Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-04 TMCNICOLL PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 4, 2006 MILTON MCNICOLL, III (SPP 06- A regularly advertised hearing on the application filed by 000030) was called to order at 2:15 p.m. in the County Building, Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED: Rene’ Siracusa Bill Graham Fred Galdones Andrew Iwashita Jeffrey McCall Alvin Rho Allen Salavea Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 6 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: MILTON MCNICOLL, III (SPP 06-000030) Special Permit to allow the establishment of a commercial vehicle storage and baseyard facility on 0.723 acres of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located along the east side of Ainaola Drive, approximately 300 feet south of the Ainaola Drive – nd Hoaka Road intersection, Waiakea Homesteads 2 Series, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-4-34: portion of 3. ALAMEDA:Okay. Item No. 7. Final Agenda Item for today. Applicant, Milton McNicoll, III, SPP 06-000030. This is a Special Permit to allow the establishment of a commercial vehicle storage and baseyard facility on 0.723 acres of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property located along the east side of Ainaola Drive, approximately 300 feet south of the Ainaola Drive – Hoaka Road intersection, Waiakea Homesteads. Staff? DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can direct the Commission’s attention to the location map. The area of this application is within the South Hilo District of Hawai`i, more specifically we’re looking in the area of Ainaola Drive and Hoaka Road. Looking at this white line traveling in an east-west direction across the middle of the map is Ainaola Drive. We have Hoaka Road in this particular area. Ainaola Drive turns into Hoaka Road and that continues in a west direction and then Ainaola Drive changes to a north-south direction in this area. The area of the application is identified with a red dot. Just for zoning purposes, the colors on the map EXHIBIT D 1 signify the different types of zoning. The light-shaded blue is Agricultural 3-acres and that takes all this area here. The light green is identified as Agricultural 1-acre zoning. We have Ag-10, it’s identified in the darker blue, and then the darker green is Agricultural-20. We have Residential and some Commercial zoning just below this particular application, location on Ainaola Drive. The Applicant in this case, Milton McNicoll, III is requesting to legitimize an existing commercial vehicle storage and baseyard operation that is occurring on the subject property. The Applicant is requesting that a 0.723-acre portion of a 1.9-acre area of the property be utilized for this request. At this time, on the property we have identified in red an existing dwelling and then there’s also some sheds that are identified in red in the lower area. There also is a low flood zone area that’s identified by this dotted line on the map. As you come off Ainaola Drive, the driveway will go through the flood zone. There is a culvert in this area that takes care of any drainage for the particular driveway area. As you can see from the pictures that are within the application as well as the ones that are going around to the Commissioners, most of the vehicles are stored in this area identified in blue. There are approximately 10 trucks and vehicles used for a delivery business that the Applicant operates called “Island Delivery” in which he has eight employees and is proposing eight employees. This business delivers major, I mean, appliances for major retailers like Home Depot and Sears. Additionally, the Applicant has approximately 16 vehicles that will be stored on the property for personal use, vehicles and trucks. The Planning Department Department has received several letters after you folks have received the Background and Recommendation. We’ve received comment letters from the Department of Public Works and Water Supply. We’ve received opposition letters from Edward Uyeda, Anthony Phillips and Lillias Leialoha. The Planning Department has submitted a proposed Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order, that’s identified in yellow. And the Applicant’s representative has submitted a response letter to the denial recommendation as well as response letters to the opposition letters. They’ve also submitted 23 letters of support from surrounding property owners. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Department deny this application based on several negative factors, the primary negative factor as being that this area is clearly located outside of an area designated for industrial uses in the General Plan. Additionally, there are several Industrial-zoned areas in South Hilo that this particular operation would be more suitably located. Lastly, that the adverse negative impacts that would be created from a baseyard business such as this to the surrounding property owners would clearly be unreasonable to these property owners. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Darrow? Mr. Jeffrey McCall? EXHIBIT D 2 MCCALL:Yeah, just a quick question. There’s a small square of Open, is there anything in that? DARROW:I have no idea -. I’m sorry, yeah, I’m not sure. Maybe the Applicant’s representative might be aware. Are you familiar, Norman, with this area, it’s vacant? ALAMEDA:Mr. Darrow, excuse me, who took the photos that was passed around? DARROW:I did. Did you have a question in regard -? ALAMEDA:No. Any other questions? Mr. Darrow, I have another one. You mentioned the idea of, the purpose of the application is to legitimize an existing operation? DARROW:Correct. ALAMEDA:In this whole legitimizing of existing operations, is that rare or is that common? DARROW:It’s common. What happens is we, the Planning Department will receive a complaint, usually from a surrounding property owner, sometimes from a competitor, and the Planning Department will have the zoning inspector go out and conduct an investigation. If it’s found to be legitimate, they’ll send out a warning letter or a notice of violation, and then from there usually corrective action. If it’s located within an area that can be legitimize, they’ll be given certain instructions on how to legitimize it. In this particular case being in the State Land Use Agricultural District, the Applicant has the opportunity to try to legitimize the business through the Special Permit process. ALAMEDA:Okay, and one more question. Is the Applicant requesting like a time period to legit, or to find another place, or is it to legitimize it? DARROW:In the original application, there was no time period mentioned, but in the recent response letter submitted by the Applicant, they’re requesting a five-year term to be able to relocate the business, based on the fact that it would be obviously a great burden for the Applicant to, and not only the Applicant but apparently the employees to have to shut down at this time and have to immediately relocate. ALAMEDA:Okay, but right now on the table is this idea of legitimizing this particular -. DARROW:Correct. ALAMEDA:And later we’ll talk a little about other options besides that? DARROW:Okay. ALAMEDA:I guess. Okay, thank you, Mr. Darrow. Will the Applicant or his representative please come forward? All right, I’ll swear you guys in, actually, I swore you EXHIBIT D 3 already but I’ll swear both of you again. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:Yes. ALAMEDA:Thank you. On my far left, could you please state your name and address for the record? MCNICOLL:Milton McNicoll, 1400 Ainaola Drive. ALAMEDA:Okay. Hello, Milton. NISHIMURA:Brian Nishimura, 1174 Awiki Place, Hilo. ALAMEDA:Okay. Thanks, Brian. Brian, you’ve heard the discussion. I know you got the report from the Department and, also, I know you’ve turned in a packet of support letters and all. Do you have anything else to add or to comment on? NISHIMURA:Yes, I wanted to briefly summarize the points that I was making in the letter addressed to you and the rest of the Planning Commission. After receiving the negative recommendation from the Planning Department, I went back and discussed the matter with the Applicant, and we decided that we would try to request that a five-year time period be granted to allow the Applicant to try to relocate his business, that there is difficulty, you know, in terms of a financial situation that he has with his ongoing obligations. And in his attempts to look at for or to look for property in the Industrial- zoned District, he has found them very few and far between and quite expensive, well beyond the means that he has right now to try to acquire these properties, or to even to lease them for this purpose. The Planning Department’s Recommendation on dealing with, states that this is an unreasonable request because of adverse negative impacts that the use would have on surrounding properties; and I want to focus on those for a moment. They list “dust, noise, visual and traffic impacts.” We believe that the primary problem that triggered the filing of the complaint, and we don’t know who filed the complaint with the Planning Department, was primarily because of an unsightly visual impact that the use had in the surrounding area. There were a lot of equipment and a lot of material that was stored on the front of the property that Mr. McNicoll has since cleared away; and that is the only portion of the property that is highly visible. The portion, the front part of the property that is adjacent, immediately adjacent to Ainaola Drive, because of the sloping terrain of the property, the rear of the property is not visible from that street. The three adjacent property owners does have a view of the vehicles that he is storing; and in light of that, Mr. McNicoll is, would like an opportunity address some mitigating measures that could be taken to provide a planting screen to block the visual impact, as well as providing additional setbacks from the property lines from those adjacent property owners. But, in addition to that, we’d also like to point out that two of those adjacent property owners