Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-04-05 TMIRANDA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 5, 2007 SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 05-009 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (APPLICANT: MELVIN W. MIRANDA) was called to order at 10:03 a.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT: William Graham ABSENT & EXCUSED: C. Kimo Alameda Takashi Domingo Andrew Iwashita Alvin Rho Rene’ Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And 6 people from the public in attendance SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 05-009 (APPLICANT: MELVIN W. MIRANDA) Revocation of Special Permit No. 05-009 granted on August 18, 2005 which allowed the establishment of a contractor’s base yard on approximately one acre of land situated in the State Land Use Agricultural District.The property is located along the north (makai) 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. GRAHAM: All right, on our agenda today the first item we have relates to Special Permit No. 05-009 which was granted on August 18, 2005. It allowed the establishment of a contractor’s base yard on approximately one acre of land in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The is in the Hamakua area along the north side of the Hawaii Belt Highway (Highway 19) at the 47.5-mile marker. The application before us today is a request for a revocation of this special permit. Jeff, could you give us background, please. DARROW: Sure. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission. If I can direct your attention to the maps on the board. Just to briefly update you on this particular application, this is a continued hearing for a revocation that has been initiated by the Planning Director. The revocation is for Special Permit 05-009 which was originally issued to Melvin W. Miranda on August 18, 2005 to establish a contractor’s base yard on approximately one acre of land on an approximately 17-acre parcel. EXHIBIT A 1 The actual area that the application is located is within the Hamakua district of Hawaii. More specifically we have a white line running through the middle of the map running in an east direction. The application area is located between the 47 and 48 mile markers on Mamalahoa Highway. It’s identified with an orange dot. We have a plot plan that was submitted by the applicant as well as a more identified site plan of the particular one-acre area. On the plot plan we have Mamalahoa Highway at the lower portion of the map and the particular location of the special permit is located more north from the highway in a type of ravine area so it’s not visible from the Highway. And, again, the site plan that has submitted by the applicants shows the layout of the contractor’s base yard. The reason for the hearing is noncompliance of several conditions, mainly Condition No. 2, submitting final plan approval within a required time amount, and Condition 8 where the applicants were required to submit metes and bounds in map and written form by a licensed surveyor. nd This is a continued hearing from our last Hilo meeting on March 2. We did receive a letters from the applicant’s representative, Attorney Robert Rodrigues, and it has been distributed to the Commission Members this morning. GRAHAM: Thank you, Jeff. Do we have any questions from Commissioners at this time? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Since the March hearing on this, has the applicant submitted any of the materials to start bringing himself into compliance? DARROW: Not that I’m aware of. If it has been submitted, it has been submitted very recently that we’re not aware of. But up to this point we’re not aware of anything. Just the letter that we received this morning is the correspondence that we’ve received from the applicant. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. Any other Commissioners have questions? What I’d also like to point out to people in attendance today is if you plan to give any public testimony on this matter or any other matter, you can go to the table on the end and just fill out a slip with Sharon, if you would. All right, if the applicant and the applicant’s representative would care to come forward at this time. Could you folks raise your right hand so I can swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission today on this matter? TESTIFIERS: I do. GRAHAM: Thank you. So Mr. Yuen would you care to make any comments since this is a revocation before the Applicant does speak? YUEN: Yes. Well, we went through this a little bit last time although we all agreed that we would defer any action on this. This originally started off as a violation where the current applicant was using the site as a contractor’s base yard in the State Land Use Agricultural district, not a permitted use. And after being cited for the violation he applied for the special permit. The Planning Commission granted a special permit, the Planning Department had a negative recommendation. There were certain things that the applicant was supposed to do. Primarily they were supposed to move all equipment to a one-acre site, as Jeff had pointed out, EXHIBIT A 2 that’s in a less visible area on the property. That contractor’s base yard was to be allowed with certain conditions but it was supposed to be limited to a one-ace area. There