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

Home

we talked about ag tourism in there. That's a reason to go against it? I don't think so. I would think that- - - andwe have - - - CARR SMITH: You are breaking up a little, Zendo,just to let you know. KERN: How about now? Can you hear me all right? CARR SMITH: Yeah, go ahead. KERN: Okay, thank you, Madam Chair, really appreciate that. You know, if we want to talk about, talk about that, as far as, you know, an unusual and reasonable, that, that part of the code is for unusual and reasonable use of agricultural land situated within the state Agricultural district. I would say this meets that criteria; it's unusual and it's reasonable and it doesn't take away from farming, it actually supports a small farmer. Going further down, "The proposed use would adversely affect surrounding properties." On the surface one could say that that's a potential, but we did put in there multiple times that we would limit sound decibels to the property to a residential level, that we would mitigate sound, we would mitigate those elements, which would normally be into, in a condition, if it was approval. And the applicant is happy to put that in as a condition. So in here in this conclusions of law, it goes back and forth on saying that we propose to limit it but we might not be able to limit it and maybe we can and maybe we can't. Well, somewhat subjective. We put it out there on the onset that we would limit that to there is actually a technology to do that now; you can actually put indicators on or, excuse me, some type of device around the properties or on the side, and it'll actually click into your phone when you are increasing a sound decibel level. So there's ways to actually read it, limit it, and even ways to report it. So that's something that can be completely, completely dealt with. But what I find very interesting, page 10so we go through all of that, how basically the planning director believes there would be a substantial increase in noise, I- - - say that there have been many events over the past three years that obviously didn't have this effect, I'm sure there would be complaints but the last paragraph it says, "Lastly, any time a non-agricultural use is established in an area actively being farmed or ranched, it can create conflicts between the two land uses. There is a concern that the guests of the proposed event venue may complain about farm and ranch-related nuisances such as noise or odors from surrounding properties." Is that a conclusion of law? Is that a reason to not do this? It's kind of like not supporting farming? This doesn't make sense to me unfortunately. DPW talked about some need for improvements off of the county road and Waiono Ranch Road. Applicant is more than willing to do that there was to be a fine condition. We have also limited the number of vehicles right off the bat. The applicant is willing to work with that as well. There could be safety-control or traffic-control type person during events. That could be very, very easily mitigated by way of a condition. "Unusual [conditions,] trends, [and needs] have arisen," "there is increasing pressure to use these farm lands ... "this is another one where we are supporting a small farmer, and this is a way for them to actually offset their revenue. The actual area of the farm unit—they talk about the ALISH system and the agri- excuse me, the important ag land, this area- - - 13 - -13 EXHIBIT A