Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-02-01 TMIRANDA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT FEBRUARY 1, 2008 A regularly advertised hearing on the PLANNING DIRECTOR’S PROPOSAL TO REVOKE SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 05-009 ISSUED TO MELVIN MIRANDA was called to order at 9:17 a.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe ABSENT & EXCUSED: Takashi Domingo Kimo Alameda Rene’ Siracusa Lani Bowman Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Alvin Rho Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately nine people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR Continued hearing on the revocation of Special Permit No. 05-009 (Melvin Miranda), which allowed the establishment of a contractor’s base yard on approximately one acre of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located along the north side of the Hawaii Belt Highway (Highway 19) at approximately the 47.5-mile marker, Kapoaula, Hamakua, Hawaii, TMK: 4-7-7: portion of 55. WATANABE: Okay, we’re now on agenda item 2, Melvin Miranda, Special Permit application SPP 05-009; and this would be for a revocation of that Special Permit. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The application before us is a continued hearing from our April 5, 2007 hearing. The Planning Commission voted to defer the revocation action until further notice to allow the applicant time to be able to comply with several conditions of his special permit, mainly Condition No. 2, submit final plan approval, and Condition No. 8, which is to submit metes and bounds and map in written form. Additionally, the Commission had asked that the applicant submit a letter requesting an administrative time extension for a one-year period from August of 2006 to August of 2007. EXHIBIT B 1 Just to give a brief background on this application, the application was originally approved in August 2005 by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission found that the applicants request for a contractor’s baseyard was misnamed and that the use is more properly called an agricultural trucking baseyard. The decision was based on a supportive documentation from the applicant showing that 61 percent of Miranda’s trucking business is agriculturally related, including the hauling of livestock, ranch and farm supplies, livestock feed and water and material for agriculture. With that, there were several conditions on the special permit that had time conditions. The applicant had not submitted those over a period of time and the Planning Director moved to revoke the permit. And our first hearing was in March of 2007. That was deferred until April of 2007 at which time the Planning Commission again allowed time for the applicant to submit these conditions to be approved. If I can direct your attention to the location map, the area of this application is in the Hamakua district. We have the Honokaa area over on the right side of the map. Waimea would be towards the left side of the map. This application is between Honokaa and Waimea just makai of the Hawaii Belt Road. Hawaii Belt Road is this red line that runs through the middle of the map. The actual location of the property is at the 47.5 mile marker on the makai side of the road identified by a project site on the map. The application allowed for a one-acre portion of the property to be used for the agricultural baseyard. Since our last hearing the Planning Director has revised, he has sent out additions to the background and recommendation. That should be on a yellow sheet that has been passed out to the Commissioners. Additionally, we’ve received a letter from the applicant’s representative th dated January 12, and this has exhibits with it; a response letter from the Planning Department th dated January 17; and lastly this morning we had passed out photos from a recent site inspection conducted by our Zoning Inspectors. The results of that site inspection were that overall the applicant appears to be complying with the conditions of the permit on site. All the material is located, all the trucks and objects and structures are located within the one-acre area. There is an access. The access road is paved or graveled all the way from the highway to the project site; and there appears to be only, no more than six semi-trucks on the property, and that was one of the conditions of the special permit. Originally, just for your information, this was a site plan that was submitted by the applicant; and it does show that the applicant did propose a warehouse-type structure, as well as several other structures, two portable supply sheds, and a portable office, or two portable offices. And this was part of the original approval. The Planning Director is, let me back up. We also in our letters had asked, because of the administrative time expiring, we had asked for the applicant to submit a time extension to come back to the Commission for. We’ve recently received that. It hasn’t been processed. It’s going through processing at this time. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission again defer this application to allow the applicant to be able to comply with these conditions. We might be able to defer reasons to the applicant as to nonsubmittal at this time. th Again, what we have is, the reasons are in our April 20, as well as our November 21, 2007, letters. We had asked that the applicant submit an administrative time extension, a plan approval EXHIBIT B 2 th application and a description of the one-acre area in metes and bounds. In the January 10 letter from their representative there was a map that was submitted, this is part of your folk’s information that was passed out, it was done by a licensed surveyor. We just need to receive the written portion of it. But it appears that that condition has been met. We just need to work out the time extension request and getting the plan approval. We have also sent an example of a plan