, and that's when they told us we had to have the certified, I mean, the Special Permit, but prior to that, nine or ten years with Mr. Kuwahara in that house living there, it's his residence, he rented us that little section of the garage. We did not have a Special Permit. The County, State never came down and told us or Mr. Kuwahara. It wasn't until Mr. Kuwahara moved to Hilo and we wanted to turn that house into a certified kitchen, then the Special Permit was required, but not prior to that. YEE: Correct, and I wasn't around then, but HALL: —Sorry to interrupt. Point of order. I think we're going into the weeds a little bit. That we're talking about a whole different application, a different time. We should refocus on this application and this request. QUINN: Well, Mr. Darrow felt that it was important to bring to Mr. Yee some kind of information that might have disputed what I had just said, and that is the God's honest truth under oath. YEE: Well, and that I'm going to add that the Special Permit directly addresses not just the commercial kitchen, okay? QUINN: Okay. EXHIBIT D 15 YEE: It addresses the fertilizer business and everything else. QUINN: Okay, fine. CLARKSON: And, I forgot again, since the last meeting, why is it that you can't stay where you are now? And, continue your business there? QUINN: The building was built in 1968. The roof leaks. There's a flood that runs through there, because they graded the back acre of land. There are other legal issues with that property that I don't want to go into now, but if it's something that you really would like to know, I can have you talk to an attorney that we have, and maybe he can express that to you. But, we're still around the property. We have a lease, but the building is way old, leaks, very bad. If you were to stop by, Joseph, when it's raining heavy, then you'll see why. CLARKSON: Okay. QUINN: The office floods the warehouse. Now, the building we're in, 2,400 square feet, is permitted. It has a 10 -foot setback from the next parcel which is grandfathered in. The two bays next to us, which we do not own, is unpermitted. It was something that Mr. Kuwahara threw together with his kids, and it's just unpermitted. It's supposed to have a 20 -foot setback, any new, new structures going in. CLARKSON: Thank you. At this time, public testimony being closed, if there's no further questions for the Applicant—oh. REPLOGLE: I don't have a question. It's my understanding that this whole issue here was about the road and that the Puna CDP did not want to spread out onto this Bypass Road. SIRACUSA (from audience): Uh-uh, the Puna CDP KAY: Pardon me SIRACUSA (from audience): [Inaudible.] CLARKSON: Yeah— SIRACUSA: [Inaudible.] CLARKSON: Let's, let's REPLOGLE: I'm not here to argue. That was—it's the road, and the entry off the road, was my understanding. Your business and everything you're doing I think is fabulous. I applaud you. But, it's the safety issue— CLARKSON: Well EXHIBIT D 16 REPLOGLE: —And, the issue of the CDP. CLARKSON: Let's have—let's have a motion for action and then we can have discussion. REPLOGLE: I would like to make a motion to deny this request. CLARKSON: Can you make a motion as per the REPLOGLE: I don't have that paper. HALL: Per the Director's recommendation. REPLOGLE: Yes, per the Director's recommendation. CLARKSON: Is there a second? DELA CRUZ: On the case that he's using the CDP, yes, I'll second that—with the suggestion of the CDP, I'll second that. CLARKSON: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Mr. Replogle? REPLOGLE: I have none. KERN: Good. CLARKSON: Except what you said. Okay, any further discussion? KERN: Do we have an opportunity to interject? No? CLARKSON: Let'sI don't think so. There's been plenty of time to make your case. Unless there's a question directly from the Commission, please let us continue. Thank you. You may be seated. So, it's been QUINN: My apologies. [Inadvertently banged the table while getting up.] CLARKSON: It's okay. It's been moved and seconded that the application be denied per the Planning Department's recommendation. SIRACUSA (from audience): They're saying that they agree to [inaudible.] CLARKSON: There being no further discussion with the staff Poll the Commission, please. KAY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Replogle? REPLOGLE: Aye. EXHIBIT D 17 KAY: Commissioner Aguinaldo? Oh, pardon me, Commissioner Dela Cruz? My apologies. DELA CRUZ: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Aguinaldo? AGUINALDO: No. KAY: Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. KAY: And Chair Clarkson. CLARKSON: Aye. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Motion carries four, one. CLARKSON: At this time, we will—you will be notified in writing of the action of the Commission today. QUINN (from audience): Thank you folks very much for your time. HALL: Chair, there is a proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law already prepared by the Department. If you guys want to review that right now, you can adopt it now. If you guys want to take— CLARKSON: I don't want to review it now. HALL: Okay. You guys actually should have already. CLARKSON: Its 20 pages long. HALL: You actually should have already reviewed it because that was the but KAY: If I may, this was the recommendation that came out in November, so this was, so you should have reviewed it. We, when we do a denial, we frame it in the form of a proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision & Order. So, again, the options are, if you'd like to vote on accepting that now, you can do so. If you'd like to wait until next time, we can do that. CLARKSON: I would prefer to have some time to just look it over. Make sure it's in accordance with the motion. KAY: Sure. EXHIBIT D 18 CLARKSON: And, act on it at our next meeting. KAY: Okay, the one, the one change I would like to make, Mr. Chair, if I could, is because we did this back in November, the date of decision and order stated 2018. If I can just make that simple change to 2019 to reflect the new year. CLARKSON: Yes. KAY: Okay, thank you. CLARKSON: At this time— KAY: Oh, I apologize. One more thing. We will also update it with the new information that came after we received or after the last hearing. CLARKSON: Yes. KAY: Thank you. CLARKSON: Well, that will give me a chance to, give you a chance to update it between this meeting and the next. KAY: Yes, sir. CLARKSON: At this time, we need the approval of minutes of the February 7 t meeting. HALL: Sorry, you just need a motion first to CLARKSON: Oh, to continue the HALL: to adopt, yeah, to continue with option of the proposed Findings to the next meeting, sorry. CLARKSON: Can we have a motion for continuing the adoption of Findings of Fact? DELA CRUZ: I move the motion to continue to next meeting for the adoption of the AGUINALDO: I second. CLARKSON: It's been moved and seconded that the Findings of Fact be moved to the next meeting. All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Opposed? Motion carries. EXHIBIT D 19 KAY: Thank you. The discussion ended at 4:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 20 I0V1111.11 11