have signed letters of support for Mr. McNicoll and indicated that they don’t have any problem with this application. EXHIBIT D 4 With regard to noise, the activity that is actually on the property is quite limited. The employees will arrive in the morning between 7:00 and 7:30 a.m. to pick up the delivery vehicles. They will leave the property shortly thereafter and go to do their pickups. They do not return to the property until the end of the day when all of the deliveries have been made. So, basically, they are arriving to get the vehicles and then returning them to the property. He does do a limited amount of on-site repair and maintenance, but this is only routine maintenance. He does not utilize any heavy equipment or activities that generate a whole lot of noise. The larger vehicles that are used, the dump trucks and the tractor trailers that are utilized for more construction-related types of activities are not a large part of his business activity right now. He has indicated to me that that part of the business is clearly secondary to his home delivery business for Sears and Home Depot. As far as the site distance is concerned, the concern raised by the Department of Public Works, the property is situated on a curve and currently, and I’m mainly talking about sight distance to the south of the property because when the vehicles leave the property, they’re making right turns onto Ainaola and would need to take, I mean, would need to look to the south of the property before they enter Ainaola. That site distance is approximately 200 feet. But upon inspection, there are several large trees that could be cut down that would increase the site distance by at least double that amount and allow the drivers to look through the curve so that that becomes less of a factor. With regard to, you know, the Land Use issues, we’d like to point out that there have been several special permits that have been approved in the Waiakea Uka area, four that I would like to mention. The first is there was a quarry operation that had been approved off of Hoaka Road and was in effect for 15 years. That permit has since been terminated. There has been a, the New Hope Christian Fellowship Church off of Kupulau Road, which was approved, and that church accommodates a membership of, at the time of the application was 800 members, and accommodated services for approximately 500 people. And there was another Special Permit approved off of Ainalako Road for a tree-trimming business; and at the time of that application, that business employed 20 employees, had 15 vehicles, allowed the storage of wood chips, employee parking, repair and maintenance and fuel tanks on the property. There was another Special Permit that was approved off of Ainaola Drive, but that was a much smaller operation for an ice cream manufacturing facility within an, I believe within an existing dwelling that had limitations on the days of operations that really that one really isn’t comparable. But with the exception of that ice cream manufacturing facility, I would venture that the impacts generated by those activities that have been previously approved through a Special Permit process would be comparable or even exceed the impacts generated by Mr. McNicoll’s application. And, again, you know, with the 21 letters of support from surrounding property owners or people that live within the Waiakea Uka community, we believe that that’s an indication that the impacts that his business has generated is not so over-bearing that, you know, they would not be able to support, I mean, there are people living right next door to him that have no objections to this request. ALAMEDA:Okay. Mr. McNicoll, would you like to add anything to that or -? EXHIBIT D 5 MCNICHOLL:No. ALAMEDA:Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Nishimura? I have one, couple actually. You mentioned that the possible mitigating factors about, maybe the one with the trees because from looking at the pictures, it does look like the property is located kind of on the bottom of a winding road coming down, and that road I think is Ainaola; and given the elevation of that road, look like cars can come down pretty fast. So, you mentioned the, so that sight distance is kind of important I think, you know, especially if delivery trucks are turning right. But you mentioned the idea of possibly cutting trees down, would the trees be in their property -? NISHIMURA:Yes. ALAMEDA:Or they’re somebody’s trees? NISHIMURA:It’s trees that are along the southern property line of his property that he could cut down which would allow the sight distance to extend beyond the curve because, I mean, as the curve -. It would allow the driver to see through to where the curve begins instead of in the middle of the curve. ALAMEDA:‘Cause cars can come down there pretty fast and, ‘cause that’s why we had a fork in the road, yeah, going up to Waiakea Uka, it’s the house on the left? Okay, that’s the first question. Second question was, so the primary business is the delivery business for Home Depot and Sears like that. You also mentioned just the home maintenance of the trucks and all, is there also a mechanic doing business there as well or -? MCNICOLL:No, no repair business. ALAMEDA:No repair business? MCNICOLL:No. ALAMEDA:Okay. I have one more question. You mentioned three adjacent property owners who had the visual kind of impacts, and two of three wrote a letter in support of this application? NISHIMURA:That’s correct. ALAMEDA:Okay. And then the final thought I got for now. You mentioned the four areas that were given Special Permits, one the New Hope Church. If I recall correctly, the New Hope Church is pretty far from this application, I mean -. NISHIMURA:Can I go to the map? ALAMEDA:Yeah, go ahead. And it’s on a different road, too, huh? EXHIBIT D 6 NISHIMURA:Well, this is the subject property, this is Kupulau Road, and the New Hope Church facility is, I believe, somewhere in here -. ALAMEDA:Okay. NISHIMURA:With access off of Kupulau. ALAMEDA:Okay. NISHIMURA:The other thing I’d like to point out is that, basically, all of the properties mauka of Kupulau are situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District, which is the designation of this area. And in terms of, if agriculture or the protection of agricultural land and agricultural use is a concern, I would venture to say that less than 10 percent of the properties in this area are actually conducting agricultural activities. I mean, it’s not something that is currently occurring. ALAMEDA:Okay. ‘Cause, and I think you’re making those arguments because I think you’re trying to propose that this SPP is no different in a sense than those other four that you mentioned. Is that correct? NISHIMURA:Well, I’m saying that in terms of the impacts to surrounding properties that this proposal is comparable. ALAMEDA:Is comparable, except for the ice cream business?. NISHIMURA:Right. ALAMEDA:Okay. All right. Any questions? Other questions? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Yeah. How long, Mr. McNicoll, how long have you had your business on this property? MCNICOLL:Since 1995. MCCALL:In ’95? Do you know what the history of the property was before, before you purchased it in ’95, or -? MCNICOLL:Yeah, in ’95. It was a pig farm. MCCALL:Pig farm? MCNICOLL:Yeah. And I’m also, I still raise some pigs yet. GALDONES:Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Galdones? EXHIBIT D 7 GALDONES:Mr. McNicoll, when you purchased this back in 1995, you were aware that it was zoned Agriculture? MCNICOLL:Yes. GALDONES:And when you had started your business, were you aware that you needed a permit, a Special Use Permit to do that? MCNICOLL:No. I only had two delivery trucks at the time. GALDONES:Now you’re requesting a five-year timeframe in which to be able to relocate your property. Why would you think the five years would be sufficient for you to find another property? Why not one year, why not two years, why five? MCNICOLL:I just don’t have the money to do it. I’m a struggling business. GALDONES:And you believe in five years that you’ll be able to financially -? MCNICOLL:Hopefully, hopefully. GALDONES:But then with inflation, cost of properties, you may be in the same situation that you are in today. MCNICOLL:I really can’t answer that one. I wouldn’t know. GALDONES:I understand. ALAMEDA:Mr. Galdones? GALDONES:I have further questions but that would be, not to the Applicant but to Mr. Yuen. ALAMEDA:Okay. Well, thank you. We are disciplined. Any other thoughts or questions for our Applicant, or Mr. McNicoll? Go ahead, Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I noted that, I guess there are 16 or so trucks that are stored on the property or being collected that are parked, they’re not necessarily running. Some of them are, or a good number of them apparently are Peter-Builts -? NISHIMURA:That’s correct. WATANABE:I think you’re drawing a lot of attention to yourself with all of that, huh? Is there any way to get rid of those? ALAMEDA:Mr. McNicoll? MCNICOLL:I don’t know how I’m going to get rid of them. EXHIBIT D 8 ALAMEDA:Is there any way to dispose of it so that it doesn’t become an eyesore to the neighbors or -? MCNICOLL:You can dispose of it but that’s, you know, that’s my things. What am I going to do? ALAMEDA:Oh. Commissioner Watanabe, you were asking that ‘cause you were thinking that, what were you thinking, ‘cause like it’s more visible and -? WATANABE:I was thinking, well, I was thinking that he has been there for, what, 10-15 years and now it has come up, and generally comes up because you had one complaint, not because we went out there looking for it. And I’m thinking that over those 10 or 15 years, you know, you accumulated all this and people are going like, “Where’s the end to that,” and then they finally ran out of patience. And I’m thinking that that’s the root of possibly all this. Maybe not so much, you know, five vans going in and out of his two-acre lot, but the fact that, you know, you have 16 Peter Builts sitting there, and God knows how many are on the way. ALAMEDA:Okay. So, I have a question, then that sparks a question from me real quick. So this application, Mr. Nishimura, is this a storage, is this a baseyard, is this a -, what is the proposal again? NISHIMURA:Well, we didn’t necessarily know how to characterize it, but that was the description that was utilized by the Planning Department in the violation letter that was sent to Mr. McNicoll. It is true that he does store non-operating personal property on this parcel and that, as Commissioner Watanabe has indicated, you know, the accumulation of these vehicles and other material has been a problem; and, admittedly, it is, you know, an eyesore to the community. ALAMEDA:Okay. And, again, Commissioner Rho, you’ve got to get on that record. Commissioner Rho, you have something to add? Any questions? RHO:First of all, I’m not familiar with, you know, the property at all. I don’t live in Hilo. But it seems like it’s sloping because there’s a drainage thing that goes up, based on that diagram. Right? Isn’t the mountain on the bottom or the hill on the bottom? NISHIMURA:No, it -. RHO:Well, maybe the question that I really have is what trees would you cut and where are the trees? NISHIMURA:The driveway is situated on the northern end of the property. There’s a curve that, actually, you can see it better on this map where it comes around this way. There are trees that are planted on this border of his property that he could cut down that would allow them to see through that curve up to this point. