Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-15 tmartinage-nunn PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT February 15, 2007 MICHAEL MARTINAGE/GREG NUNN A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (SPP 06-000039) was called to order at 1:55 p.m. at the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda (left at 2:20) ABSENT & EXCUSED: Jeffrey McCall Fred Galdones Rene’ Siracusa William Graham Andrew Iwashita Alvin Rho Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager OgxkkhrEtihlnsn+Rs`eeOk`mmdq Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Michael Martinage, Applicant Greg Nunn, Applicant Klaus Conventz representing Applicants Aq`cE`qvdkk+Hmsdqudmnq And approximately 6 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANTS: MICHAEL MARTINAGE/GREG NUNN (SPP 06-000039) Action on the Special Permit to allow the establishment of a 5-room Bed and Breakfast operation within an existing dwelling and a guest house situated on a 5.06-acre lot in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located along the northeast (mauka) side of Napoopoo Road (82-5990 Napoopoo Road), Waipunaula, South Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 8-2-3:28. GRAHAM: Our first order of business in the afternoon is a Special Permit. Applicants are Michael Martinage/Greg Nunn. This is in the State Land Use Ag District off Napoopoo Road in South Kona. It’s for a five-room bed and breakfast. We did have this Application before us previously. We had a contested case request, and we in fact conducted a contested case hearing right at the time. And we finished the hearing, and my understanding now – after we finished the hearing, we went into a vote amongst the Commission, and we had a split vote and no decision was made – so my understanding at this time is since we finished the contested case hearing, we are sort of picking up again as action time amongst the Commissioners, but since we are on the agenda, we certainly want to take any testimony from the public who’s here. Does that sound correct to everybody? So I have a – we did take testimony at our last meeting – I do have five people signed up today, and I’m only asking that it’s probably beneficial for us if you keep your testimony kind of short to the point, so we can move along with this agenda item. EXHIBIT D 1 So the five I have are William Blok, Matthew Cordts, Curtis Ludwig, Marianne George and Cynthia Northrup. Shall we try to get all five of you up together? It looks like we’ve got five chairs there. NORTHRUP: Excuse me. GRAHAM: Yes, ma’am. NORTHRUP: It’s probably not my jurisdiction, but William Blok is not present. I don’t know if that’s the right one (list). I’m Cynthia Northrup, and I’m here. GRAHAM: Oh, go ahead. This is from last time. I’m sorry. FARWELL: I have a question. As the Intervenor, am I allowed to say anything further? GRAHAM: Let me ask Corporation Counsel. TORIGOE: Well, at this point the contested case hearing is closed. So normally we do not allow for further evidence to be put in by the parties. FARWELL: What is the purpose of all this? TORIGOE: This is public testimony that is required under our Rules. GRAHAM: Sir, it’s like we finished the contested case hearing and we tried to take action last time, and we were unable to get a majority decision. FARWELL: I know I was there. But I haven’t been -. GRAHAM: And then at this point we resume where we left off, and one of the Rules that we follow is whenever we have a public hearing, we always accept testimony from the public. So my sense of my question to Mr. Torigoe is are you a valid speaker as a member of the public at this point of time, not as the Intervenor since your role as the Intervenor was finished when we closed the contested case hearing. That’s my understanding. FARWELL: So what’s the consensus here? TORIGOE: Again, the public hearing actually or the contested case hearing being closed, basically at this point we are not taking further testimony from either the Intervenor or the Applicants or the Planning Director as contested case parties, but we are required to allow the public to come and then give testimony on each agenda item that is contested case. FARWELL: I am rather confused by this whole procedure, but let us see what unfolds as it goes here. So I’m not considered the public; I am as the Intervenor in this, and therefore simply have standing as an Intervenor. That’s the end of that? TORIGOE: That’s basically what we are doing, yes. EXHIBIT D 2 FARWELL: So how am I supposed to respond to this public testimony? TORIGOE: Well, if the Commission feels that it is necessary to reopen a public hearing and take further testimony from the parties, then the Commission can do that. FARWELL: So you had a public hearing when we took the evidence to begin with, and now we are having another public hearing where more evidence is being taken but yet I’m not a party to it. TORIGOE: Strictly speaking, it’s public testimony. If after you hear the public testimony, you feel that there is a need for you to respond to it or present evidence, you can make the request of the Commission. FARWELL: Okay. GRAHAM: Do you understand, sir? FARWELL: Okay. GRAHAM: Could you sit back now? FARWELL: Certainly. GRAHAM: We’ll just take the testimony, and go forward. And I apologize for reading the names wrong on the signup sheet. I had the one from our last meeting, and the one from today’s meeting is the same length but it’s different people, and I read the wrong one. So let me try again from today’s hearing. I have Walter Andrade, Cynthia Northrup, Marianne George, Marlene Celinski and Daniel Jackson.So thank you for bearing with me here. Could you all raise your right hands, and I’ll swear you in at this time? