Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-05 TTUTTLE HALE OHIA WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT FEBRUARY 5, 2010 A regularly advertised hearing on the applications ofMICHAEL D. TUTTLE (USE 165) and HALE OHIA LLC (USE 09-16) was called to order at 10:50 a.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Rell Woodward presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rell Woodward, Dean Au, Takashi Domingo, Andrew Iwashita, Zendo Kern, and Wallace Ishibashi. STAFF PRESENT: Brandon Gonzalez (Deputy Corporation Counsel), BJ Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Norman Hayashi (Planning Program Manager), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), and Kelly Gomes (Staff to the Department of Public Works). And one person from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: MICHAEL D. TUTTLE (USE 165) Amendment to Use Permit No. 165 by reducing the land area for the permit and also to change the location of the five bedrooms that will be used for the bed and breakfast operation. Use Permit No. 165 originally allowed the establishment of a 5-bedroom bed and breakfast operation (Hale Ohia Cottages) within an existing dwelling and a guest house on 34,163 square feet of land within the Single-Family Residential (RS-20) zoned district.The property involved is located along Hale Ohia Road approximately 65 feet south of its intersection with Highway 11 (Volcano Highway), Hale Ohia Tract Subdivision, Volcano, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-1-5:19. APPLICANT: HALE OHIA LLC (USE 09-16) Use Permit to allow the establishment of a 5-bedroom bed and breakfast operation within an existing dwelling and a detached bedroom situated on approximately 14,961 square feet of land within the Single-Family Residential (RS-20) zoned district. The property is located along Hale Ohia Road approximately 65 feet south of its intersection with Highway 11 (Volcano Highway), Hale Ohia Tract Subdivision, Volcano, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-1-5:46. WOODWARD: Next item is Agenda Item No. 8, Michael Tuttle Use Permit. Jeff. DARROW: Mr. Chairman if it’s okay with you because these applications, application numbers 8 and 9, are connected, if it’s okay if I could do a presentation together. WOODWARD: Anybody objection? Seeing no objections, that’s fine. 1 EXHIBIT D DARROW: Great. Thank you. The next applications are Michael D. Tuttle and Hale Ohia LLC. The location of these applications are in the Puna district, more specifically we’re looking in the Volcano area. This is Volcano Highway, Highway 11, running in an east-west direction. We have the Volcano Village center that’s located in this general area. The actual application is just on the south side of Volcano Highway, just before the entrance of the National Park. This used to be one property but has subsequently been subdivided, and the applicant is coming in for an amendment to the original use permit on one property and a new use permit on the newly created property. This is a little clearer picture of the location. This is the highway. There’s a little road that comes off the highway called Hale Ohia Road; and, again, we have the, this was the original property and has been subdivided. This property on the right side is for the Tuttle application which is the original use permit, and the new application will be on the left side. The yellow zoning is RS-10. This is an aerial photo that again shows Volcano Highway and the Hale Ohia Road. You can see the existing structures in this general area. We have the main residence and the new main residence on the newly created property, as well as several cottages. This is the consolidation subdivision map that gives you a clearer picture of the structures that are located on the property. As you come in off the highway on Hale Ohia Road you have the first property, which is for the Tuttle application. It has an existing residence that has four bedrooms and two cottages which make one additional bedroom in each which would be a total of six bedrooms, five for the use permit and one for the owner/operator. On the newly formed property for Hale Ohia, we have two structures. We have the main residence which has five bedrooms, and the guest residence or the cottage which has one additional bedroom. So, again, we will have six bedrooms on the property, one will be occupied by the operator of the bed and breakfast operation. Michael D. Tuttle is requesting an amendment to the existing Use Permit, Use Permit No. 165, which was originally permitted in November of 1997 to allow 5-bedroom bed and breakfasts. He’s asking to change the permit area to reduce it from 34,163 square feet to 20,802 square feet and to change the identified bedrooms that were originally permitted to the new identified bedrooms that are located on the property that, the original property. This again is a site plan for just the Tuttle application. So you have two cottages and the main residence. This is the site photos. You have Hale Ohia Road coming off Volcano Highway. This is the main residence here. This is the Ihilani Cottage and you have the Lehua Cottage. Hale Ohia LLC is requesting a use permit to allow the establishment of a 5-bedroom bed and breakfast operation. It will consist of four bedrooms in the Ohia Cottage and one bedroom in the detached cottage which is identified as Cottage No. 44. This is the Hale Ohia Cottage which has five bedrooms; and this is the Cottage No. 44 that has one bedroom. The Planning Department’s recommendation is approval for the amendment request, as well as approval for the new use permit for Hale Ohia LLC. Are there any questions? 2 EXHIBIT D WOODWARD: Commissioner Kern. KERN: I had a question. On the, Mr. Tuttle’s property there’s a Ihilani brown building on the plot map pointed out there. That looks pretty close to the setback.Is that the boundary, the boundary line? Is that grandfathered in or what’s up? DARROW: These actual, a majority of the structures that are on the property were created in the 1930s and so they’re nonconforming. They were far before the Zoning Code so -. KERN: So those get grandfathered in then and it’s a nonissue? DARROW: Correct. WOODWARD: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Yeah. The original application 165 I understand provides for one large building with a number of bedrooms, and that it provided, it mentioned only one cottage for another bedroom. DARROW: Correct. DOMINGO: And I see the drawing here and what they’re proposing as an amendment. I see two, two cottages. DARROW: Correct. DOMINGO: One additional cottage. DARROW: Yes. DOMINGO: Okay. When was that cottage built? DARROW: If I could just give some background. The original use permit, the applicant lived in the main residence, which is this house. So this entire property was one property. The bed and breakfast consisted of four bedrooms in the Hale Ohia guest house and one bedroom in the Lehua Cottage. And so that was originally permitted. Now that the property has been subdivide, he wants to be able to operate a bed and breakfast on both properties, increasing the amount of bedrooms that could be used for the operations. DOMINGO: So now we’re looking at two cottages on each parcel? DARROW: We have, oh, I’m sorry. We have two cottages on this parcel, this cottage here which is Lehua Cottage and Ihilani. 