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Rho? RHO:So how does the road, which way does the road slope based on that map? EXHIBIT D 9 NISHIMURA:It’s sloping downward in from, this is down and this up. RHO:So as you go from the bottom of that map to the top past his property, you’re looking, you’re going down and you’re clearing some trees out so that you can actually see a little bit further ahead into the driveway so that you won’t actually hit a car coming out or truck coming out? NISHIMURA:Well, it’s more so that these vehicles leaving this property can see the vehicles that are coming down. RHO:Yeah, okay. So, my question is whether or not by cutting those trees down, if you’re on the road going down into the curve, whether you can actually see into his property and see the trucks? NISHIMURA:No. Because the front part of the property is where his dwelling is and the front, what you would be able to see -. RHO:Is much higher than the back? NISHIMURA:What you would be able to see is his front yard which is planted in a lawn, and his house. The trucks are on the rear portion of the property back here. RHO:And then according to this Director’s report, I guess it’s called a Recommendation, there are a total of 26 vehicles on that two-acre or less, actually it’s 1.9 acres, right? NISHIMURA:That’s correct. RHO:So I’m trying to think what that actually looks like if I parked the cars or the trucks side-by-side on two acres; and actually it’s parked on less than two acres because they all park in the back. Yes? NISHIMURA:Yeah, they’re contained in this area back here. And to answer your previous question about, I don’t know if that was a question, but about the drainage and the culvert. The culvert is situated over here because there is water that comes through his property. And when he acquired the property, this area was basically, you know, a muddy area that would not be usable. And he leveled this area off and compacted it with cinder, and the culvert allows the driveway to cross and get into the flat area where the vehicles are. RHO:And my last question, you have this tree trimming business. Can you point that out on that other bigger map? NISHIMURA:I believe it’s over here. RHO:Thank you. EXHIBIT D 10 ALAMEDA:Mr. Nishimura, while you’re up there, I have another question. This is just for my own understanding of the safety issue coming down Ainaola Drive. So they’re coming down Ainaola Drive on a pretty steep hill and that vehicle is potentially located right on the bend. Now who has the right-of-way, the Hoaka folks coming down, or the Ainaola folks coming down to connect onto that main road if they both -? Because why I ask is that because if the Ainaola folks got to come out of that, and if the trucks got to come out, the vehicle would then hurry up real quick and then slow down real quick. That’s potentially a dangerous situation. So who gets the right-of-way? NISHIMURA:No, the traffic, the traffic -. PUBLIC:There’s a stop sign. MCNICOLL:Ainaola is through and Hoaka stops. ALAMEDA:Okay. So Hoaka got to kind of stop and wait, okay. Okay. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I have another question, then I’m back to the Peter-Builts. So, basically, what I’m gathering from what you’re saying is the Peter-Builts are considered his personal items and collection, not necessarily businesss, which then might imply that even if I get an extension at some point I agree I’m going to try to move the business but not necessarily the Peter-Builts. And we’re talking like 16 Peter-Builts, again, and not one -? MCNICOLL:Now, a lot of those Peter-Builts are there for parts; and what I do is I restore older trucks, that’s like my hobby. I like to build older-type trucks. I’m not into the newer trucks. It’s more like a hobby, like how somebody owns a hot rod or motorcycle. You know, that’s my hobby. ALAMEDA:Okay, Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Yeah. What do you do with the restored trucks? MCNICOLL:I just want to keep them and collect them and, you know, that’s it. WATANABE:I have a question for the Director. ‘Cause, you know, my general sense is that, again, like I stated earlier, those Peter-Builts are at the core of the problem. The applicant’s contention is that, “Oh, no, this is just a hobby.There’s no commercial issue.” He has not said that he sells those restored trucks, or there’s no way we can really say, you know, okay, this is a commercial issue. But it still is, I just think for most people, I’m not telling you how to live your life, but I’m just thinking for most people it’s offensive. Okay, I’m sorry. YUEN:Well, let me just explain how the Zoning Code deals with it. The Zoning Code has a definition of “junk yard;” and it’s basically, well, if you have more than 200 square feet of scrap metal or inoperable cars stored on your property, then it’s called a junk yard; and then we would cite the person. And I don’t know if that was, it was specifically stated in the citation; but that was part of the idea behind the citation, is that he’s storing an excessive amount of material. We do cite people for a junk yard. So my understanding of what he is asking is to, EXHIBIT D 11 as part of this Special Permit, to be able to keep the Peter-Builts. And it’s part of our, if our denial is upheld, then beyond 200 square feet of stored, he would -. WATANABE:So then we’re allowing unrelated agricultural business and a junk yard in a State agriculturally-zoned area? YUEN:Well, we, you’ve got to draw the line somewhere. I mean, people do have inoperable cars, an inoperable car or two. But then what you see out of the community sometimes is people start to have these big piles of scrap metal. And I’m not, you know, necessarily talking about Mr. McNicoll, but there are, you do see people who have big piles of scrap in their yards and junk in their yards. And the Planning Department, if it’s more than 200 square feet, we cite them for this, and tell them to get rid of it; and, you know, we might give them some time to get rid of it. But this is a fairly common garden variety citation that we issue in agricultural and residential areas. So, that’s how we handle this, these collections of inoperable machinery; and it includes storage of vehicles for parts that’s -. So the citation did, the citation that he had did say that he had to remove the inoperable equipment. ALAMEDA:I have a question for, I guess I’ll ask Mr. Director. Just for my own sense of how large is 200 square feet, could you kind of square off this room for me. I just kind of would like to know what is 200 square feet. YUEN:Well, 200 square feet is 20 by 10 -. ALAMEDA:So maybe like -. YUEN:And like a two-car garage, no one-car garage, I’m sorry, more like a one- car garage. This room is about 40 by 50. I’d say this room is about 2,000 square feet. ALAMEDA:So maybe that first section over there, that’s about 200 square feet? YUEN:Yeah, where the gentleman is sitting on the right there. But a car in a garage will take up a space of 10 feet wide by 20 feet long, that’s about 200 square feet. ALAMEDA:Okay. So I understand what you call the Code and all, and I do understand where Commissioner Watanabe is coming from; but 200 square feet is pretty small and a lot of people would be -. WATANABE:Yeah, yeah, but he’s asking -. I’m sorry, I’m out of order but he’s asking for three-quarters of an acre. ALAMEDA:Right, right, right. But just going back to the Code, I mean, that’s real rigid. Any other questions for Mr. Nishimura or Mr. McNicoll? NISHIMURA:Could Mr. McNicoll respond to Commissioner Watanabe’s point? ALAMEDA:Sure. Mr. McNicoll, go ahead. EXHIBIT D 12 MCNICOLL:You know, sir, on this listed is 16 of my personal inventory, you know. Out of that there’s a tractor and a backhoe that’s for my own, you know, for my pig farm and stuff like that. That’s for improving, you know, the area for the farm stuff. And then some of this stuff also I use this, I got two buses and some vans that have stuff that I store for, you know, the piggery and some of my personal stuff for the house. And then, you know, you counted it would end up to like, you know, it said, well, that’s 10 Peter-Builts, too, yeah, and there’s a Mack truck, and some of them are trailers. But the end result when I’m done, you know, stripping all these things which I’m in the process of doing, you know, ‘cause I’m still cleaning up, it’s going be total like about three or four things that I’m going to end up with, you know, in my own personal collection. It’s not going to be all of this. I thought you were asking if, you’re saying that if I’m not going to, you know, I am going to throw some of these stuff away, lots of it, in fact. This, you know -. WATANABE:I’m not trying to quantify or