approval to the applicant so that he can understand what the process is. WATANABE: Thank you, Mr. Darrow. Do we have any questions for Mr. Darrow, staff? Commissioners? No? Then I guess it would be appropriate to call up the applicant then. Mr. Miranda? By the way, I just got two people signed up to testify for this agenda item. So if there’s anyone else who wishes to testify please check with Sharon, yeah. Would you raise your right hand and may I swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? MIRANDA: I do. WATANABE: Thank you. You may be seated. Before you begin your testimony, would you state your full name and address for the record, please. MIRANDA My name is Melvin W. Miranda, Sr. and I live, my address is PO Box 2000, Kamuela, Hawaii. WATANABE: Thank you. You may proceed. And I guess what we’re looking for is an explanation as to why you need the time extension. That, I believe you recently filed for an administrative time extension. Yeah? MIRANDA: As far as I know a year ago, April I think, we were in this room and I was explained, you know, what I had to do. One of the main things was having a licensed surveyor survey my place and get the metes and bounds of the one acre that I was supposed to use as my baseyard. If you remember I told you I had a licensed surveyor lined up but he was booked for like three months; and I couldn’t get him. Well, after I left the meeting, I said, you know, like I need to get on it right away. And I went back and I found this licensed surveyor, Johnny Weeks Surveying from Kona. And back in the seventies when I used to manage Hualalai Ranch in Kona they did a lot of surveying for me at the ranch. So I called Bobby Weeks, who’s his son, and I told him, you know, I really need some help. And he said, well, let me see what I can do. I said I’m waiting for about three months for this licensed surveyor to come; and I said I’d like to get this done as soon as possible. So a week later he called me, he told me, “Melvin, I can be there tomorrow. Can you meet me there?” I said, “Yeah.” So he came the next day, which was about a week and a half after this meeting. And he came two days, did all the surveying; and about two or three weeks after that, within about a month or six weeks, he had all the copies. I told him I needed 22 copies to be submitted to you folks and one site plan, and all of this stuff. So everything was done; and I thought everything was in the Planning office, was submitted, because I told him what had to be done and everything. And he sent me a copy of what was done. My attorney got a copy, and I thought everything was in motion and I was in good shape. Then I got a letter in November or December saying that I’m not in compliance. And I’m saying, “What happened?” And so the beginning of December I called up Bobby Weeks again, I said, you know what, Bobby, all the EXHIBIT B 3 copies that you sent, 22 copies, I said there’s nothing at the Planning Department, I don’t know where it’s at, I don’t have it. And I thought everything was filed. I said can you really help me. I said I needed one whole set of copies again. I’ll pay for it, whatever it costs so I can have this done. I said it’s lost some place along the line. So he made me a whole bunch of copies again which I believe was submitted to my office manager, Eva back there. And got, on time extension, they said we had to reapply. And I said, you know, I cannot understand why we’ve got to reapply when we’ve applied, everything was approved. But whatever it takes we’ll do what needs to be done. We just don’t want to be taking up my time and your time and going over this stuff. But, so this is what has been in motion. But the root of the problem is not what we’re talking about. The root of the problem is my neighbor who wrote one letter; and I found the letter to the Planning Department complaining. And it’s because of the one complaint that’s why we’re all here, I believe. My neighbor is a millionaire from Las Vegas. He wrote one letter to you folks coming from his attorney, and he goes under this CSA Service Center LLC. Well, his name is Ed Fujinaga who owns 160 acres next to me. And then the first thing he says in his letter, he has 167 acres that he does agriculture and farming land which he grows coffee and livestock for resale. That’s how, you know, like that’s fine. But he’s not telling the truth. He leases out the 167 acres to Ernest De Luz and his son. He doesn’t own one head of cattle on the property. I talked to them yesterday to justify that thing and he says it’s for resale. All he’s doing is renting out the land. And then they just planted a few coffee trees so he says he’s a coffee farmer, which is great, you know. You can say whatever you want. But then he goes on and bad-mouths me with the things that I’m doing on my property. He doesn’t even know what I do. He comes over here from Las Vegas two or three times a year and spends maybe one hour or half an hour on his property and then leaves. He owns the house in Puulani Estates by Puuwaawaa. And I don’t know if any of you folks are millionaires in here, you know, but I know a few of them and they’re pretty nice guys. And this guy is supposed to be a millionaire, he sells medical supplies. But I couldn’t understand him because every place he goes -. He’s a Japanese guy; and I get nothing against Japanese, but he had one Filipino guy that goes with him every place he goes, and he got to say -. He walks around -- I don’t know if you know the wrestlers like Tosh Togo, walk around with his arms out like this -- you know, and his friend is next to him every place he goes, and this guy is a Filipino guy who’s a martial arts expert. And he said, oh, this guy goes with me. I’m like, I thought about it for quite a while. I said, you know, you either got to be one real big crook, screwed some other people, that you’re so worried about your life that you got to have one body guard with you every place you go -. You know, it’s like