3 EXHIBIT D DOMINGO: Okay. DARROW: On the second parcel we have the main residence, because now this is a new parcel, this is the main residence, and one cottage. DOMINGO: Will there be another cottage built? DARROW: On this property? DOMINGO: Yeah. DARROW: No, sir. DOMINGO: So what we’re looking at is four, the application is for four additional bed and breakfasts in that one big house, and one bed and breakfast in that cottage? DARROW: Yes, sir. DOMINGO: Okay. So the total square footage of that property is 34,000 plus square feet? DARROW: That was the original of both properties combined. DOMINGO: Yeah. DARROW: Now that they’ve broken up one is approximately – DOMINGO: And it’s zoned for 20,800? DARROW: Correct. DOMINGO: So they applied for a consolidation and resubdivision, yeah? DARROW: Yes. What, it’s a little difficult to see. But you see this line that runs through the middle of the map, these were identified as pre-existing lots. So we had the road lot and a lot, these two lots. So even though it doesn’t meet the minimum size it meets, they had received two pre-existing lot determinations, which means that they can consolidate and resubdivide into two different parcels. Even though it was one parcel, it had two identified separate lots of record. And so they were able to consolidate and resubdivide based on that. DOMINGO: And when you resubdivide, is there not a requirement that any portion of the subdivision should be not smaller than the existing zoning of the property, of the zoning district? In this case it’s 20,000 and the other property came down to 14,000. That’s the new property that -. 4 EXHIBIT D DARROW: Yeah, when you’re looking at a pre-existing lot determination, as long as you’re able to consolidate and resubdivide them into two lots, you don’t have to meet the minimum lot size requirement. It just has to remain at two lots. DOMINGO: So the critical point here is that there were or there is identification of two previous existing lots -? DARROW: Correct. DOMINGO: In the past? DARROW: Yes. DOMINGO: Can you do this with any other property with the similar zoning? DARROW: Without the pre-existing lots? DOMINGO: No. DARROW: They would have to meet the minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. DOMINGO: I see. Okay. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. DOMINGO: Wait, wait, wait. One more -. I think the presentation says that one of the, I think the new application for a bed and breakfast, that someone else would be staying in the unit, someone that they would probably hire or manage the place. DARROW: Correct. Yeah, our Code requirements for bed and breakfasts requires that an operator remain on site, and so originally the owner lived on site. But now that there are two separate parcels, there has to be two separate operators, one for each new bed and breakfast operation. So the applicant has stated that he will be residing in the main residence on the original lot, which is this, oh, I’m sorry, in this particular residence and that an operator will be staying within the Hale Ohia cottage. I’m not sure who that is. Maybe what we can do is ask, defer the question, as far as who the operator is, to the applicant. DOMINGO: So the definition of operator and the owner, you know, somewhat baffles me. Because I think when this bed and breakfast law was drafted, that it would provide for a person or individuals who own, who own the homes or the property to be able to conduct bed and breakfast, a bed and breakfast operation in this particular situation. Now what would preclude him or others with similar property sizes to come in and apply for a bed and breakfast and then rather than staying in the property have, or hire someone to manage the bed and breakfast for them? Is that possible? 5 EXHIBIT D DARROW: Under the Code the Code states an operator shall remain on site. So it doesn’t say the owner shall remain on site, it just says an operator. So it could be possible. DOMINGO: Okay. That’s a problem I have. Thank you. WOODWARD: All right. Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just, on the maps, the site plans that we have in the application, there does not appear to have, unless I’m missing a plan or something -. I’m asking about in the original approval of the existing bed and breakfast there was supposed to be a plan submitted showing the driveway and the parking and all of that, and I just don’t see any of that on these plans. Could staff show me a plan with, what the driveways and the parking are as they exist, I guess, today? I’m assuming there are driveways and parking areas. DARROW: You’re referring to this particular, for both? IWASHITA: Both, the old one and the -. DARROW: Yeah, these are the, they actually, I didn’t identify the parking areas but we had actually gone on site and had seen the different areas of the parking when we did the site inspection to verify that there were numerous areas of parking. There’s actually quite a few areas that allow for parking, identified parking areas for the guests of the bed and breakfast operation. IWASHITA: Okay. I guess my concern is that we have a prior approval for five, we’re being requested to make some adjustments to that based on this subdivision and then approve five more, right? Ten all together? So I just don’t see, I guess I’d like the Department to have a record of where all these parking facilities are and also if, you know, so that there’d be a proper record. DARROW: We do, Commissioner Iwashita. What I can do is let you take a look at the original plan that was submitted that identifies the parking areas. But what happened was prior to 2000 bed and breakfasts required plan approval to be able, as a condition of approval. And so Mr. Tuttle had to submit the plans for plan approval, which identified all the parking, which we do have on record, as well as when they originally came in he had a site plan identifying all the parking areas. And these are the parking areas that we had witnessed when we went up to the site inspection. So I can pass this through to the Commissioners. IWASHITA: No, that’s fine. I’ll accept that representation. I don’t need to look at it. I just, my concern is more for the current application -. DARROW: Sure. IWASHITA: And, you know, to have documented where the parking is on this new five- bedroom bed and breakfast. 6 EXHIBIT D DARROW: Okay, maybe what, if it’s okay with Commissioner Iwashita, when the applicant comes up we can identify specifically the amount of spaces. But when we had done the site inspection there was a parking area in this general location that appeared to accommodate five or more vehicles. There was a parking area in this area that accommodated approximately three vehicles. There was one here that accommodated approximately three vehicles, as well as a covered garage here that accommodated three vehicles. And I believe that the applicant also owns this property here which seemed to have parking on that property as well. But -. IWASHITA: But if, that garage structure, it appears to encroach on the road. I wouldn’t want to approve parking that encroached on the road. DARROW: I think the garage is, the carport is going to remain? We can ask the -. If, it’s my understanding, I’m not sure if that’s going to be removed. But, again, this might be one of those nonconforming structures. But even without this parking area here there was ample parking for both bed and breakfasts. WOODWARD: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Yes. Jeff, you know, you mentioned that the adjacent properties on both sides were owned by the applicant. DARROW: I believe these, there are two parcels here. Is that correct, Mr. Tuttle? These two parcels here are owned by the applicant and they’re -. DOMINGO: And they’re both zoned 20,000? DARROW: RS-20. DOMINGO: RS-20. What would preclude the owners of the property to apply for further bed and breakfasts on each parcel? DARROW: Well, they could. That would probably be a question for the applicant as to whether he will. I’m not sure at that point if the Commission would consider an additional bed and breakfast for this particular area, but there’s always the possibility. DOMINGO: If they, nothing would prevent them from doing it? DARROW: Correct. DOMINGO: Okay, they can apply for it. As it stands right now it provides for five bed and breakfasts. And assuming that five parties would come and that would mean five cars, so we’re looking at ten cars. And assuming, assuming that those people who come are either couples and, who knows, probably children.So we’re looking at per bed and breakfast approximately ten individuals also, five cars per bed and breakfast and ten people per bed and breakfast. So we’re looking at 10 cars, a possibility of 20 people congregated there in that bed and breakfast, right? 