I’m not trying to, you know, condemn what you’re doing. I mean, it’s good that you’re going to try. I’m just pointing out that I think that’s what the general public is having a problem with. You know, I don’t want to, like I said, I don’t want to tell you how to live your life but, you know, it’s -. MCNICOLL:No, I understand. ALAMEDA:Okay, any other questions for the Applicant or the Applicant’s representative? You have anything else to say before -? NISHIMURA:Well, you know, the point about what the general public is reacting to, I think what we’re trying to say also is that the storage area that he’s utilizing is not really visible from Ainaola Drive because of the topographic situation of the property. And the three properties that have the most direct impact from a visual standpoint are the properties on the makai side of his property and the ones on the north and south of his property. One of the objections came from the property owner on the makai side; and I think there are things that Mr. McNicoll can do to try to improve that situation by providing a planting buffer and additional setback from that property line so that it can improve the visual impact of what he’s proposing to do. And, as I said, the other two property owners did not have any objections to the request. ALAMEDA:Any other questions? You have a question or, for our Applicants? IWASHITA:For the Director. ALAMEDA:Okay, any questions for our Applicants or the representative? Commissioner Iwashita? Question? IWASHITA:Looking at the area map, I’m trying to figure out, just to the east, I guess, of your property, Mr. McNicoll, that’s like a relatively new subdivision, yeah, that -? MCNICOLL:Yeah, down below? IWASHITA:Yeah. MCNICOLL:Yes. EXHIBIT D 13 IWASHITA:So, what is the distance from the back of your property to that subdivision? I cannot, I don’t know, I’m trying to judge the scale. I’m having a hard time. MCNICOLL:I would say at least a quarter mile or plus. IWASHITA:Okay. So is your property visible? If I owned the house at the end of that new subdivision road, can I see the back of your property? MCNICOLL:No. IWASHITA:No. NISHIMURA:Commissioner Iwashita, if I may. I did, I mean, that question occurred to me and I did drive through that subdivision just this past week; and, honestly, I could not see Mr. McNicoll’s property at all from the roadways within that subdivision. IWASHITA:And your Leialoha neighbor, that is makai of you on Ainaola? MCNICOLL:Yes. IWASHITA:Okay. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Any questions, further questions for the Applicant or Mr. Nishimura? Mr. Director? YUEN:I have a question. The sight distance, do you know what the required sight distance would be from an engineering point of view for a truck exiting that driveway? NISHIMURA:No, I don’t have that figure. YUEN:You know if that would be enough if the trees were removed? NISHIMURA:I believe that it would be sufficient. I don’t know from an engineering standpoint whether that meets their standard or not. ALAMEDA:Okay. Seeing no further questions, you may be seated. RECESSEDThe Chair called for a short recess at 3:00 p.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 3:07 p.m. ALAMEDA:The County Planning Commission has now returned. Okay. Commissioner Galdones, you’d like to pick up on your train of thought? GALDONES:Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Yuen, the Recommendation that was submitted, was it made on the consideration for a five-year timeline in which to cease his operation and clear out of that lot? EXHIBIT D 14 YUEN:No. And, you know, we think that some timeframe would be reasonable. I would say one year with a possibility of a one-year time extension I would look at as reasonable, given that the business has been there for a while. I would still request that, if the Commission went that route, that there be some screening of the view from the neighbors and then, also, some consideration on the sight distance and safety. But even if they had not filed for a Special Permit, you know, we issue a citation and we order removal and ceasing of the business by a certain time. We often extend times, you know, administratively to comply with the citation. So we’re not opposed to some timeframe here to move the business. But I don’t think that we wouldn’t support five years. GALDONES:Okay. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? GALDONES:Follow-up, Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA:Oh, sorry. Commission Galdones, then Commissioner Graham. GALDONES:Thank you. Mr. Yuen, I’m not sure if you’d be able to answer this th question but there was a letter dated July 12 from the Department of Public Works? YUEN:Okay. GALDONES:This was addressed to you. And I just wanted to clarify the second paragraph, what were they trying to say, “We do not sanction the plans. They may be subject to change, given specific code and regulatory requirements.” If you could elaborate, if you know. YUEN:Well, that is a standard sentence that they put in; and I think it means that, say, the person may have submitted a drawing, a building plan, for example. It doesn’t necessarily apply to this situation, but they might have submitted a building plan or a driveway location. And what they’re saying is that they haven’t necessarily reviewed everything about the application, like the building plan; and so just because they didn’t say anything about it doesn’t mean that there isn’t something wrong with the building itself. Let me give you another example. They might submit a site plan showing a driveway location; and the Department of Public Works gives driveway permits. When they actually go out for the driveway permit, they may not like that location, they may not give you the driveway permit. They don’t want the guy saying, “Look, you had my Special Permit application, I showed the driveway over here, you didn’t say anything about it.” Okay? I think that’s the gist of why they put in a comment like this and what they meant by that comment. GALDONES:Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. ALAMEDA:You’re welcome. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I’d just like to point out for the other Commissioners’ consideration what really stuck in my head a lot, and this is not an easy issue for me. But we did take up a very similar thing on a different scale on the highway going from Honokaa to Waimea for an existing EXHIBIT D 15 trucking business that wanted to enter right onto the highway for a Special Permit and all. And this Commission did approve that even though the Planning Director ruled against it; and I remember I wound up voting against it, but -. So that stuff is all swirling through my head, too. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Okay. Further discussion items before we entertain a motion? GALDONES:Mr. Chair, I believe you have public testimony. ALAMEDA:We have no testimony, is that correct? NOMURA:No one signed up. ALAMEDA:Nobody signed up. Anybody in the public would like to testify on this matter? Seeing none, we can continue with our discussion. GALDONES:Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:In light of the discussions that went with the Director and the request by the Applicant to give him a certain timeline in which to comply with the request to cease and desist the operation, I’m inclined to give the Applicant an opportunity to be able to comply with the request to cease and desist. In terms of the timeline, however, I want to make something fair to the Applicant, also. He’s trying to make a business. As you can see he’s not running a very elaborate operation and probably just struggling to make ends meet. So I’m not so sure what is the -. Where I’m leaning towards is to allow him more, some timeframe in which to be able to reasonably be able to comply and still be able to make a living; and I’m not so certain as to what would be a reasonable timeline. I would like to have the Applicant and the representative to come forth and address that so at least it’ll give us some measure as to what would be reasonable for consideration. ALAMEDA:Okay. Let me check with my fellow Commissioners on their thoughts regarding your proposal. I have a question though, point of clarification, Commissioner Galdones, before we move forward. You mentioned cease and de -, how do you say that again? GALDONES:Cease and desist. ALAMEDA:Cease and desist. What is the “cease” part of this potential application. Is the Applicant asking to “cease” the business? GALDONES:No, the Planning Director is telling him to stop their operation. It’s not an allowable operation on Ag land; therefore, he should stop that and clear out that business from there. ALAMEDA:Okay, okay, cease. So “cease” means “stop” and “desist” means -. DARROW:“D-e-s-i-s-t,” desist. EXHIBIT D 16 YUEN:It’s just legalese. ALAMEDA:It’s a fancy term. I wanted to make sure we all know what that meant. IWASHITA:It’s redundant. GALDONES:All that means is to stop. ALAMEDA:Just stop. Okay. Commissioner Graham, any other thoughts on that or any potential proposal on the table? GRAHAM:Well, I’m kind of following up what I was saying before. You know, the other Commissioners did vote for this other operation on the other side of the highway and didn’t ask them to “cease and desist.” So, you know, I’m kind of in a position, it seems to me we need to decide do we want to have him shut down operation here or not, first; and then if we decide we want him to do it, then we come up with a timeline. But, I mean, to me, it feels like he has been forthcoming and, you know, going at this the right way; and he is obviously willing to make efforts to make it better. So, you know, given his situation, I’m not so sure, and given our history with these things, I’m not so sure I want to say you should cease and desist. Maybe he can make this palatable is what I feel like. ALAMEDA:Okay. Other Commissioners feel the same way or differently? