2008-02-01 TMIRANDA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Just to give a brief background on this application, the application was originally approved in August 2005 by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission found that the applicants request for a contractor’s baseyard was misnamed and that the use is more properly called an agricultural trucking baseyard. The decision was based on a supportive documentation from the applicant showing that 61 percent of Miranda’s trucking business is agriculturally related, including the hauling of livestock, ranch and farm supplies, livestock feed and water and material for agriculture. With that, there were several conditions on the special permit that had time conditions. The applicant had not submitted those over a period of time and the Planning Director moved to revoke the permit. And our first hearing was in March of 2007. That was deferred until April of 2007 at which time the Planning Commission again allowed time for the applicant to submit these conditions to be approved. If I can direct your attention to the location map, the area of this application is in the Hamakua district. We have the Honokaa area over on the right side of the map. Waimea would be towards the left side of the map. This application is between Honokaa and Waimea just makai of the Hawaii Belt Road. Hawaii Belt Road is this red line that runs through the middle of the map. The actual location of the property is at the 47.5 mile marker on the makai side of the road identified by a project site on the map. The application allowed for a one-acre portion of the property to be used for the agricultural baseyard. Since our last hearing the Planning Director has revised, he has sent out additions to the background and recommendation. That should be on a yellow sheet that has been passed out to the Commissioners. Additionally, we’ve received a letter from the applicant’s representative th dated January 12, and this has exhibits with it; a response letter from the Planning Department th dated January 17; and lastly this morning we had passed out photos from a recent site inspection conducted by our Zoning Inspectors. The results of that site inspection were that overall the applicant appears to be complying with the conditions of the permit on site. All the material is located, all the trucks and objects and structures are located within the one-acre area. There is an access. The access road is paved or graveled all the way from the highway to the project site; and there appears to be only, no more than six semi-trucks on the property, and that was one of the conditions of the special permit. Originally, just for your information, this was a site plan that was submitted by the applicant; and it does show that the applicant did propose a warehouse-type structure, as well as several other structures, two portable supply sheds, and a portable office, or two portable offices. And this was part of the original approval. The Planning Director is, let me back up. We also in our letters had asked, because of the administrative time expiring, we had asked for the applicant to submit a time extension to come back to the Commission for. We’ve recently received that. It hasn’t been processed. It’s going through processing at this time. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission again defer this application to allow the applicant to be able to comply with these conditions. We might be able to defer reasons to the applicant as to nonsubmittal at this time. th Again, what we have is, the reasons are in our April 20, as well as our November 21, 2007, letters. We had asked that the applicant submit an administrative time extension, a plan approval EXHIBIT B 2