this is Hawaii. You trust everybody, you know. But this guy chauffeurs him around; and he cannot wait to tell you who this guy is, like you’ve got to stay away from him. Then he tells me, oh, when he goes downtown to Las Vegas at night, he get six Samoans, you know -. WATANABE: Mr. Miranda, I understand you’re frustrated with the situation but maybe we can remain focused on your time extension and things that are -. And so do you have anything else to add? MIRANDA: Well, we had two inspectors, I think both of them seated here, that came out to the site the other day as Mr. Darrow had just said and they took pictures of my property. And I can answer questions or they can, whatever, to any concerns. EXHIBIT B 4 WATANABE: Okay. Okay, thank you. Do any of the Commissioners have any questions for Mr. Miranda? Seeing none, I guess you may be seated then, Mr. Miranda. And then I do have two testifiers. Let me apologize ahead of time if I mispronounced your names. So I’d like to call both of them up. That will be Stephen Rybar and Eva Kuhlmann, Kuhlmann. KUHLMANN: I have to be on here just in case you needed me. I didn’t know if I had to fill out that form. WATANABE: Oh. And you’re Eva? KUHLMANN: Yes. I’m Eva Kuhlmann. WATANABE: Well, let me swear you in, in the event that you need to -. Would you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. WATANABE: Thank you. I take it Steve, you may be seated. I take it Stephen that you would be testifying first. So would you state your name and address for the record, please. RYBAR: My name is Stephen Rybar, R-y-b-a-r; and I’m from Las Vegas, Nevada. I reside at 109 Evanchurist Street. And I am the quality control compliance person for CSA and reporting to Mr. Fujinaga. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. You may begin your testimony. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes. IWASHITA: Sorry. My understanding is that the recommendation is that this matter is going to be deferred for further consideration by the Commission at some later date when it gets agendized. So in terms of proceeding today, I just, procedurally, wanted to make sure that the testifiers understood that and that if they had any interest in showing up at the new date to testify at that time that they understood that, you know, that was possible. WATANABE: Yeah, yeah. I’m sure you got that, right? RYBAR: No, I’m sorry. I did not. WATANABE: Oh, okay. What Mr. Iwashita was pointing is that the Director’s recommendation, yeah, is to defer this to provide staff time to process the subsequent administrative time request, yeah. So it’s very likely that this will be continued to a later date. We would more than likely provide, well, I’m not sure -. I don’t know how long the time extension is. But, at any rate, more than likely a decision is not going to be made aside from continuing to some later date. However, you are testifying, you know, you did take the time and EXHIBIT B 5 we’re not going to prevent you from providing that testimony, except that you should be aware that, you know, a final decision is probably not going to be made at this meeting. RYBAR: I appreciate that. And for the sake of brevity I would like to determine if all members, Mr. Chairman, have received a copy of Mr. Paul Lal’s letter. Is that proper procedure, or have they not -? WATANABE: I believe they all have. Yeah? WOODWARD: I have. WATANABE: Yeah, I believe they all have. RYBAR: Fine. So then I can assume that everybody is aware of the comments made by Mr. Fujinaga’s attorney, Mr. Lal, correct? WATANABE: That is correct. RYBAR: Okay, very good. Well, then I have no intention to consume any additional time on behalf of the Commission because I think that our position is well stated there. And although we heard a bit of information that was superfluous I believe that I would stand on the results of the letter, and entertain any questions if they’re generated from that. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Do, -? HAYASHI: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes. HAYASHI: Just one correction. It wasn’t an administrative time extension that was submitted. It’s a time extension request that will be presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. WATANABE: Oh, oh, the first one was an administrative, that’s why. Excuse me, I’m sorry, I stand corrected. But it’s still a time extension request. RYBAR: Very good. Then I will make it a point to attend the next Commission hearing. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Do we have any further questions for Stephen Rybar, Mr. Rybar? It doesn’t look like it. Thank you for your testimony. RYBAR: Thank you very much. WATANABE: And for the record, Eva, I believe, you don’t need to testify any further? KUHLMANN: Yes. EXHIBIT B 6 WATANABE: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Director. YUEN: Yeah, let me make it -. Mr. Miranda, what we are, the Department is saying now is this, okay, we want you, we want the Commission to defer action on the revocation. So we’re not asking the Commission to revoke it, your permit today. We want you to submit your plan approval with the filing fee, you know, complete plan approval, and we can discuss about how much time you have to do that, submit it to the Department. The Department can’t actually act on it because the time ran out. Okay, but, we, we want it in the Department. Because once we have it in the Department we will schedule this to come back, to extend time to act on it; and if the Commission then extends the time then the Department can act on your plan approval. Okay? So in other words you’re not waiting for another hearing to submit the paperwork. We would like you to submit the paperwork as soon as you can for the plan approval. And how much time to submit them -. MIRANDA: We submitted already. WATANABE: Mr. Miranda, you might want to come up and speak into the mike. YUEN: He has not actually submitted a plan approval, right? DARROW: What