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth in this matter today before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. GRAHAM: Thank you. And maybe I’ll start with my left. And when you begin your testimony, just give your name and your address first, and pick up the microphone and speak into the microphone. And as I indicated, it would help us if you are just concise and clear, and we can move forward. Thank you. CELINSKI: Okay. My name is Marlene Celinski, and my address is – it’s a P. O. Box but – I live down on Middle Keei. And I’ve known Michael and Greg for the last couple of years. I’ve been a frequent visitor up to their Ka`awa Loa Plantation since they moved in. And I think their proposed B&B is a perfect thing for them to be doing on this property. I’ve seen what they are doing with their property as far as clearing the land, replanting, and trying to, you know, do the best they can for the land. So I just want to say that I’m in total agreement with what they are doing, and don’t see any objections. The other thing is that Brad’s website – he also has a vacation rental – and on his website he talks about how peaceful it is on his, which is right next EXHIBIT D 3 door. And being up at Ka`awa Loa, I have not noticed any farm noise at all; it’s been rather peaceful. So -. GRAHAM: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Celinski. Do we have any questions from the Commissioners? All right. Ma’am? NORTHRUP: My name is Cynthia Northrup. I did testify one other time as a property owner in the area. And this time I am testifying as the former owner of the property, addressing the complaint that apparently Mr. Farwell felt that his farm noise would be incompatible with the bed and breakfast use of the property, which – from my experience with the property – I don’t agree with that. There occasionally was some farm noise, but it wasn’t that much or that often. One time I asked Mr. Farwell if he wouldn’t use his machine right next to the house when I had a showing when I was selling the property. He was actually very nice about it, and didn’t do it. He did have complaints on a tenant that I had – two complaints – and I told him to call the police, and I informed the people if they did it again that I would move to evict them, and I did. They did and I did. So that’s basically my comments on the noise history there. I just don’t think that it’s a valid complaint; I do think it’s compatible. And as she mentioned, he has a vacation rental right on the property at the farm. And furthermore, I’m so impressed with what they are doing and what their plans are, and the level of integrity and sensitivity to the culture and the people that they are using in doing this; that I’m very supportive of what they are doing, and that’s why I sat here all day to testify. And I’ve no beef with Mr. Farwell; I wish him well with his vacation rental as well. GRAHAM: Thank you, Ms. Northrup. Ma’am, and start with your name and address. GEORGE: My name is Marianne George at 82-5778B Napoopoo Road, actually just makai of these properties down the road. And I did testify in the second hearing here. What I want to add is that after that testifying I realized that – or I became aware that – of the website of Mr. Farwell’s property for his vacation rental; and reading what it said there, and then looking at the website for Ka`awa Loa plantation, I want to say that in that website for Ka`awa Loa plantation, it states in several places that it’s a working farm, there is farm noise, and etc. So there is no confusion there. And I just want to also say that what I said earlier about Michael and Gregory not being complainers, I’m certain they have never complained and they have no intention of ever complaining about noise. I would like them to continue to turn that farm into a really working sustainable farm, because what they’ve done since they moved in is very dynamic and a long-term planning. Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you for your testimony. Sir, begin with your name and address, please. ANDRADE: My name is Walter Andrade. My address is Box 586, Holualoa, Hawaii 96725. And I came to know Michael and Greg by way of farming concerns on their property. When they had purchased the property, we met and got together. I looked at their farm plan and their business plan for doing a farm agro type business – tourist business – including a bed and breakfast, which I found to be very creative on their part. I looked at the property prior to any development going on, and it was a far cry from being a use in any agricultural way; it was overgrown and it was very steep and difficult – a not exactly prime agricultural property. However, their determination and sticking with their business and farm plan has shown today EXHIBIT D 4 how effective they have been in getting the property under control and bringing more and more property – I believe up to almost four and half acres today has been brought into Ag use, and recognized by the agricultural entity up there. So I’m proud of what they are doing. I support what they are doing. I read the testimony from the past hearings. I’m very familiar with their file and how it relates to 205 in Ag use, and also what’s going on in the neighborhood in the island in general as far as Ag use and bed and breakfast combinations