7 EXHIBIT D DARROW: Correct. DOMINGO: Okay. And now if, and I’m not saying it’ll happen, but if additional bed and breakfast permits are provided for in the parcel adjacent to theirs, then it would present a similar situation, but even more, more clearly pronounced and recognizable by people? DARROW: Correct. DOMINGO: Okay. WOODWARD: All right. We’re getting into some hypothetical stuff here and I think it will be, a lot of these questions probably could be answered best by the applicant anyway. So if there aren’t any more questions specifically for staff, I’d like to call the applicant. Madam Director, you had something to say? LEITHEAD TODD: Well, I just wanted Jeff to go back to -. You know, you had the overhead with photo which showed the property, if, I just wanted to point out that what is a little bit different about this particular application and these houses, like now go back to the one that shows the TMKs and stuff. That, at one time this was part of a long subdivision that came off of the Old Volcano Highway. But what has occurred with the new Volcano Highway that cut these houses off from the rest of Volcano Village is that they’re the only residentially zoned property in that Volcano area across of the main highway. So they sit by themselves surrounded by Ag land. And some of the issues that you might be concerned about, you know, traffic on the neighborhood or traffic on the other roads, the traffic comes in from the main highway, which is a State Highway. And so I think that if there were further B&Bs that question would be addressed to the State Highways. But there aren’t any other residences in this area either at the moment, right, from that overhead, cause it’s owned by Mr. Tuttle? DARROW: Correct. LEITHEAD TODD: Okay, that’s all what I wanted to comment on. WOODWARD: All right. DOMINGO: Question, Mr. Chairman? WOODWARD: Yes. DOMINGO: How many additional dwellings is allowed under the Zoning Code per lot such as this? DARROW: As long as the lot is over 10,000 square feet, they’re able to have an ohana on each parcel. DOMINGO: But these are not ohana units, are they? 8 EXHIBIT D DARROW: No. DOMINGO: Because they’re not supposed to have any kitchens or whatever, similar conditions. DARROW: That’s correct. DOMINGO: So how many cottages can one build on a 20,000 square foot lot, or for that matter even a 10,000 square foot lot? DARROW: The Zoning Code allows for one guest house, they call it a guest house, which is basically a structure that’s 500 square feet or less on a property that’s zoned RS-7.5. So they could have a small guest house, which does not include a kitchen. It’s just like a bedroom/bathroom kind of facility that’s 500 square feet. These particular cottages weren’t applied for, except for the more recent one, Cottage 44. The others were existing since the thirties. DOMINGO: Now if them or others in that situation decide to build additional cottages, with this particular application that we’re looking at, they have two cottages on them, how many cottages are they allowed to build? This is a 20,000 square foot lot and a 14,000 square foot lot. You mentioned that one size that is a 7., 7,500 square foot lot. So, in essence, when you translate that, how much additional dwellings can you put on a 20,000 square foot lot? DARROW: I’m sorry, I might have not been clear. As long as the property is RS-7.5 you’re allowed. If it’s RS-20 you can put one guest house. DOMINGO: Only one? DARROW: Only one. So that’s all the Code allows. DOMINGO: Then how is it that they have two cottages on the property? I don’t know, I might not be understanding things. LEITHEAD TODD: Commissioner Domingo, it’s because those homes were built in the 1930s and there was no Zoning Code back then that prohibited the construction. Throughout Volcano, actually there are many homes that have these little cottages on the side. My family had a home on Wright Road that we purchased in 1935, which gives you an idea of how old these subdivisions are. So I’m not surprised that -. Most of the homes that I was familiar with in the Old Volcano Village had been constructed in the 1930s; and that’s when all these subdivisions were. And then subsequently this was given Urban designation because of the small size of the lots up in Volcano. DOMINGO: So what you’re saying is that these are existing -? LEITHEAD TODD: Existing, have been there since the thirties, so they’re all grandfathered in, with the exception I think of, what is it No. 44? 9 EXHIBIT D DARROW: Correct. DOMINGO: The original application or was it 165, they said they would be utilizing only one additional bed and breakfast on the dwelling, one dwelling on the property, yeah? So was there another dwelling on that property at that time? DARROW: The original, if you could look at page 1 on the background report for Tuttle where on Item No. 2 it says that the establishment of the 5-bedroom bed and breakfast operation was within an existing dwelling and a guest house situated on the property. Okay, so originally there was this dwelling, this was an ohana or guest house and this was a cottage, I’m sorry, this one, Lehua. So the owner lived in this house. He had four bedrooms in this house and one bedroom in this cottage. So that was the original bed and breakfast application. DOMINGO: So with this new application for a bed and breakfast, they’re showing two cottages. So those cottages are already situated on the land? DARROW: They were already there. WOODWARD: Okay. Commissioner Domingo, can I ask if it’s all right with you to call the applicant? DOMINGO: Sure. WOODWARD: Okay. Okay, if we could have the applicant come on up, have a seat. Okay, let me swear you in. If you’ll raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? TUTTLE: Yes, sir. WOODWARD: Okay, if you’ll speak into the microphone and give us your name and address and then you may begin. TUTTLE: I’M Mike Tuttle. I live at 11-3968 Hale Ohia Road, Volcano. WOODWARD: Okay. TUTTLE: And what was the other question, my position? WOODWARD: If you had presentation to make. TUTTLE: No, I don’t. I’ll be glad to answer questions. WOODWARD: No, just available for questions? TUTTLE: It’s a little complicated, and I’ll be glad to answer anything you would like me to answer. 