happened was the January 10,2008 letter from Robert Rodrigues had a copy of a face sheet of a plan approval that he says he submitted at the beginning of the second hearing. And, unfortunately, that was not part of the letter that he submitted to the Commission or to the Planning Department at that time. So as of this date, we have still not received a plan approval application or a site plan that goes along with it; and that’s why we sent a copy of an example for you to follow in submitting your plan approval. MIRANDA: Okay. We’ll get that. We submitted a plan. And what I know is the site plan that we submitted, you folks sent back a copy of a sample that was done by somebody else and saying you would like my site plan to be like the sample and not like the one that I submitted. DARROW: The site plan that you submitted was the actual metes and bounds map description of the surveyor. That’s not what we’re looking for in a site plan approval. We’re looking for a location of the one-acre area with landscaping, parking, structures, height, all those kinds of things. And we have people at our office that you can come in and work with them; and they’ll describe in more detail what you need to submit for the plan for plan approval. But, additionally, there’s also a charge I believe in submitting the plan approval. So it’s not just fill out the application and submit it. So just by filling out the face sheet and submitting it is not enough. And at this time, again, that condition has not been met. MIRANDA: Okay, when we submitted an extension or whatever, on the thing it said it needed a check for $100 to accompany it; and I believed I signed a check that’s in there. I don’t know, whatever -. DARROW: Was it with your original map that you submitted? Cause maybe it didn’t make it to the Department. At this point we haven’t received anything. We did not receive your original map and the plan approval. EXHIBIT B 7 HAYASHI: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, just to clarify. WATANABE: Yes. HAYASHI: We did receive his time extension request for the special permit. Also enclosed was a $100 filing fee that goes along with the processing of the special permit time extension request. What we’re referring to is a plan approval; and plan approval has a separate fee. So that hasn’t been received, nor have we received the plan approval application. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. I think erroneously, Mr. Miranda, you assumed that you completed or satisfied the application by submitting the metes and bounds map. But I also believe the County is sincere in the efforts to want to help you through the plan approval process. So they have people, as Mr. Darrow suggested, that you can work with; and, obviously there’s a separate fee, other than the time extension fee, that needs to be met. But they’re trying their best to work with you so that you will understand; and that’s why they sent you the example, yeah, of the site map so that you would know what they’re looking for. Additionally though they do have staff that can provide you with additional details so that you can comply with that condition. You understand the process now? MIRANDA: I understand now. WATANABE: Okay, okay. So, you know, I think they’re trying their best to work with you and they understand that, you know, the process is kind of complicated. And you’re not a professional planner so, you know, this is kind of like just let me build my building, right? We understand that too, yeah. MIRANDA: Thank you. WATANABE: So, okay. Does that pretty much sum up where we’re at right now? YUEN: How about 60 days for the plan approval? MIRANDA: That will be fine. WATANABE: Okay, okay. We’re all on the same page then, yeah? MIRANDA: Yes. WATANABE: Okay, great. Let’s see -. You may be seated then because I think now that it’s clear, everybody is on the same page; and then we’ll respond to the Director’s recommendation to continue. I don’t have any further testimony, so if anyone cares to either start discussion or would like to make a motion -? Mr. Iwashita? IWASHITA: I move to -. WATANABE: Mr. Iwashita. I believe that was 60 days, right? Mr. Yuen, you wanted to continue for an additional 60 days or until further notice? EXHIBIT B 8 YUEN: I think the best thing for the Commission to do would just be to, rather than continue to a specific time -. We have this agreement on the record of 60 days; and if we don’t get anything in 60 days then the Department will bring the matter back to the Commission’s agenda. WATANABE: So continue until further notice then? IWASHITA: Yes. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: I move that Item No. 2 regarding the Planning Director’s revocation of Special Permit No.05-00009 relative to Melvin Miranda be continued until it is further agendized at a future hearing. ALAMEDA: Second. WATANABE: Thank you, thank you. Okay. It has been moved by Commissioner Iwashita and seconded by Commissioner Alameda. Are there any further discussions? Seeing none, Mr. Darrow. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to continue this matter until further notice. With that I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chair? EXHIBIT B 9 WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes seven to zero. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. YUEN: I’m sorry, I do want to make one correction. There wasn’t a filing fee. Mr. Miranda, I’m sorry, there is not a filing fee for the plan of approval. There is not, there is not one. Okay, I’m sorry, that’s our misunderstanding. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes. ALAMEDA: Will Mr. Miranda be informed in writing of this decision or -? WATANABE: I guess so, yeah, that it has been continued. I, yes, I believe so; and then that would document the 60-day verbally agreed timeframe. Yeah? YUEN: Yes. The discussion ended at 9:46 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawai‘i Secretary EXHIBIT B 10