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess seems like there are several concerns that have been addressed; and, to me, the bottom line is, and the most important thing is Mr. McNicoll’s business, part of what he’s doing and not so much his hobby, you know. ‘Cause that, those, in my mind the way I was taught to think, you know, you put things in the boxes that they belong in; and it seems to me that those are two different boxes. So as far as his business operation and, you know, Commissioner Graham is correct, his delivery business is essentially along the lines of the same trucking business that we approved in Waimea in Ag land. And it seems, the representation is that although you would think there’ll be more existing places available for Mr. McNicoll to run his business, his representation is that there aren’t anything financially feasible for him to move to. And I guess what I’m seeing the application asking is to approve his being able to keep his delivery vehicles over, you know, store them overnight on this property, have his employees come to the property, start out their runs, and come back in the evening, and then do oil changes and check the spark plugs and those kind of things, wash the vehicles, maintain them on site. And it’s not to do any kind of mechanical repairing, not drop trans and do those kind of things on site, which are basically what we approved with certain conditions in the Waimea situation. So, to that extent, I have to agree with Commissioner Graham that, you know, it’s very similar and the circumstances are similar. Well, they’re not the same because in the Waimea situation the operator had an industrial site from which he was operating where he was being evicted and couldn’t find another site; and, so, he wanted to use this land that he had purchased in Waimea to do that. Right? So that’s how I see it. And then the concerns about the junk yard part of it, I guess, those to me should be just dealt with in the ordinary, the way that the Department ordinarily deals with that, EXHIBIT D 17 that’s a separate issue in my mind. So to the extent that the application, as I understand the application it’s limited to legitimizing the delivery business and the operations of the delivery business. It would seem to me that that would be, voting for that would be consistent with the Waimea operation. ALAMEDA:Okay. Mr. McCall? MCCALL:Yeah, maybe to go on my thoughts on Commissioner Iwashita’s idea in the Waimea operation, I see a couple of differences. One is that the trucking business for DeLuz -. IWASHITA:For Miranda Trucking. MCCALL:Miranda, yeah. Anyway, to me there are two things. His operation was, his clients were primarily ranchers, he did a lot of agricultural things, so a big part of it was to have himself be located in an area where his business was. I don’t see that really fitting here. Number two is that he did not have, as I saw it, any reasonable options as far as finding a site that was zoned that he could, it wasn’t just a matter of whether he could afford it. There were no Industrial-zoned areas there that he could set up his baseyard. I think the nearest areas that were available were down in Kawaihae, which, you know, that is not the case here. I mean, price is another matter but there certainly are enough Industrial areas, Industrial-zoned areas where a baseyard could be located here. My tendency is to hesitate, you know, I mean, there are good reasons to allow Special Permits for baseyards, etcetera, in Ag areas. I just don’t really see those being the case here. I do agree with you that they should be separated; and what we’re talking about is his baseyard for his business. His hobby of repairing vehicles is another matter and that should be dealt with. I mean, possibly he could keep that if he can reduce the scope and the quantity to something that’s reasonable; but, you know, 200 square feet is a bit less than what he has available right now. So I see some definite differences; and my tendency at this point is to deny the Special Permit. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner McCall, for your perspective. Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Just some background on perspectives from the previous permit, the Miranda permit. I voted in favor of approving that Special Permit on the premise that his, like Commissioner McCall had stated, his primary or a good portion of his business was agricultural- based; and he was there to provide many of the local ranchers’ equipment and trucking services to support agriculture in the local area. And we heard testimony that supported that and even went as far as saying without this service, a lot of ranchers would be hard-pressed to provide water, feed and hauling services for their livestock. So, from my perspective, I voted in favor because it was in large part in support of the agricultural business in the area. Again, I’m not sure if this location is conducive for this type of business only because it’s located in a rural, more rural area, more rural part of Hilo. And the way I see it in terms of business, and this may not go over well with many. The special application or Special Permit, operating in this district allows a more advantageous or allows advantages for this Applicant that no one else, or trucking companies, or competitors may not have because they got, they have to pay fees and leases at EXHIBIT D 18 industrial-leased levelled lands. Commissioner Iwashita talks about entitlements; and I can see how by granting this particular application, we would hand out an entitlement that not every operator of a trucking company has. And I’m not sure if it not being in support of agriculture, an agricultural business, that it’s the wisest use of that permitting process. So that’s my take on it; and I’m more inclined to vote against the permit, or the application. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Salavea. That’s a really good point there that hasn’t been brought on the table. Thank you for that mana`o. Other thoughts? Is there anybody willing to make a motion or -? Go ahead, Commissioner McCall. MCCALL:Thank you. Actually, just one other point that I forgot to say when I was -. You know, if he does have an actively-going hog operation, it would be legitimate to have a small dozer, a backhoe, possibly even a dump truck or something like that. So those should be allowed in a, you know, I don’t think that kind of stuff should be exempt from any type of, whatever, control. So -. ALAMEDA:Okay. Thank you, Commissioner McCall. I’d also like to make note for my Fellow Commissioners of the letters of support. You know, I’d like to commend the Applicant for getting all these signatures; and I also noticed that a lot of the signatures are from folks who live above this property, some contractors, some folks who’ve been there, you know, a really long time. So, you know, just to add that to the mix. Twenty-five signatures is a lot for kind of a small area like that; so just to make note of that as well. I also like to revisit Commissioner Galdones’ earlier comment about the possibility to compromise; and I don’t know if that’s still on the table, Commissioner Galdones. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Chair. My thoughts about striking a compromise was based on the response from Mr. Nishimura who stated in his document that they were responding to a negative approval from the Director, and they are willing to abandon or cease and desist the operation, but give them a five-year timeline to do so. However, in the mix of the discussion that we’re having right now, there are some feelings that quite possibly that we should allow the operation to continue. Now where I’m coming from is that I would like to help the Applicant to survive as a business. I do not want to shut his operation down and see him going out of business. I don’t want to do that. If it means that the Commissioners would like to give him a positive approval, I’m willing to support that. But short of doing that if we’re not able to approve that, then, yes, I would like to entertain a compromise in terms of the timeline, one year and with the possibility of extending another year versus the five years that they are asking for. ALAMEDA:Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Galdones. Okay, Fellow Commissioners, we have several options. First, the Department has come with actually a denial of the application. And just from the discussion it appears that some of the Commissioners actually disagree with that denial, and yet other Commissioners feel that perhaps the denial is in order but, yet, maybe it’s not that stringent, maybe we can kind of strike a compromise around time limitations. And, yet, there might be one or two Commissioners who feel that a denial is in order. So that actually leaves us three avenues to undertake.But I think we’ve got to respond to the denial first, or no? Mr. Torigoe, how can we -? TORIGOE:No, you can make whatever motion you want. EXHIBIT D 19 ALAMEDA:Okay. Who would like to take a stab in making a motion that captures perhaps what the Commissioners are feeling at this time? Or maybe we need to discuss further? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I’ll take a shot at this. ALAMEDA:Okay. WATANABE:I move that we approve the Special Permit application, SPP 06-000030, subject to landscape screening, sight distance improvements along Ainaola Driveway per Public Works approval, however, with a one-year limitation and, also, an additional one-year administrative extension. ALAMEDA:Okay, a motion was made by Commissioner Watanabe. Is there a second? MCCALL:Clarification? ALAMEDA:Clarification for the motion, Mr. McCall? MCCALL:So you’re basically saying you’re giving them a permit, but just for one year with a one-year extension and then he needs to be out? WATANABE:Yeah, for clarification, actually with the Miranda one, to be honest with you, I don’t know if you guys recall but I was kind of against it. What we did do is we limited the number of trucks, we limited the area and we also limited the time. In that particular one, I thought maybe a five-year period was more appropriate because, like you had mentioned, there wasn’t very much available properly-zoned land. In this case, I think there are available substitutes; and I think there’s enough concern that, you know, a one-year limit -. ALAMEDA:Okay. MCCALL:I’d second that. I feel that a one-year timeframe is reasonable and, you know -. WATANABE:But it also allows the administration to -. MCCALL:Yeah, a second year, in case. But I think that’s reasonable. It would, you know, in any circumstances it would take, you know, six months to a year to get something like this cleaned up anyway. I think that’s reasonable. ALAMEDA:Okay, let me check. Motion made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner McCall. Is there any friendly amendment? Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:I have a question, then I would like to introduce a friendly amendment, if it’s in order? ALAMEDA:Go ahead, Commissioner Galdones. EXHIBIT D 20 GALDONES:Question I have to Mr. Watanabe, when you speak of the landscaping, does that take care of the visual impact? That is the concern that you were -? WATANABE:Yeah. Landscaped screening to take care of that visual impact, right, and the other part we had discussed, trimming trees along the driveway to improve sight distance along Ainaola Drive. And I thought, you know, because the Director had brought up, well, what is the required sight distance for them, and I thought maybe it should come with the approval of the Public Works. But, you know, as far as other friendly amendments, obviously, I don’t craft these conditions, so, I’m open. ALAMEDA:Okay. Mr. Galdones? GALDONES:In light of the negative recommendation from the Director and as there was no time to really put all of the other, as Mr. Watanabe had mentioned, all the other conditions that we normally put within approval, I will have to rely on the guidance of the Director to do that. But, also, the other thing I’d like to address is the noise abatement, if that amendment could be also part of the motion on the noise. ALAMEDA:The noise abatement? GALDONES:Yeah. ALAMEDA:Okay. GALDONES:So I guess the hours of operation would have to be introduced in there, also. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe, oh, let’s check with Mr. Director. Go ahead. YUEN:Yeah, if the Commission wants to go with the approval for a limited time, I would suggest these conditions: Number one, that the Applicant shall be responsible for complying with all conditions of approval, that’s standard. Number two, that the baseyard be operated consistently with the description given in the application and before the Planning Commission. That’s a little bit of a catch-all because they’ve made some statements about how they operate that we want them to act consistently with. Number three would be hours, 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday to Friday. Number four, and this similar to what has already been stated, to screen the storage of vehicles from neighbors, from all neighbors and from Ainaola Drive within three months. Improve sight distance by cutting trees, no subleasing of the property, no increase in the number of delivery vehicles or the number of employees, and then no fueling on site. WATANABE:Sounds good to me. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Yeah, question to Mr. Yuen. There was some discussion in terms of the personal vehicles and then the identification of junk yard. In terms of that, from what I’m EXHIBIT D 21 hearing from you, that is not part of the requirement of our motion right now on that? Well, we’re not addressing that at all? YUEN:Well, if the motion stands as it is with these conditions, my understanding is that there’s a one-year period to remove inoperable equipment in excess of 200 square feet. Yes, Jeff? DARROW:Just for clarification, the landscaping condition, this would not be associated with the Plan Approval condition? ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:I’m just wondering if we, of the need to be as formal as to have a Plan Approval rather than just do an inspection. You know, because of the time it’s not -. DARROW:And as far as the landscaping, should we verify, you know, usually we say light industrial on the border of a residential-type landscaping and then we would identify the east, north and south borders. YUEN:I would just put it as screening, which means blocking the view, because this is a short-term. So, you know, he could do it with a fence, for example, wooden fence. I’m not sure what exactly is on the property but it might not, this is a situation where it might be, normally when we talk about screening with landscaping you’re going to grow something that’s going to grow up in a short timeframe. DARROW:So the conditions that the Director has identified also includes a one-year time, life of the permit and, again, we’ll have our standard time condition where an administrative time extension can be granted for the period of time not to exceed what was originally granted. Is that correct? WATANABE:That was another year, yes. ALAMEDA:Mr. Darrow, anything else? Any -? DARROW:Just to clarify the hours of operation, 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday? YUEN:Yes. DARROW:Thank you. WATANABE:So, Director, he does state Monday through Saturday and it’s a delivery business. So I’m not sure if, you know, he’s required to operate on Saturdays for Sears or whatever. YUEN:I don’t have a problem with making it Monday to Saturday for the one year. EXHIBIT D 22 ALAMEDA:Commissioner McCall? I mean, Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I’m still unclear. Let’s see, I feel like maybe we gave five years to Miranda along the highway there, but I think the intention behind the five years was he’s going to keep operating. It’s not like you’ve got to cease and desist in five years. And there’s another Waimea one for a trucking business we did which was, again, on the windward side of Waimea where there was already a Special Permit to run a trucking operation off of one of the side roads and we gave it a five-year extension because there was no industrial property available in the Waimea area for him to relocate even though we had complaints from the neighbors on that one. So I guess where I’m coming at right now is I don’t feel like we’ve dealt with the cease and desist thing. Are we telling this gentleman that we’ll let him operate for a year, maybe extend it for a year if he goes and does all this kind of nice stuff, but we’re not intending for him to continue to operate it thereafter. So if we ask him to jump through a bunch of hoops but then tell him he’s got to get out after he has done that after a year or two, somehow it doesn’t feel like that’s leaving him in a good spot. If we’re going to tell him if you do this, that, and the other thing then, you know, maybe you can get five years and come back, and if people are too unhappy about it you can continue, that’s one thing, or if you want to tell him, you know, it’s no good to do it then we tell him that. But it feels like the middle ground leaves him kind of in a bad spot. We’re asking him to do all this stuff but we’re telling him, you know, we don’t approve of what you’re doing so we’re going to expect you out in a year and maybe two. That’s the kind of stuff running through my head. ALAMEDA:That’s good, I like that perspective. Thank you for bringing that to the table. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Maybe to respond to Commissioner Graham, I don’t feel that we’re making him jump through any more hoops than we would in any place he’d have this baseyard. Sight distances, if we don’t have safe distances, he shouldn’t have any vehicle, a big truck driving, period, I mean, whether it’s for a week or a year. Screening, that may be; but I think we’re looking at something relatively economical, I mean, and he does have the option of moving his operation if he doesn’t. I think these are reasonable in my opinion. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Salavea, you had your hand up earlier. SALAVEA:No -. ALAMEDA:Okay. Let’s see, anybody else? So we have a proposal, we have a motion actually on the table, made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner McCall, with a friendly amendment by Commissioner Galdones. On the table, still the conditions made by -. Commissioner Watanabe, did you accept the -? WATANABE:Yes, I accepted those as friendly amendments; and for clarification that would be 7 to 5:30, Monday through Saturday, yes. Maybe I can respond, if you don’t mind, to Commissioner Graham. ALAMEDA:All right, Commissioner Watanabe. EXHIBIT D 23 WATANABE:You know, I guess I’m still stuck with what is technically a hobby; and I still think that that’s the main issue. And I’m thinking that with the one-year period maybe that’ll go away. Maybe then if those things do actually happen that maybe then you’ll have something that, I don’t know, might be more acceptable to his neighbors. You know, but that said, just moving his business, I don’t think even that is going to put an end to this; and, yet, what we’re discussing here really doesn’t cover the hobby, so to speak. And you’ve also heard what the Director said, whether there was a complaint or not, they would cited him for that so- called hobby because it exceeds 200 square feet.Now whether 200 square feet is reasonable or not, I don’t want to get down that nitty-gritty. I think my main idea here is to make sure that there is something in place to make the Applicant realize that that hobby is possibly more than likely the root of all these problems. You know, if you’re saying we should just say cease and desist, then, you know, we would say no, absolutely, then what does that mean? Does he stop running his business from there? Where does he put his trucks in the meantime? To me, I’m thinking we’re giving him potentially two years to find a new place to run the business from, maybe more importantly in my mind, to scale down his hobby. ALAMEDA:Mr. Graham, you want to respond to that? GRAHAM;Yeah, I only had one. I’d like to hear from Mr. Salavea, too, but I only have one other comment. I know Mr. Nishimura’s earlier client today when I initiated a condition that wasn’t on the application, was on the original recommendation, right away we went back and asked Mr. Nishimura if there’s any problems with that condition. Well, we’ve got a whole bunch of new conditions here so I think we need to go back to the Applicant, find out how he feels about the conditions, too. ALAMEDA:That’s reasonable. Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:I guess this is a question for Commissioner Watanabe. The intent of the motion is to provide the Applicant time enough to relocate his business or is it to, what is the intent of the motion? WATANABE:Basically, it’s to get things rolling and, yeah, basically relocate his business. But to be honest with you, I think if he scales down his hobby, he might be able to get support from his neighbors. I don’t know, then -. I don’t see where on a two-acre lot that they’re concerned about ten vans going in and out. SALAVEA:Follow-up? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:So with that idea, I think kind of what I’m beginning to, what I’m feeling after hearing what Commissioner Graham’s comments were, is that if we handed out -. The previous Special Permits for the similar types of businesses were handed out with the intent because there’s no available land, and to give some time to relocate your business we’ll grant you this Special Permit for a timeframe of five years, and then within that time it’s your responsibility to go out and secure an alternative site for you to run your business that is within the correct zoning and land use designations. So what I’m hearing is or feeling is that if we did that for prior applicants, then if we’re going to hand out the timeframe to relocate, that timeframe EXHIBIT D 24 should also be consistent with previous Special Permits which, according to what I’ve, I can recall, have all been five years and not scaled in terms of time down to two years. And so that’s my, I know we want to, you know, curtail this type of activity, but, yeah, there’s some precedent there. Mr. Director? ALAMEDA:Mr. Director, your thoughts on the possibility to be consistent with other potential -? YUEN:Let me just discuss for a minute the reason for my recommending or saying that I would be okay with a one-year timeframe where there are other Special Permits that have a five-year timeframe to move. I always believed that you have to make decisions in a general framework because these things come up over and over again. So looking at Commercial and Light Industrial Special Permits, that is, Commercial or Light Industrial businesses in the State Land Use Agricultural District, basically, I do take a negative view. You have a purpose for zoning. Say a contractor’s baseyard or a trucking company baseyard is a Light Industrial use. Normally it’s located in a Light Industrial area such as the Kanoelehua Industrial area, Shipman Business Park. Yet, you can feasibly, many times, locate it in an Agricultural area. You can put it there. Very often it is more convenient and less expensive to put it on an Agricultural lot because you have a lot, you have a great deal of infrastructure to develop to have a Light Industrial lot. So if you take a view that, as a matter of normality, you can have a contractor’s baseyard, a trucking company baseyard, on an Agricultural lot, then that is where they will eventually gravitate. It is going to be less expensive to buy one than to buy, or, than to lease a lot in Hilo or in the Keaau Business Park; and that is what you will get over time. And you will also probably not have people develop lots in industrial parks because you’re taking away a great deal of the market; and then you’ll gradually have a, you start with a trucking company baseyard, and then you have the contractor’s baseyard, and then you have the building equipment storage area and, you know, you’ll gradually have more and more businesses that are not going to be located in an Industrial area. So there are exceptions, now. So we have taken, you know, in my five years as a Director, we’ve taken a generally negative attitude toward businesses like this. There are exceptions. One exception is a really small-scale business. We’ve done things like the person who cuts hair; we’ve done, you know, we’ve done the certified kitchen, you know, very small scale businesses. Another one, and this gets to the five years, is that we have areas on the island where you clearly need a location for these Light Industrial-type businesses that have nothing zoned or nothing available in the vicinity. Between, in the Paradise Park area is one example, Waimea is another example, and in those areas we have long-term prospects for Industrial areas. They’re designated Industrial areas in the General Plan but there’s nothing, there’s nothing physically available. I mean, even if you went out and, you know, you were trying to buy something or lease something, there isn’t anything for you. So you have businesses that serve the immediate area. To give you an example, we had the water tank business in Paradise Park. You know, there are a lot of people building houses in Paradise Park, they need a water tank, makes sense to have a baseyard for the water tank business somewhere very close to there. So those we put a five-year timeframe on. This particular business, although from an economic point of view, it may be more expensive to locate somewhere in Hilo. There certainly are, it’s not tied to being in Waiakea Uka. Aside EXHIBIT D 25 from the fact that the individual owns the lot in Waiakea Uka, there’s nothing, there’s no advantages, there’s no locational advantage to being in Waiakea Uka. It doesn’t serve the immediate area; and there are Light Industrial lots that one can buy or lease for baseyards in Waiakea Uka, in Keaau, which would be not any less convenient for the Applicant in terms of what they’re hauling and where they’re hauling from. So, with that, I’ve said that, you know, we’re comfortable with a year. I understand the predicament that the Applicant is in. He has started a business in this location, it has grown, he has ongoing contracts, it will take him some time to relocate. I looked at a time that we would regard as reasonable as, you know, that you’d have to go find a place, you have to enter into a lease, you have to move equipment. But the economics of it, as Commissioner Salavea has said, the other companies that are in the business are presumably operating from zoned locations that have these same economic issues. So that’s the rationale for a shorter timeframe. It’s a rationale that we’ve been okay with some of these Special Permits for five-year timeframes. But there’s a different rationale for this and why we would support a shorter timeframe. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Thank you, Mr. Director. It puts it in a better context for me to understand the situation. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe, you mentioned that you’re okay with the Director’s recommendations. And before I ask the Applicant’s representative if they’re okay with that, I wanted to know your thoughts.Given what Commissioner Graham has said, you know, we’re going to ask the Applicant to make all these changes and then in one, two years we expect them to be out of there. I wondered like what mitigating conditions we could impose that wouldn’t involve a major expense. Like I’m thinking around like the visual impact, the one from the neighbors. See, two out of three neighbors have the potential to have a visual impact, actually all three neighbors, but two out of three are saying they don’t have a problem with this particular situation. I’m leaning toward not having that as a recommendation, but the sight distance is important because of the safety issue. But the visual impact is not a big deal for me, especially when you get two out of three saying that it’s not a problem for them. So I wonder if we can eliminate that as part of the, that particular one as part of the overall recommendations. How would you feel about that? Just to see if we can cut down some of the “to do’s” before, because there’s a lot of “to do’s” that they would have to do. WATANABE:Yeah, if the other, maybe you should take a poll because I’ll go along with what the other Commissioners feel. I guess my point here is I didn’t particularly care to approve this particular application yet. I was willing to go part-way with it. I came in with a full intention of saying “no,” but I was willing to go part-way with it because, you know, I wouldn’t want to cause him that much economic harm. ALAMEDA:Yeah, Mr. Darrow, I wanted to ask if you could review the recommendations one more time -. DARROW:Sure. EXHIBIT D 26 ALAMEDA:The conditions before we ask the Applicant to come and share with us his insights regarding the recommendations. Mr. Darrow, could you review the -? DARROW:Conditions? ALAMEDA:Yeah, the conditions? DARROW:I was going to ask, usually when we have a recommendation from the Director which stated the criteria for the recommendation, we ask that the Commission at the time if they decide to change the recommendation, if they could kind of specify the reasons for their approval recommendation or denial recommendation for the record, so that we can place that in the recommendation if the application is granted or not. ALAMEDA:Okay. DARROW:It could be simple -. WATANABE:Maybe then the reason would be that because we feel if we just simply denied a permit at this time, that it would cause his business irreparable harm; and allowing him a timeframe within which to transition would be beneficial to the Applicant. DARROW:Great. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Mr. Darrow, does that suffice? DARROW:Yeah, that’ll help with putting it on the record. ALAMEDA:Okay. Could you review the conditions again? DARROW:Yeah, I’m going to grab something real fast. ALAMEDA:Okay. In the meantime, if the Applicant or the representative could come forward again. Mr. Darrow? DARROW:Okay. We have our standard condition that says that the Applicant shall be responsible for complying with all stated conditions. There’s a condition that states that the baseyard operation shall be conducted in substantial conformance with the representations made in the application as well as before the Planning Commission. There shall, the hours of operation shall be 7:00 a.m. till 5:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday. There shall be no subleasing of the property for the baseyard or other business-related activities. There was a landscaping condition but if I’m not mistaken -. Is that proposed to be dropped at this time? WATANABE:Like I said, you know, I’m trying to find something that everyone else will go along with as a compromise, really. So if the other Commissioners are willing to drop it, I’m willing to take that as a friendly amendment, also. EXHIBIT D 27 ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners, are there any objections to dropping the landscaping condition? GALDONES:Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA:Yeah. GALDONES:May I suggest that we just leave it in for the moment? We haven’t had the opportunity to hear from the Applicants; and then after that time before we make a vote, we can decide whether we’re going to accept that or remove it from the motion. ALAMEDA:Okay. Point well taken. DARROW:Thank you. There is no increasing of the delivery trucks that are located on the property as well as no storage of fuel on the property in regards like the storage fuel, a fuel storage tank. That actually triggers other types of permits that they have to receive. ALAMEDA:Okay. DARROW:Additionally, we have a one-year time limit for this permit, and with the possibility of one one-year time extension. ALAMEDA:Okay. DARROW:We do have our standard condition which would be that the Applicant comply with all applicable County and Federal and State. And then we also, let’s see, oh, that they have to comply with the sight distance as approved by the Department of Public Works, which may include cutting down the trees on the south boundary. ALAMEDA:Okay. DARROW:I believe that’s all of them. ALAMEDA:Okay. All right. And now I’ll turn it over to Mr. Nishimura. DARROW:One more. I’m sorry. ALAMEDA:One more? DARROW:Commissioner Galdones had requested a friendly amendment regarding noise abatement. I’m not sure exactly what that signifies. WATANABE:No, I think that was related to the hours of operation. DARROW:Okay. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Okay. Mr. Nishimura, you’ve heard the amendments. What are your thoughts on that? EXHIBIT D 28 NISHIMURA:Well, first of all, I’d like to say on behalf of the Applicant that we appreciate the discussion for options to consider and not, you know, outright denying the application so that he would have to cease completely and immediately. He appreciates that opportunity to have more time to look at other opportunities for relocating the business. His existing contract with Sears, I believe, covers a two-year time period. So, I guess, under ideal situations, it would be good if he would have some assurances that he had the ability to operate for the extent of that contract. But, you know, the other issues that some of the Planning Commissioners have raised and certainly he would be interested in pursuing is that if he is given an opportunity to clean up the property and to address the issues that have been raised by some of the neighbors, whether there would be any opportunity for some reconsideration at a later date to allow him to continue if his operation is deemed to be non-intrusive to the surrounding properties. And I guess, you know, that’s something that he wants to hold on to; but, obviously, he’s at your mercy in terms of being able to continue to do what he’s doing right now. So we just wanted to make that comment that if there is any possibility to allow him to prove to you or to prove to the community that he can improve the situation and to, I guess, deal with the most, or deal with the issues that have caused the problems in this to come to this point before you, that he’d like that opportunity to do that. But other than that, with regard to the conditions that have been proposed, he feels that those are things that can be done. One comment relating to the landscaping screen, if we can re-phrase that to “screening” and not necessarily “landscaping,” because the plants will take time to grow. And, you know, if you’re talking about completely trying to block off or you don’t plant stuff that’s already six or eight feet high, I mean, I don’t know if that’s -. And he does have some saran-shade material that he could utilize as a screening for at least the makai boundary of the property, which is the side that has the property owner he has the most problems with. The other two property owners do have, well, there is existing vegetation that does screen the other two property owners, and there are some buildings that also screen them from viewing his property directly. So, you know, there are some mitigating measures or considerations for those other two property owners. But for the makai property owner, it’s pretty wide open; and so he definitely will do some kind of screening for that boundary. ALAMEDA:Okay. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, just for clarification regarding the screening. I believe the Director indicated that it’s not necessary for landscaping, but screening from the adjoining properties. So it could be, for instance, what the Applicant’s representative suggested. ALAMEDA:Okay, I’m fine with that. But, Mr. Nishimura, so you’ve got two, we’ll put things in the boxes again. One box or one proposal that you’re suggesting is the idea that it seems your Applicant would be okay with the conditions made with the motion. But more than that on this other side you’re even thinking maybe another proposal that if we give the Applicant some time then perhaps he could show us that his place would not be an eyesore. Is that another, is that kind of like another proposal you’re putting on the table? Is that correct? NISHIMURA:Well, like I said, that’s his ideal; and, you know, that’s certainly something that he would want to have that opportunity. EXHIBIT D 29 ALAMEDA:Okay. The maker of the motion, let me just ask Commissioner Watanabe, the idea of possibly giving the Applicant an opportunity to prove himself, if you will, is that on the table from your perspective as the maker of the motion, or is it not? WATANABE:All right. Okay. I think we pretty much heard the Director’s take on this, which was that essentially would not be, because there is available Industrial-zoned property in reasonable proximity of this particular location. You know, my personal opinion had been that it would be okay; but it changed after he presented his arguments, which include, well, if you allow a trucking baseyard or whatnot in an Agricultural zone, everything is going to gravitate that way. So my perspective at this point, I would say, no. ALAMEDA:Okay. Mr. Torigoe reminded me that there is a rule that we could delete certain conditions or add certain conditions, which is kind of what we’re doing right now. Am I missing that, Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:Just for your information, the Special Permit Rule 6-8 has a part that talks about amendments of permit conditions. If there are, you know, changes in circumstances or reasons for the request, there is a section that allows for time extensions to be expanded if there’s a request filed not less than 90 days prior to the expiration date, explaining the length of time requested and the reasons for the request. Sub-section (c) talks about the possibility of asking for modifications or deletions of conditions, again, having to explain the amendment requested and the reasons for the request. So, you know, that’s kind if built into the rules. ALAMEDA:Okay. So, basically, we’re on the right track then, in terms of our discussion in regards to the rules? TORIGOE:Basically, assuming that this rule does not radically change. ALAMEDA:Okay. Mr. Watanabe, it sounds that this side, this option of, you know, letting an Applicant kind of prove himself is not under your consideration right now as part of the motion. So we can make, put that to rest from your standpoint. WATANABE:Okay. ALAMEDA:Okay. So that leaves us, in terms of the maker of the motion, that leaves us with the original motion then. So there’s a motion made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner McCall, with a friendly amendment by Commissioner Galdones. Discussion? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I just want to put forth my understanding of what we got from Mr. Torigoe, which is that this Commission is not giving him anything beyond the one-year and the possible one-year extension; but that when 90 days before that runs out, he is allowed, by law, by rule, to come back and say, “I would like further extension and these are the reasons why I feel like I deserve it;” and whatever the Planning Commission is made out at the time, we’ll make that decision. ALAMEDA:Is that correct, Mr. Torigoe? EXHIBIT D 30 TORIGOE:That’s basically correct, again, assuming that this rule, you know, stays pretty much intact. ALAMEDA:Okay. Mr. Nishimura, you understand that discussion, that rule? NISHIMURA:Yes. ALAMEDA:Okay. All right. Do I have to ask the Applicants to be seated while we go into deliberations? TORIGOE:That’s what you usually do. ALAMEDA:Could you be seated right there, but you cannot participate. Oh, please seat in the back. We’ve had time where we go into making a motion and all of a sudden something comes back to us. So we will prevent that, so we’ll have you guys seat back for a while. Okay, Fellow Commissioners, it has been a while now since we’re having this discussion, so we’re at the discussion point on the motion. Seeing no further discussion, staff? DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chair. The motion is to approve, with the conditions that were mentioned previously. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Yes. DARROW:Commissioner Rho? RHO:Yes. DARROW:Commissioner Salavea? EXHIBIT D 31 SALAVEA:Aye. DARROW:And Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA:Aye. DARROW:The motion passes eight to zero. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. McNicoll. The discussion ended at 4:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary EXHIBIT D 32 Administrative Matters? EXHIBIT D 33