10 EXHIBIT D WOODWARD: Okay. Well, I think Commissioner Domingo, I guess he’s concerned about you’re going to have rash of these things up there and that this is only one in a continuing series. Is that basically the thrust of your questioning? DOMINGO: Yeah, that essentially is my primary concern. But I’m thinking if this is done then what would preclude others in a similar situation doing the same thing? That’s why I’m really concerned about it. WOODWARD: Okay. I think we’re addressing this one now; and it’s within his right at some point to come back and request another; but that would be a separate issue and addressed as a separate permit. So, did you have a response to that, Mr. Tuttle? TUTTLE: I have no plans to develop the two vacant lots that I own. This is a lot of work doing just what I’ve got now. So, but that’s my, that’s my position. WOODWARD: Okay, great. Commissioner Iwashita, you had a question? IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Tuttle, thanks for coming today. I have a question about the garage. I guess that’s, it appears to me it’s built on Hale Ohia Road, or part of it is built on Hale Ohia Road. Is that how it is on the ground? TUTTLE: That’s true, that’s correct. IWASHITA: Okay. And do you know who owns, I’m assuming and tell me if I’m correct, that Hale Ohia Road is a private road, well, I know it’s a private road from what’s in the record, and that as a private road you as the owner of a lot on the road have an easement for access and egress across the, ingress and egress across Hale Ohia Road. Is that correct? TUTTLE: That’s correct. IWASHITA: Okay, so, and is this, again I’m assuming that this garage is one of the original structures that was built? TUTTLE: Where all those structures, including that, it’s more like a carport but -. IWASHITA: Okay. TUTTLE: Are nonconforming. IWASHITA: Well, it was built in the thirties? TUTTLE: Yes. IWASHITA: Okay. It’s an old building. 11 EXHIBIT D TUTTLE: Yes. IWASHITA: Okay. So, and the three, from what I understand from Mr. Darrow is that three of the parking spaces proposed for this new application, and this is part of the new application, are in the garage, this carport. Is that correct? TUTTLE: That’s correct. IWASHITA: Okay. So I have a concern, Mr. Tuttle, that as far as going forward and approving that part of it, the parking spaces in a structure that, you know, is only partially on the land that you own. And so I would, and if we’re going to go ahead with this, I would want to ask that one of the conditions be submitting a plan to show where there can be parking spaces that don’t -. Because I cannot as a public official, as a Commissioner, approve this and then if there’s some problem later on with the carport, right, that you can claim that, well, the Planning Commission said it’s okay for me to use this so you can’t take my right away even though it encroaches onto the road that I don’t own. TUTTLE: I own the road. IWASHITA: Does anybody else own the road? TUTTLE: No. I’m the sole owner of the road. IWASHITA: Oh, okay, so when I asked, so -. TUTTLE: I thought you said I own the -. IWASHITA: No. TUTTLE: You knew I owned the road from -. But, no, that’s a private -. IWASHITA: When I said easement I meant that -. TUTTLE: I own the road and -. IWASHITA: So you own all of this land from the highway and all of the other three lots -.? TUTTLE: Yes, sir. IWASHITA: And these two lots? TUTTLE: Yes, sir. IWASHITA: Okay. I still, well, I have a problem. Let me tell you what my concern is. It’s that if at some point you decide to sell this particular lot, okay, that this, something would have to be done because you can’t really sell the property with, you know, one of the, with this carport 12 EXHIBIT D that’s straddles a line that, you know, across where you can’t sell the, you’re not selling the road, you’re only selling the property. TUTTLE: Well, that parcel can never be separately sold cause I have a covenant on my deed, I agreed with the DLNR that those two lots would always be sold together because they’re on the historical register. So they will remain intact. IWASHITA: That’s in the record? DARROW: Correct. IWASHITA: Okay. But still when you sell both of them, right, part of that sale would be this carport that straddles this line. TUTTLE: Well, the road goes with those two lots. The road is deeded with those two lots. IWASHITA: Okay. So the deed, so your deal with DLNR is if there’s ever a sale the road and these two separate lots would have to be sold together? TUTTLE: Correct. IWASHITA: All three? TUTTLE: Correct. IWASHITA: Is that correct, on the record? DARROW: Correct. IWASHITA: Okay. Then that alleviates my concern. Thank you for clearing that up. WOODWARD: All right, do we have any other questions? Let me ask you, I assume you have received both the recommendations for each application. TUTTLE: YES. WOODWARD: And the conditions. Are satisfactory to you? TUTTLE: Yes, sir. WOODWARD: Okay, very good. And for the record, we have nobody to testify on either agenda items 8 or 9. So, if somebody is ready to make a motion on No. 8, we can take it from there. Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Sorry, Mr. Chair. I still have, so just to clarify in my mind, the map that we saw distributed, that was the map from the original application, right? 13 EXHIBIT D DARROW: Correct. IWASHITA: Okay. And that map shows all of the parking stalls that you observed when you went for your site inspection, is that correct? DARROW: Yes. IWASHITA: Okay, thank you. WOODWARD: Okay, Mr. Tuttle, you can have a seat. Thank you very much. AU: Commissioner Rell, I’ve got one thing to ask. WOODWARD: Oh, I guess we have one more question for you. Commissioner Au. AU: I share Commissioner Iwashita’s concern. You know, is that a property line, that road? Is that a property line? Is that three separate lots? DARROW: Correct. AU: Okay, yeah, you know, it’s just -. A property line is a property line and there are setbacks within that. And, yeah, sure you’re grandfather claused in with that cottage right on your property line. But, you know, that is a property line, so I do share Commissioner Iwashita’s concern. You know, I myself own two properties that’s side by side, very similar like that, and it’s still a property line. You know, I put in things on my property and I have to follow the same rules as a property line. So, you know, if that is a property line and that is actually three lots, the road is one lot, and it’s being subdivided, you know, that still is a property line. So I do share his concerns, if it is. WOODWARD: Madam Director? LEITHEAD TODD: I was going to explain that the way some of these pre-existing nonconforming structures work is that we recognize they’re nonconforming. And unless there is, you know, like a situation where you’re selling off the lot and the guys that’s buying the lot objects to the structure being there so that you’ve got to remove it, or if you subsequently wanted to dedicate the road to the County, then you’d have to remove the encroachment. But we actually in many places on the island have old structures that got built in the wrong place and encroached even on County’s rights-of-way on the roads. And so as long as the County isn’t widening the road we don’t make them tear the structure. And there’s one I’m familiar with up in Kaumana. You know, if the County ever paves to the edge of their right-of-way then the structure has to be torn down. If the structure burns the property owner cannot rebuild it in the place that it currently exists. He would have to then conform to the setbacks on the property line. But basically on a lot of these because they were built so long ago we don’t, unless there is some other reason to make them tear it down or move it, we basically allow these structures to remain -- until such time as either the structure is renovated more than 50 percent, in which case 14 EXHIBIT D they’re got to move it, or if it burns down and has to be replaced, in which case they have to conform with the setbacks. Or if Mr. Tuttle had been coming in and doing a subdivision and he was selling off the other lots and this was then going to be set aside as a roadway lot that was owned by everybody, then there might be a need to get rid of the encroachment. But