2008-04-04 TMIRANDA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Item No. 2 carries, then it’s my understanding that the Planning Director will withdraw his proposal on Agenda Item No. 1. So with that, I would turn it over to Mr. Darrow. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning Members of the Planning Commission. Just for a brief history on Items 1 and 2, Item No. 1, the initiation by the Planning Director to revoke Special Permit 05-009 was heard before the Planning Commission on February 1, 2008. The Planning Commission had voted to defer the action for a period of sixty days to allow the Planning Department to process a time extension request that had just been submitted by the applicant. Agenda Item No. 2 is that request. The applicant is Melvin Miranda. He’s requesting an amendment for a one-year time extension to Condition No. 2 of Special Permit 05-009. Condition No. 2 is the time to secure plan approval. So he’s asking for a one year time extension Just for a brief background, the location of the property is just north of Honokaa. Honokaa would be on the south side or the right side of the map. Waimea would be towards the north. We have Mamalahoa or Hawaii Belt Road running in a north-south direction. And we have the project site identified in this area on the map. This is approximately a 17-acre property. On August 6, 2005, the Planning Commission had voted to approve a request for an agricultural baseyard on one-acre of this approximate 17-acre parcel with conditions. The applicant has submitted several items since our last hearing to be able to show compliance with these conditions. Basically Condition No. 2, plan approval, he has submitted plan approval; and that has been sent out to the Planning Commission. A copy of that has been given to our staff to be able to look over. If this application is approved or this request, then they’ll go forward and process the plan approval. Along with the application is a map showing where the proposed structures, layouts are going to be, and also landscaping on the property. Additionally, Condition No. 8 needed to be submitted, which was to have the description of metes and bounds in map and written form of that one-acre area, so we could know where these different vehicles needed to be stored and where the proposed structures were going to be laid out. Since our last hearing we have received the map; and just this morning, it has been passed out to you, the applicant has submitted a copy of the description in written form. So we have received both of those items. Since our last hearing, additionally, we have received several letters, numerous comment letters. One is dated March 10, 2008 from the Department of Transportation. Additionally, we’ve received comment letters from Department of Health, Public Works, and Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division. Lastly, we’ve received a letter from the adjoining neighbor to the north of the property from their representative Mr. Paul Lal and that’s dated February 13, 2008. As Mr. Chairman had pointed out the Planning Director is recommending approval of the amendment request for Item No. 2. If approved then the Planning Director will withdraw his revocation and initiation on Item No. 1. Are there any questions? th SIRACUSA: Yes. With reference to the March 10 letter from the State Department of Transportation, they list several concerns, and I did not notice in the recommendation and conditions where those concerns were addressed. Is there a reason why they were not? For example they refer to Chapter 343, HRS 343, which deals with environmental impact statements, EXHIBIT A 2