for tourist related agricultural businesses.And I think it’s suitable. I think that they are doing a good job, and that they are determined to do it. I support it. And that’s really all I have to say. GRAHAM: Thank you. We appreciate your coming today. Sir? JACKSON: My name is Daniel Jackson, reside at 82-5778B Napoopoo Road. And I’ll be as brief as possible. Known Michael and Greg for just over two years, I know them to be totally responsible ethical guys, and would like to add my support for their establishing a legal bed and breakfast on the Ka`awa Loa plantation to augment the opportunities of farm, farm revenue. And I understand the key sticking point is perhaps a lack of proper information to their neighbor to the north about the noise that he feels that will harm their opportunities as a B&B and their clientele. And as I’ll reiterate what Ms. George said, upon the Ka`awa Loa website they mention they are a working farm and that guests there shall expect to hear typical noises of an operating farm. And I will commend them for the job they’ve done in restoring the land to, as an active farm, and making a tremendous effort with that piece of land. I think that’s to be commended. Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you very much. While you are all here, do the Commissioners have any questions for anyone? Well, you may all go back, and we appreciate your coming and giving testimony today. Ma’am? NORTHRUP: My only last comment is that I know there are several other landowners in the area that support what they are doing. People that are familiar with them and their farm, people that couldn’t be present today, there are many other people that support them. GRAHAM: Thank you, Ms. Northrup. Now I think we go to the Commission, and the question might be before us: Do we want to reopen the contested case for some limited purpose, which might be to let Mr. Farwell and the Applicants have any concluding remarks on, based on what came in the testimony today? Whereas I wouldn’t say in general I’m in favor of that, because specific mention was made of Mr. Farwell and his operation and his comments, I feel like it would be fair on our part to give his a chance to speak to that. How do the other Commissioners feel? Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: A simple question, then. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Will there be any implications of reopening it besides letting Mr. Farwell will respond? Does it add another component to the whole mix? GRAHAM: Mr. Torigoe, could you help us, please? TORIGOE: Well, basically you could reopen it for a limited purpose of allowing for response to the public testimony. EXHIBIT D 5 GRAHAM: Thank you. I would like to limit it to that and reopen it for that purpose, if the rest of you feel in agreement with that. But if you don’t, then feel free to move otherwise. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: For the most part I’m pretty much satisfied with what we have. However, for appearance sake, if we are going to very strictly limit it to response to the testimony provided, because the testimony was so one-sided, I’m fine with reopening it for that – only that limited purpose, though – expressed limited purpose. GRAHAM: Are the other Commissioners okay with that? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yeah, I have no objection. And I guess I would suggest that Chair ask the parties if there are any objections to reopening it for the limited purpose of allowing any of the parties to address the comments provided by the public testimony today, and that the reopening would be limited to that purpose. GRAHAM: Okay. Well, I think we get indications from the parties here today; from Mr. Martinage and Mr. Nunn that it’s okay, and I know Mr. Farwell indicated before that he would like to have another chance. Sir, you have to come up to the microphone, and identify yourself, please. MARTINAGE: Aloha. Michael Martinage, Applicant. I just agree to that, as long as we are not only addressing the public testimony, but also addressing the evidence that was presented after Mr. Farwell’s testimony, that proves that he was not representing the proper information when he was under oath in front of you. So we would like to make sure, if he’s allowed to speak with the testimony, we are allowed to introduce new evidence that will counter his oath on th December 6. Because we have afforded Mr. Farwell an extensive amount of privileges: First to listen to the contested case to save him from the fact of not having to hire a lawyer; second, after we had that move forward that the Planning Commission had not supposedly sent him a letter th when we had our employees come here, other people testify, etc., that on January 19 we were here, Mr. Farwell wasn’t here, therefore we postponed it again. So again we have been acting in good faith all the way through. So if we allow him to respond to testimony, we should be able to th allow to show you the evidence that we have to counter his testimony on December 6. And I trust you would do that. Thank you. GRAHAM: Okay, hold on a second. I think where we are at this point is that we are not really looking for new evidence. And I think what the Commission has agreed to here is that he can respond to what he heard from testimony today and you folks could also do the same. But I think we’d like to hold it only to that, just so that we can move along. And I don’t think we view it as an adversarial issue between the two of you. We are just trying to decide on the Permit, so I don’t think all the “i’s” and “t’s” got to be doted and all that. We just need to have a sense of what the Commission wants to know. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair. Real quick. GRAHAM: Excuse me. Commissioner Alameda? EXHIBIT D 6 ALAMEDA: Thank you. We didn’t agree yet. I didn’t feel that we came to consensus yet on letting Mr. Farwell respond.So I would like to have an opportunity to discuss it further before we even go there. GRAHAM: Okay, fine. So -. ALAMEDA: Yeah, I’m just going back to my own feelings on that. I think it’s unnecessary for Mr. Farwell to respond because the testimony is pretty much the same as the previous testimony, with a little twist about the website and all, but I don’t think that’s substantial enough to reopen. So personally I feel it’s unnecessary to reopen the hearing. But that’s just me; I’m just one out of two – or maybe three – I don’t know. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Alameda. Any other comments on that? Or maybe we can just do a motion to reopen and see if it passes. And maybe I would like to take this second just to ask Mr. Torigoe if he felt we are off base by not reopening for this purpose, or whether he believes it’s reasonably within our discretion to not reopen. TORIGOE: Well, this is the kind of question that can be dangerous to ask your Counsel to answer on the record. But it’s within your discretion, I would say. GRAHAM: Okay. Be brief, please. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: I move that the SPP 06-000039, Applicants: Michael Martinage and Greg Nunn, we reopen the hearing for the limited purpose of allowing the Intervenor and the Applicants to address the public testimony that was presented today, and that the reopening be limited for the purpose of allowing the parties to address the comments in the testimony given today. And – yeah, then I’ll explain. GRAHAM: All right. Thank you. Is there a second for the motion? RHO: Second. GRAHAM: Seconded by Commissioner Rho. As I understand the motion, there is no provision for any new evidence; it’s only for verbal comments regarding to today’s testimony. Is that correct? IWASHITA: Yes. This is a contested case that the Commission is hearing without -. We are hearing it; we didn’t refer it out to a hearings officer. So I view our obligation to procedurally, to present the parties with the full benefit of this hearing process. And since one of the parties has expressed a desire – and I’m assuming that the Intervenor still wishes to make a comment – based upon that we ought to give them an opportunity. It’s not going to take that long, as I see it. And then we can re-close the hearing. GRAHAM: Okay, thank you. I’d also like to ask the Planning Director. Mr. Yuen, since you were a party also before, if you have any comment – before we vote on – whether you think it’s appropriate for us to reopen for this purpose alone. YUEN: It’s up to the Commission. EXHIBIT D 7 GRAHAM: Thank you. Any further comments? Would you take a roll call, Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion is to reopen the contested case hearing with the limited purpose to allow the Intervenor and the Applicants to address comments from public testimony taken today. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: No. DARROW: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, five to one. GRAHAM: Okay. Got to go? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: That’s all right. I was going to ask Mr. Alameda to indulge for a second with us, if you could. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: Yes. ALAMEDA: I appreciate the invitation, but nothing is short with this Commission. I acknowledge the attempt to promote a short discussion, and maybe kind of move it along that way, but my prediction is something is going to trigger further discussion from the other party and from our own – possibly County – perspective, and it’ll move to the next hour. So for those reasons I do not feel comfortable in indulging any further for this particular agenda item. (Commissioner Alameda left the meeting at this time, 2:20 p.m.) EXHIBIT D 8 GRAHAM: All right. Thank you, Commissioner Alameda. Mr. Farwell, would you come forward for a second, and Mr. Martinage and Mr. Nunn, would you come forward for a minute, please? So what I would like to do is restrict testimony to three or four minutes maximum from the Intervenor, Mr. Farwell, and from the Applicants’ side. And please restrain your testimony to dealing with what we heard from the public witnesses today. Thank you. Mr. Farwell, would you like to go first, please? And state your name and -. Excuse me, I should probably swear you in first too, if you folks will all raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission today on this agenda item? PARTIES: I do. GRAHAM: Thank you. Mr. Farwell, go ahead and give your name and address as you begin. FARWELL: I’m Brad Farwell, and I live at 82-6000 Napoopoo Road. Today I would strictly like to limit my comments to the points they made about our website and their website. Our website has a single bedroom vacation rental downstairs; it is rented on occasion. We do claim that it is peaceful, when I’m not running machinery, but we do also offer a refund to anyone who is staying with us in the event they can’t handle the noise, or the dryer, or what have you. As far as Michael and Greg’s operation, if you would look at their website, which I haven’t had copies of here, you would see that they have an existing and up and