I can assure you that there are other properties on the island that have similar situations; and we basically treat them as nonconforming and deal with them if and when either the building has to be renovated, or torn down, or rebuilt, or if there’s something else that happens in the encroachment area that requires that the building be torn down or moved. It’s odd, it doesn’t make sense. But the problem is, is that a lot of these things are, back in the 1930s people weren’t paying attention to where things were. And if a property owner owned all the land, then he didn’t care whether he was straddling lot lines or he was straddling the road because he was the only guy coming in on the road. And if I’ve got the house correctly this is quite a beautiful older home with some beautiful, I think it’s like some lava rock features on the main residence, then I was there in the 1960s and it really is a beautiful old home; and it’s kind a neat ambiance. It’s rustic with the old structures there. And then if, and I really don’t see a need to put some kind of condition that he tear down the carport when he owns all of the land around this area and the people coming in, or coming in on basically even though it’s designated as a road it’s pretty much like private driveway. But he is aware that if something happens to that structure he would have to reconstruct it within, taking into account the setbacks. WOODWARD: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Just out of curiosity, Mr. Tuttle, do you know who built the house originally. TUTTLE: James Johnston, he sold it in 1941 to Hawaiian Dredging. WOODWARD: Oh, that’s the owner, okay. Who was the contractor? TUTTLE: I don’t know. LEITHEAD TODD: You’re thinking your father? IWASHITA: No, my grandfather. LEITHEAD TODD: Your grandfather. It’s a beautiful home. WOODWARD: Okay. Commissioner Kern. KERN: I’m ready to make a motion. WOODWARD: Okay. If you’d have a sit, sir. Thank you very much. Okay, Commissioner Kern. 15 EXHIBIT D KERN: All right, I move that amendments to the Use Permit No. 165, Michael D. Tuttle requesting two amendments to Use Permit No. 165 which include the reduction of the permit area from 34,162 square feet of land to 20,802 square feet of land and change the 5-bedroom units that will be used for the existing bed and breakfast operation, the Use Permit No. 165 to establish 5-bedrroom bed and breakfast operation, okay, basically TMK:1-1-05:19, I move that this be, move that that be approved. WOODWARD: That’s No. 8. You’re talking about Agenda Item No. 8? KERN: Yeah, but I’m reading this off of a background report which I believe is 8. WOODWARD: Amendments to Use Permit No. 165? KERN: Yeah WOODWARD: Right, be approved with the recommendations -. KERN: That’s right. With the recommendations and conditions, yeah. WOODWARD: And conditions by the Department. Okay, I just want to make that clear. Okay, do we have a second? AU: I second. WOODWARD: Okay. Any discussion? All right, Jeff. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to approve the amendment to Use Permit No. 165. With that I’ll take the motion. Commissioner Kern? KERN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Au? AU: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Yes, aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. 16 EXHIBIT D DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes six to zero. WOODWARD: All right. Now we have Agenda Item No. 9, Use Permit Application 09-16. Do we have a motion? KERN: Sure. WOODWARD: Okay. KERN: All right, let’s try and do this right on this one. Okay, Item No. 9, I move that, this is regarding Hale Ohia LLC (USE 09-16), Use Permit to allow the establishment of a 5-bedroom bed and breakfast operation within an existing dwelling and a detached bedroom situated on approximately 14,961 square feet of land within the single-family residence, the property is located on TMK: 1-1-5:46, I move that this be approved with conditions. WOODWARD: Do we have a second? AU: I second. WOODWARD: All right. Any discussion? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? WOODWARD: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: I speak against the motion. I’m of the inclination at the very beginning when this law was drafted that it provided for an individual who owns a home, owns a home, and then perhaps in this situation being, making an additional dwelling to accommodate a bed and breakfast was logical. And it was acceptable at the time because you had the owner of the property doing it. And here we find two adjoining parcels, similar ownership with the same configuration, five bed and breakfasts. And I earlier stated the density and the amount of cars that would impact on this area.And another thing is that the owner of the building will not be situated on this particular bed and breakfast. They will probably have an operator who will be paid to manage the area. And although the owner has mentioned that he does not have any further development plans for the adjacent properties, I have strong reservations against this. I think it’s about time that we, I guess the County, the County Council and the Administration, should look at this bed and breakfast concept very carefully and look at it as to what kind of impacts or even to what kind of benefits it’s providing. I know there are positive pluses to it in its development and the advantages that is coming from it. But as we look around us today, you know, with so bed and breakfasts coming up and as the law as written provides for anyone, anyone to apply for a bed and breakfast -- and then they can also apply and build another 17 EXHIBIT D dwelling on the property and use that also as a bed and breakfast -- it’s getting, it’s getting to the point that it’s impacting, I think, our tourism industry. You know, if you look, if you look at the occupancy rates in the hotels, they’re not at all encouraging. They’re suffering and, you know, there are people who are being laid off today because there are no jobs for them. And, you know, we need to look at this whole concept and see how we can co-exists with bed and breakfasts and with tourist destination areas. And all I know is at this point there are many people who are being impacted. They’re working part-time during the week. Some of them have been laid off, and they’re without jobs. And what we’re doing here, what we’re doing here is encouraging other uses that compete with the hotel industry. With the hotel industry, you know, people come, they provide amenities for the visitors, they can go golfing, they have activities on site, and they can dine on the property; and those are incomes for people who work there and for the State. What we’re doing is we’re impacting that scenario. And I, granted, if times were as lucrative as it was before then I wouldn’t have this kind of concern. But my primary concern is based on what we already have. So, you know, I speak strongly against this motion. It’s not complementing the character of a residential area. We can find people who can come in with the intent of doing business on those properties, buying those zoned lands, build a house, provide additional dwelling, and then make accommodations for five individuals per lot. You know, when you pencil it down it can be beneficial for anyone who wants to do that. And I think what I’m saying is that I am against that and I would support what we have now and strengthen what we have; and then if people want to do bed and breakfasts they can, they can right now, nothing is stopping them. So that’s my whole feeling, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Any further discussion? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I share some of Commissioner Domingo’s concerns; and I guess, you know, in my mind the way I figured this is that in essence Mr. Tuttle has figured out a way to double his capacity from this property, which is to his credit.But, you know, what that does is it raises a concern that Commissioner Domingo raises. And, you know, as I understand it, Mr. Tuttle owns all of these lands that we see on the map as part of this application and that all of the lands, even though it’s three separate lot, the roadway lot and now the two subdivided lots, are required by covenant to be sold together, you know. And I guess in this way it’s really, you know, assuming approval it really increases the value of what he has; and I, you know, that’s great. As far as I’m concerned, you know, that’s great. But I do share Commissioner Domingo’s concern. However that, given all of that I still feel that Mr. Tuttle has complied with the law, that the conditions are there, that this is in a way an anomaly. I don’t see others really being able to duplicate this very much. They may be able to, but this is rather an unusual situation. So those are my thoughts and concerns. WOODWARD: Madam Director. LEITHEAD TODD: I understand Commissioner Domingo’s concerns over the hotel resort industry and vacancies in the hotels. But what you have in Volcano is a rural area that is a visitor attraction area because of the National Park. You also have a limited capacity within the National Park to provide any hotel room accommodations because the land is controlled by the 18 EXHIBIT D National Park so you can’t expand or add more rooms to Volcano House. And what has occurred in Volcano is there are a number of bed and breakfasts that have sprung up to service a segment of the visitor population that would like to stay in Volcano for, you know, one night, two nights. My husband and I stayed at one of the bed and breakfasts up Volcano one year, it was the old Lyman estate. And it has allowed people who picked up some of the older homes a mechanism to have some revenue to maintain and restore some of these homes, some of them that are far older than the 1930s. And because the visitor spends the night and stays in Volcano what it means is they sometimes go eat at the Kilauea Lodge, they go eat, there’s a little Thai Restaurant in Volcano Village. They visit the little stores in Volcano Village. And typically, you know, many of them will stay more than one night. Whereas what occurs with the vast number of visitors that go to the National Park is they do not stay in our hotels. They come in on a one-day junket from Oahu, they land at the Airport, they board a bus, they are then driven to the Volcano House where, you know, they may partake of lunch there or they may do something else. They may stop at Akatsuka Orchids. In the old days I think they used to stop at Nani Mau. I don’t know if there’s much of that going on. But they weren’t visiting the little stores up in Volcano. They weren’t hitting the other restaurants up inVolcano which are locally owned. The property has changed hands. Many of those facilities go back to the 1930s. And as a young child, you know, I would walk from Wright Road to Hongo Store and to the other Volcano Village Store up there; and it has helped revitalize Volcano to have these bed and breakfasts. It has helped the people who live in that area provide income, particularly to a lot of retirees. And I think you have to have that variety of visitor destination.And it’s a way in which without having to bring in a lot of infrastructure you are able to attract those types of visitors. I understand the concerns of the fact that what is essentially happening here is doubling. Okay? But I think it’s mitigated by the fact that all the property in this area that is zoned Residential is owned by Mr. Tuttle. So it does not impact neighbors like some of the other bed and breakfasts that we had previously approved which are smacked, you know, we had some I think at Honolii right in the middle of a residential area with houses right next door.This area is rather secluded. He owns all the properties so there’s minimal impact to neighbors. It’s right off the main highway so you’re not worried about the traffic impacting a small residential street with other homes on it. I think that it’s correct that we do need to look at bed and breakfasts overall on the island and talk about density and what the capacity is. But I think that Volcano can absorb this; and it’s a way in which some beautiful older homes get utilized rather than just sitting there and gathering mold. So I, you know, thank you. WOODWARD: Thank you. Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, for the record, and I mentioned this to Mr. Gonzalez -. Can the Planning Director speak, in my opinion speak in favor of the motion or speak against the motion? I want a clarification on that. 19 EXHIBIT D GONZALEZ: I don’t think that the Director was doing that. I think she’s following the Charter mandate duties of advising the Commission. She prepared the recommendation, you guys made a motion based on that recommendation. She’s clarifying why she recommends approval, I think. If she’s saying how she would vote one way or another then I could see an issue there; but I didn’t hear something like that, unless I missed it. DOMINGO: Well, no, no. She didn’t say that she would want us to approve the motion, because that recommendation already was made by her. And what she’s saying was not presented as a staff report to the Commission. Now had not this motion, had not the comments made against the motion, would she have stood up and said the same things that she did? I believe not, you know. I’m sensing that there was some opposition, she stood up and she spoke in favor of the motion, in essence, and to give information that it’s okay for us to approve it. And my question is why had not this been presented as a staff report to us? WOODWARD: Madam Director? LEITHEAD TODD: When we do these reports we do them fairly standard. And staff prepares them and I technically signoff on them. Commissioner Domingo, I personally do not care whether you approve this B&B or not. That is purely within the call of the Planning Commission. What I’m addressing is some of the issues you raised over B&Bs and the location, and basically explaining why our recommendation was in favor, cause it’s partially on a case-by- case basis. And it was based on the location of this property and its relationship. It may not be in the report but that is a consideration when we look at these. Because if a request came in and it was in a subdivision where you had a residential street and you had homes next door and you had families living next door, that would be an issue because traffic would be much more of an issue and off-street parking would be much more of an issue. And I’m pointing out that this particular parcel is kind of off all by itself. But I personally have no vested interest in how the Commission votes. If the Commission votes based on the fact that, you know, it is essentially doubling what was there previously and they feel that that’s inappropriate, then the Commission can vote that way. WOODWARD: Okay, thank you. You know, I think the Director makes a recommendation, she’s free to amend that recommendation based on testimony and questions. I think that’s what she did. I think it’s perfectly appropriate. Any other comments? IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? WOODWARD: Yes, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I intend to not vote against this. But my position, what I just want to make clear on the record is that it’s based on the representation that there is a covenant with DLNR that all these three lots essentially have to be conveyed together, if or when there is a conveyance of this property. And I rely on that because of the encroachment, you know, the carport straddling that boundary line. And that is a real substantial concern of mine, but because there’s that covenant that alleviates my concern. And I just want to make clear on the record that that will be the basis of my position on this. 20 EXHIBIT D WOODWARD: Thank you.Commissioner Ishibashi. ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I’m going to be voting against this proposal. Split hairs, what is an owner, what is an operator of one bed and breakfast. I’m not against bed and breakfasts. But for us to split hairs and to allow to have an operator, hire an operator to run additional rooms on a property, this is expanding again, just expanding more for one current property owner. So this can expand beyond. So I don’t know how we can split hairs on allowing to have, hiring an operator and an owner living on the same property and that can expand to the adjacent properties and to other bed and breakfasts around the island. So I’m going to be voting no against this. WOODWARD: Commissioner Kern. KERN: One of the challenges in living in East Hawaii when people come over is where you stay, right? And I know the hotel industry on the island is quite large. Majority of that is on the Kona side. You come here, you know, Hilo side, we know what the options are; and they’re okay, they’re not that great. So we have options of bed and breakfasts and vacation rentals. And being that there is not a major hotel industry up there in Volcano, I wouldn’t think that we’d be taking away jobs from other folks by approving that.I do agree that it is splitting hairs. I definitely empathize with the concerns on both sides. But it’s so out there on its own deal and its own entity that I support it. I think it’s a good thing. And other ones that we passed, you know, the owner says that they’re going to be the operator, they can simply just move out afterwards, go to the mainland and have an operator there they’re paying to do it. So it’s kind of challenging when really anybody can say one thing that they’re going to be the owner/operator and then bail out afterwards when there’s nothing requiring them to do that. So, yeah, that’s basically all I’ve got to say, is that it’s so far out there, there’s no major hotel industries in that area that I don’t think we’re pulling people away. And we’ll see how that goes. Thank you. WOODWARD: All right, I’ll just give my two cents worth too. I think the points that have been made, there is a lack of lodging facilities in that area. There are a number of small businesses that require the tourists to be there for their livelihood; and this, in a way, helps the, in my way of thinking, helps the community of Volcano to support the little mom and pop businesses that have sprung up there. So I think in the greater good of things that this, there’s merit to this. So I have no problem with it. Does anybody else have any further comments? Commissioner Au. AU: That carport still bothers me. Is there, I just came on the Commission so I’m fairly new. What would have to be done to get that thing removed? Do I make an amendment to remove that carport? I would like to do that. GONAZALEZ: Well, at this point if you make a motion for them to have to remove that structure without explaining the rationale basis you open up yourselves to a challenge from them, I think, for taking property of value. So you’re going to have to explain a very good basis on the record on why that structure should be removed, I think. 21 EXHIBIT D IWASHITA: In executive session? GONZALEZ: If you want to discuss that further, yeah, we’re going to need an executive session. IWASHITA: Yeah, Mr. Chair, I move to adjourn to executive session. KERN: May I make a comment quickly before that -? The main thing with the carport is straddling the property line, right? And being that we realize that, that’s not the right thing but it’s grandfathered in. When you go to sell, if he ever does sell the property he has got to disclose that, too. You know what I mean? So that is kind of a possible ”fail safe” in there, that if he doesn’t disclose an encroachment that he basically opens himself up to major litigation. LEITHEAD TODD: There’s a motion on the floor for an executive session. WOODWARD: If I might ask Commissioner Iwashita, evidently -. GONZALEZ: It hasn’t been seconded yet. WOODWARD: It hadn’t been seconded. Evidently the owner is willing to consider removing the carport. And so if we can avoid it by asking him a question or two, is that all right with you? IWASHITA: Oh, sure. WOODWARD: Okay. Mr. Tuttle, if you want to -. Okay, I understand that you had made some concession with regard to this carport. Is that true? TUTTLE: Well, when Jeff asked me I said, sure, I’ll take the carport down. And then I’m thinking I’m trucking water right now, we’re in a drought, and it’s a major source of how I catch my water off that roof. I don’t think some people realize the people we employ, the taxes we collect from the B&B, it’s huge up there. But if it means tearing down the carport, I’ll tear the carport down. IWASHITA: Mr. Tutttle? I’m sorry, Mr. Chair. WOODWARD: Yes, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you. Mr.Tuttle, is the carport part of your historical structure designation, included as one of the -? TUTTLE: No. IWASHITA: No? TUTTLE: No. 22 EXHIBIT D IWASHITA: Okay so the historical structure or the historical site designation includes which structures? TUTTLE: The main house, Lehua and Ohia. This is what was applied for when I applied for the designation. IWASHITA: What about Ihilani? TUTTLE: That was not applied for or the water, this, or the water tank. IWASHITA: Ihilani is not part of the historical structure designation? TUTTLE: It’s not listed. IWASHITA: Oh, okay, thank you. GONZALES: It’s still not clear -. WOODWARD: Yeah, it’s still not clear to me either. TUTTLE: So I’ll tear the carport down. WOODWARD: Well, I’m not sure that that’s -. Did you guys want to go into executive session? Was that -? IWASHITA: No. WOODWARD: No? IWASHITA: No. That -. TUTTLE: Well, I guess another option would be to cut it back to the property line and go for a variance on the setback. WOODWARD: Well, Commissioner Au is the one who had the question so let him decide what he thinks is, what he’s concerned about there. AU: Well, you know, my main concern is like I mentioned before, you know, I own two properties and I have the same, like I have a property line and I own it. And, you know, whether or not it was grandfathered claused in, it seems to me that that property was there, I’m sorry, that carport was there, then you put the property line in. And, you know, if you put the property line in after it was built, it shouldn’t be grandfather claused in. You know, I understand what BJ was saying about, you know, things being grandfather claused in, like that building right on the property line. But, you know, that carport is not on the property line, it’s straddling it. And, you know, whether or not you own both properties, the road and that property, it’s still a property line, and that’s why it bothers me. Because, you know, there’s a line that, there’s a line, I see it 23 EXHIBIT D and there’s a building and I see it; and it just bothers me. And how can we continue to approve, you know, things like this when -. I just don’t see the logic in it. I understand it’s grandfather claused in but, you know, maybe if you can just kind of talk about that. And was it -? I mean I’m