2020-09-21 Leeward Exh A (SPP 20-000218)

Home

talked about that, and she said that she wants to be in compliance, that's how she operates. So we started this process to go in that direction. She has operated the event venue for about three years—we talked about that—no complaints, no issues all the way around to our knowledge. So it looked like it was relatively straightforward for the most part, basically continuation of what was already occurring there, but making sure it was legitimized. Before, you know, usually when people come in to legitimize something, it's because there was a complaint made. In this case, you know, we've reached out to the neighbors multiple times, etcetera. I'm just going to take a step back real quick. Obviously, the CC&Rs is a concern for the commissioners; Alan Tuhy can speak to that. What I want to take a step back is about agriculture and fairness. We have a farmer here that actually operates a farm. Often times we do see applications come in that have no farming activities on there. In this case, we actually do have a farmer. Ms. Hickey has been a, you know, been a part of the Farm Bureau for over six years. She chaired the Farm Bureau, as well as other charities in the area. I wonder how many other of the surrounding areas actually do farming. That's one of the issues we have here in Hawaii County. Before that, I'm a guy about fairness, you guys know, born and raised, most of you all know, born and raised here on the Big Island, former chair of the Windward Planning Commission, former elected official, county councilperson. Not going to come in and we're not always going to agree on the same thing, but I do think fairness is something that is a very good place to start with. And feeling like it's stacked, stacked and stacked kind of in the opposite manner for fairness honestly right now. From the recommendation as one measure to even the fact that there were 32 letters of support sent in to the commissioners; I don't think many of those were mentioned. There was the change of venue that was put in there; that was mentioned but we haven't had a chance to get into it. But, before that, there was a time when—so when the Planning Commission gets a recommendation and it's a favorable recommendation, the Planning Department says we give a favorable recommendation for these reasons and here's our proposed conditions, right? We've all seen that many of times. Now, recently, when there is a negative recommendation, it comes as this proposed conclusions of law and findings of fact, instead of we propose a negative recommendation for these reasons and let's talk about it. And if that's so what's decide, then that comes out to be a conclusions of law and findings of fact. It's different than how it used to be. I, what I want to say right off the bat, that isn't fair, to me; I'd want an even case, whether it be for or against it, in the same way. So if the Planning Department supports an application, should it not come out as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of it? I wonder. So it's very one way; if we support it, we kind of do, here is conditions, if it's all right; if we don't, this is it, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. I wonder there, conclusions of law. So, are these conclusions of law? The findings of fact are relatively accurate - - -relatively accurate. I mean if you go down these and say that, you know, number 3, for example, on page 9, we did talk about agriculture tourism in there as a component that we would be submitting for, but we are submitting as a Special Permit on its own; therefore, the agriculture tourism component has no bearing on that, none. It says in ag tourism, it doesn't, you can't do other things; if you want to do other things, go, go for Special Permits. So that's what we are doing. So, "The proposed use is contrary to the objections [objectives] sought [to be accomplished] by the Land Use [Law and] Regulations?" I, it's not a conclusion of law because 12 EXHIBIT A