running vacation rental right now. It’s both the guest house with all the bedrooms and all the amenities. And I have no problem with that whatsoever. The problem I have is over this issue of noise, and the noise boils down to this -. GRAHAM: Sir, could you please restrain yourself rather than restate your case to talk to what you heard from the people who came to testify? FARWELL: Okay. All right. They came and testified today that I’m being disingenuous because I don’t admit that I make noise. I do admit I make noise. I conclude that they are being disingenuous because they are contending that they have a proposed bed and breakfast when in fact they have an existing vacation rental. The difference between the two is that a vacation rental on Ag land has no standing; they can’t complain about the noise I make next door. A bed and breakfast is a licensed inn – licensed by this Commission – for the purposes of offering rest and relaxation to people when they come to stay with them. They have a reasonable right as a bed and breakfast to ask that I not make noise. That is not going to happen in a farm setting. What I’m asking today is that – look at the reality; they have an existing vacation rental. I have no problem with that. They can make all the money they want. They are making all the noise they need to. There is no issue. The issue becomes when they have legal status to complain about my noise. That’s what I’m worried about. Thank you. GRAHAM: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Martinage, Mr. Nunn, would you care to take a few minutes? MARTINAGE: Sure. I’ll be happy to. Thank you so much. GRAHAM: Please identify yourself. EXHIBIT D 9 MARTINAGE: Oh, I apologize. Sorry about that. Michael Martinage, 82-5990 Napoopoo Road. The issue is that a vacation rental and the business that Brad is operating next door since 2001 has all of the components of what we have put together in our agriculture plan in our 5.6 acres of land. We are not doing anything different other than bringing it to a level that we are able to allow our bed and breakfast as it maybe support the growth of agriculture. So with that said, the noise level will be the same on any agriculture property. Now the fact that Brad had mentioned before that he made so much noise that you could not survive or you would not be able to live in our area without earphones, etc., his vacation rental is within feet of his mac nut factory; also, the fact that he has determined, as our testifier said that they have found it to be peaceful in our property, he has gone on record and said that he operates at 115 decibels. Gentlemen, this is way over – I’m just saying for the noise level, so that we know. So with that said, we are not expecting anything different or any other treatment other than the same product mix in the revenue streams that we seek. We had recently – and this is very important - . GRAHAM: Recall we are supposed to be limiting testimony to what we heard from the people who came. MARTINAGE: Okay, I’m sorry. We did have the Real Property Tax of County of Hawaii come out and walk our property in its entirety; they have changed our status from a half pasture to four -. IWASHITA: Point of Procedure, Mr. Chair. GRAHAM: Excuse me. Commissioner Iwashita? MARTINAGE: - of agriculture. IWASHITA: My motion limited the remarks to the comments that were made at public testimony, so I’d like Chair to -. GRAHAM: Yes. I also feel you’re straying from that, you know, you did hear public testimony. MARTINAGE: Okay. I apologize, I apologize. It’s very important to us. GRAHAM: Okay, thank you. Well, sir, you’ve got to keep it real brief because I want to keep for the few minutes. NUNN: That’s fine. I’ll keep it very brief. Just to support what they had said, he is doing the same thing on his property. We are talking about multiple income streams here in order to support agriculture.There is no doubt that we moved from a half-acre pasture to four and three and three-fourth acres of in-use Ag land. We are moving the land even closer to what it was – oh, away from what it was, which was overgrown land – to agriculture, which is what the zoning is. In the past record there were no complaints as far as bed and breakfast making complaints towards Ag land, and there are also tons and tons of other bed and breakfast in our area that also went through this legal process and were approved on Ag land either on macadamia nut farms or on coffee farms. We are doing the same thing that he is doing; he is EXHIBIT D 10 using his land and he has multiple income streams, and we are doing the same thing with ours. We just want the same opportunity that he is, not to do as he says, but to do as he does. GRAHAM: All right. I think we are finished with the public testimony because we’ve heard more than three or four minutes on each side. If that’s all right -. Sir, do you have something that needs to be said as a result of what you heard from the testifiers before? CONVENTZ: Absolutely. GRAHAM: And would you restrain it to that, please? CONVENTZ: I sure will. And certainly can I rebut the Intervenor? GRAHAM: Excuse me? CONVENTZ: Can I rebut what the Intervenor just said, just that? GRAHAM: I would prefer that you didn’t. Our motion was to respond only to those who came and gave public testimony and -. CONVENTZ: Okay. What I have here made up looks big, but it is all related to the testimony before of the five, and that is just the backup information for your information also. And I believe that my client, Mr. Martinage, was not wrong