assuming that carport was there, then you put that line there, right? TUTTLE: No, no. The line was there before the carport. That has not changed, that line. AU: So you built that carport -? TUTTLE: No. WOODWARD: That’s the old property line. AU: Oh, that’s the old property. Okay. TUTTLE: Yeah, that has been there since the beginning, 1930, or ’28, or whenever. AU: So that building was built on the line when it was built? WOODWARD: With the reconfiguration it now is not going across the property line. IWASHITA: It is. KERN: It’s a different line. IWASHITA: No, it’s the same line. WOODWARD: So that line in the middle, that’s the old line. AU: Right. WOODWARD: So with the new configuration the line between the two lots doesn’t go across the carport. AU: Okay. WOODWARD: So you have no objection to it? GONZALEZ: Well, see, there’s two ways that you people are looking at it now. AU: Yeah, I see two. I see a dotted line and I see that line. GONZALEZ: You’re looking at it this way, this line; and they’re looking at it this way. ISHIBASHI: Yeah. 24 EXHIBIT D GONZALEZ: But he’s talking about it going over onto the road. WOODWARD: All right, yeah. TUTTLE: I’m confused about what line you’re talking about. It’s, are you talking about this line? AU: No. The whole time I’m talking about that line. TUTTLE: You’re talking about this line? AU: Yes. Was that line in there -? TUTTLE: That’s original. AU: That’s the original. TUTTLE: That line has not changed. AU: Oh, okay. So that’s not -. Yeah, this is confusing. You know, I’m confused at what was built there. And when you subdivided it, was that whole parcel you own on the other side of the road, was that your whole property from the start -? TUTTLE: No. AU: And then you subdivided everything? TUTTLE: No. What, originally when this was developed there were three lots here that Hawaiian Dredging owned. There were three lots on this side. So there were a total of six lots. When they put Highway 11 through they took the front two lots for Highway 11. So I’ve not added any lots or increased the number of lots. I just, all I did was redraw the center line of the two right-hand lots. GONZALEZ: But you bought all the lots and the road lot -? TUTTLE: Yes. GONZALEZ: Altogether, right. And it had those pre-existing structures on it, right? TUTTLE: Yes. GONZALEZ: Okay. So does that make sense, Commissioner Au? AU: Yeah, yeah, it does make sense. 25 EXHIBIT D GONZALEZ: And then, I mean, you guys have got to clear it in your head. Cause I don’t want you guys voting on something unless you’ve got it clear in your head. So I guess you can follow up to address your concerns. So you didn’t build -? WOODWARD: It would seem to me that since this is all his property including the road that, you know, I don’t see a problem here, but maybe it’s just me. DARROW: If I could also make a clarification that when this application had gone through subdivision as well as a variance application they also had to take into consideration all these structures. And it had to be, each structure had to be clarified as to its nonconforming status. For it to be able to, they would not necessarily approve a subdivision if everything was illegal. It had to be nonconforming or grandfathered in for them -. WOODWARD: So this made it by Public Works and whoever? DARROW: Yeah, and the Planning Department. WOODWARD: Okay. Well, I’d say it, you know, that’s out of our league then. That’d be my approach to it. Okay, do we have any other questions, comments? All right, I guess we will take the vote as it is. Correct? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair, I guess this is more a procedural question. For applying, looking at the bed and breakfast Section 25-4-7 of the Code, it talks about the requirement in B-2, talks about the requirement of the operator of the bed and breakfast establishment shall reside in the same building; and there was some discussion about that earlier. Seems to me that operator needed to reside or is required to reside, that means that it has to be a human being. And in this case we, I know Mr. Tuttle owns all of this, right, and I guess you’re purporting to be the operator for both. But the applicant on this particular matter is an LLC. I’m assuming it is a sole member LLC? TUTTLE: Yes, sir, it is. IWASHITA: Okay. And you’re the sole member? TUTTLE: Yes. IWASHITA: So, I guess now in my head I’m having a difficult time wrapping around the concept that Mr. Tuttle as the operator of both B&B’s can live in both B&Bs. TUTTLE: It would be hard -. GONZALEZ: That’s not what it says. WOODWARD: That’s not the plan, I don’t believe. Mr. Tuttle? 26 EXHIBIT D IWASHITA: Well, I understand that’s not the plan. But I guess operator is not defined in the Code, right? So without the definition though, you know, if the operator obviously has to be a human being, and I’m not -. And if we’re being asked to approve this bed and breakfast based on this Statute, right, then in my mind I need to feel comfortable that the applicant is the operator who’s going to be operating this BB, and that operator needs to be a human being that’s going to live in the B&B. So that’s, I understand it’s not defined, I understand it’s subject to interpretation. That’s my interpretation. TUTTLE: I will be, with approval, I’ll be hiring an operator, someone to work with me. Maybe I’ll have a family member be the operator for that parcel. GONZALEZ: Yeah, I don’t think it specifically prohibits -. IWASHITA: I understand. WOODWARD: All right. TUTTLE: Regarding, and I’d like Mr. Domingo to, I wish I could convince you that these are good things. It’s not only, when I came to Hawaii almost 20 years ago I couldn’t believe the historic or lack of interest on historic properties.They’re expensive to maintain, you have such, in Volcano you have so many old wonderful buildings. It allows you to maintain the gardens. This property was landscaped by the Konichi Brothers who did Liliuokalani Gardens in Hilo. There’s a lot of history there. People love to come there and experience the warmth, the history of Hawaii, and especially Volcano. We have lots of people that come parking, we have people that come three couples to a van. They don’t each bring a car. We have people that come up on the bus. It’s a wonderful experience to host these people. I’ve hired a girl, Kara, she has practically grown up there. She’s raising her son there. He’s in school in Mt. View. She has worked for me for 7 years. I have other part-time employees there that work. I have a lawn man who has mowed my grass for 15 years. We’re not taking away jobs from the Kona hotels because there are no hotels in Volcano. We don’t want a Travelodge, we don’t want a 8-day motel in Volcano. There’s no water in Volcano. Hopefully that maintains, remains and keeps people, the big hotels out. I’m sorry I went off, but it’s been a long 3 ½ years. I’ve been working on this for over 3 1/2/ years, so I’m getting older and grayer. WOODWARD: All right. Thank you, sir. Any further questions? Okay, you may have a seat. Thank you. All right, Jeff, let’s take a vote. DARROW: Okay. The motion before us is to approve this use permit application. With that I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Kern? KERN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Au? AU: Yes. 27 EXHIBIT D DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: No. DARROW: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: No. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes four to two. WOODWARD: Barely squeaked by. Okay, you’ll be notified in writing. Thank you very much. The discussion ended at 3:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 28 EXHIBIT D