|
UNGER: Thank you.
<br />
<br />YEH: And I would probably concur with Mr. Vitousek. It —
<br />
<br />UNGER: Planning Department?
<br />
<br />KANUHA: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the reason I think it would be cleaner
<br />to continue this is that there’s some conditions in here related to Plan Approval submittals and
<br />things of that nature, are tied to, you know, tied to the Meadow Gold condition, and also since
<br />Mr. Vitousek raised the issue of perhaps the bread making, the honey processing and the butter
<br />processing could in fact be permissible uses, there are conditions in the stipulation that relate to
<br />performance to perfect, you know, those particular uses. I think what we did is, you know, I
<br />would agree that the focus was to look at 205 as it related to commercial activity uses, which has a
<br />different kind of standard. But, nevertheless, I think you raised some valid points that the Zoning
<br />Code itself, you know, may seem to indicate that some of these uses are, you know, permitted
<br />anyway. So that’s one of the reasons I’m asking for a continuance just to make sure that this thing
<br />is really clean going forward and conditions that apply to things, actually apply to things that have
<br />to be conditioned, and if the conditions relate to uses that don’t need to be conditioned, then they
<br />shouldn’t be conditioned.
<br />
<br />UNGER: Okay. Mr. Vitousek, any comment?
<br />
<br />VITOUSEK: Well, you know, I mean I understand what the Planning Director is saying, but, you
<br />know, I think that basically the decision is going to have to be drafted anyway, and I really think
<br />we, you know, our main concern is we’ve had enough process. But I think, you know, this is one
<br />I’ll just, I’ll defer to the Planning Commission.
<br />
<br />UNGER: Okay.
<br />
<br />YEH: Well, I was just going to say that, I mean, I don’t assure that this requires further analysis
<br />because we’ve already heard from the applicant that they are willing to stipulate to have the
<br />bakery, honey processing and the butter come under the auspices of the Special Permit, and we
<br />should leave it that way.
<br />
<br />UNGER: Very good. Thank you. Any other comments?
<br />
<br />VITOUSEK: No, I think the only comment I’d like to make is that, you know, in the contested
<br />case hearing the intervenors took the position that the pesticides were not relevant after we
<br />subpoenaed their records on pesticide use, and they took the position that pesticides weren’t
<br />relevant, weren’t an issue, in the contested case. So I’m a little unhappy that it gets brought up
<br />here at the Planning Commission. I think if they were going to argue about potential effects of
<br />pesticide use on their property, they should have produced documents as to what their pesticide
<br />use was. But I think we were passed that. And, you know, our preference would be to have these
<br />activities that are other than, you know, the Meadow Gold trucks are out, the fitness center
<br />absolutely requires a Special Permit, we would prefer to see the other uses found to be permitted
<br />uses because that would be good not only for Lalamilo in that they wouldn’t be subject to
<br />8
<br />EXHIBIT F
<br />
<br />
|