when he addressed the three and half-acre by the Tax Office, because one of the testifiers today addressed that, too, that had gone up from half an acre pasture or fallow land to three and half and four acres actual, accepted agriculture under the Property Tax Office. So that was – what I’m saying is – strictly related to that one. And as the noise of concern, you know, I see the problem here is in the past – and that comes from the testimony – there was no problem of the predecessor with neighbor and the Intervenor Farwell, neither the other way around. Obviously not, because both said since they are good neighbors, and they are saying now they are good neighbors today. The key issue here is that Mr. Farwell has the problem that noise in the future on his property may cause, if you approve bed and breakfast that but not otherwise -. GRAHAM: Sir, we heard all this before at the first thing. I would like to move forward, and keep the spirit of what the motion was for reopening. If you have anything in response to what the people came and testified, I’m not meaning to be antagonistic or close you off; it’s just we need to stay focused on what we are trying to do. CONVENTZ: Yeah, I apologize, but I believe that I really addressed what was addressed by the testifier today. As far as noise is concerned, what my client did to improve it that they actually bent over backwards to improve the agricultural activity and that they are not replacing the agricultural activity; they are enhancing it. And that was part of the testimony unless I’m mistaken. GRAHAM: That’s true. Well, thank you for your testimony then. CONVENTZ: And what I have here is a complete backup of what those five testifiers testified to. That’s just documentation for what the testifier said and what I’m saying. EXHIBIT D 11 GRAHAM: Okay, thank you. IWASHITA: Point of Procedure. GRAHAM: Excuse me. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. Chair, please, I believe the intent of the motion for reopening has been met, and I’d like to move at this time to close the public hearing again. GRAHAM: Do I have a second? WATANABE: Second. GRAHAM: Seconded by Commissioner Watanabe. Any comments from other Commissioners? Jeff, do you want to take a vote on that motion? DARROW: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion is to close the contested case hearing. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, five to zero. GRAHAM: Thank you all for coming forward. You all are living with the issues that you are trying to present and deal with, and we are living with trying to make the decision we are trying to make today. And sometimes you can get more focused on what you are doing, or we can get more focused on what we are doing, and we can kind of misconnect a little; I think that’s what was happening. So I understand where you were coming from, and I hope you didn’t feel we were rude to be cutting you off, but that’s kind of the state we are dealing with here, I think. So thank you for coming forward. Could I have a motion from the Commissioners? I think we are now at the point to take action on this Application for a Special Permit. EXHIBIT D 12 WATANABE: Before we even make a motion, I have a comment, though. The only reason I voted to reopen is for appearance sake, I didn’t feel like we needed anything – I wanted to keep this -. And it was clear to me that both you and Mr. Iwashita were going to vote for it, and if I had voted against that, then we would have come to a four-two, and we are not going to have anything again; we can’t even decide whether we are going to open or not open. And now we’ve got only five and this thing is going to continue again. And the next one is going to be the same damn thing. GRAHAM: All right. Can I have a motion from one of the Commissioners on the item before us today? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Just for the record, I believe, in a contested case matter especially, it really is important for us to make the best effort to make the best record. And I have no apologies to the parties because I think we did the best that we could. And we made it clear that it was going to be limited, and it was limited. So I just want to make that – that’s my personal perspective. If the Chair pleases, I will make the motion. GRAHAM: Go ahead, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: In the matter of SPP 06-000039, Applicants: Michael Martinage and Greg Nunn, requesting a Special Permit to allow the establishment of a 5-bedroom bed and breakfast operation within an existing dwelling and a guest house situated on a 5.06-acre lot in State Land Use Agricultural District, I move that the Commission approve the Application subject to the conditions recommended by the Director as set out in the Director’s recommendation. GRAHAM: Do we have a second? WATANABE: Second. GRAHAM: Seconded by Commissioner Watanabe. Do any of the Commissioners have any comments to make on why they tend to vote one way or the other, or how they feel about it? I could offer personally that I voted against it last time, but from hearing the public testimony in a meantime I am inclined to vote in support today, and I think it does fulfill the requirements of the Special Permit Rules we have. Thank you. Jeff? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. EXHIBIT D 13 DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, five to zero. GRAHAM: Thank you. We will notify you in writing. The discussion ended at 2:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT D 14