were some things that had to be done where the one-acre area had to be outlined by metes and bounds by a surveyor and there’s also a requirement for final plan approval. Final plan approval is a type of application that’s reviewed by the Planning Department. It’s like a site plan, in this case, and it would show where the buildings would go. It would also show how the landscaping would be put in. This site was required to have landscaping consistent with an industrial area adjoining a single family residential area. So none of these had happened as of -. The permit was granted in August 2005. None of these had happened as of the one-year deadline in August 2006. The Department wrote a letter asking for action. There was a response that the Department did not see as a response that really addressed or solved the issues; and we brought this to the Commission for a revocation. So what we have is an opportunity for the applicant to explain the time delays in this and then the Commission can decide what to do. The Department will also review whether we would consider withdrawing our request for revocation if we see progress from the applicant. You know, I drove by there yesterday or the day before yesterday. The equipment that was parked on the visible area of the property has been removed in between the last meeting and the current, and a couple of days ago. We have not had the final plan approval application, nor the description of the site by metes and bounds, nor the landscaping plan. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Yuen. You folks can respond or present whatever facts or information you think is valuable to the Planning Commission here today as we decide where we go with this matter. And what I would ask is that each one of you before you speak give your name and address so that it goes on the record for the notes that we’re taking and then go ahead at your own discretion. MIRANDA: Okay, I’m Melvin Miranda. My mailing address is PO Box 2000, Kamuela, Hawaii. Gee, I forgot my physical address right now but -. Anyway, I’d like to talk about the Exhibit A I think that you folks have. It’s about the building inspection notice. I’m in the process of putting up a building, a shop, or warehouse; and the foundation has been, all the footing has been put in place with rebar and everything ready to be poured. And the inspector rd came out on April 3 and inspected it and everything passed, and there’s nothing wrong with the whole foundation slab. So we’re just waiting to get concrete now to pour it, which may happen hopefully early next week as soon as the concrete is available. If you have any questions? I think you have pictures in front of you that will show the site that I’m talking about. It’s like listed as C-1 and C-3. Commissioner Siracusa, you had something? SIRACUSA: Yes, but I have to be recognized by the Chair. GRAHAM: You’re ready for questions from the Commission at this point, sir? MIRANDA: Yes. If you have any questions about those two pictures, I can answer anything. GRAHAM: All right. Commissioner Siracusa? EXHIBIT A 3 SIRACUSA: Yes. Putting up the building as I recall was not part of the special permit. And so I’m wondering why you’re even bringing this information before us. It seems to be irrelevant. My big question which I asked last time when you weren’t here was between March and August you had 8 months or so to start doing some of the compliance on the permit, which you had agreed to do when it was granted to you. And you decided for some reason to put your time and your energy and your considerable finances into this building and put that as your priority rather than starting the steps that were requested of you in your permit. So I’m wondering, you must have been thinking something about why you made that decision; and I would like to try to understand why you made the decision to go forward with the building rather than start off with the steps to comply with your permit. It seems like a cart before the horse kind of thing and I would like to understand what your reasoning was. MIRANDA: Okay, very, very good question. I remember one of the stipulations in getting the permit was that I was to put down a cement slab, so when I would do any oil changes or work on my trucks we wouldn’t have anything contaminating the soil. Okay, in that area that I’m at it rains a lot, as all of you folks know. So with that I wanted to put up a building so we could be out of the rain, and also a slab. And this is what I put my efforts in toward doing. And that took a while before I could get the permits and really just to get the slab and building. Now the building wasn’t part of what was to be done, but I knowing what I know it’s like it makes a lot more sense to have a building over the slab. And this is what took a lot of my time. Because in 2005 the construction boom was so strong I couldn’t get an engineer to draw the site plan or the foundation plan. I’ve had the building sitting on my property for over two years but I couldn’t erect it. And I went through three different engineers to draw the plan, and this is no lie. Because, you know, Mike Krochina from Kona, he’s my good friend and I worked with him, and he had told me he would do it, and I waited like three months; and he was so busy doing plans for homes and engineering stuff for Kona and Kukio that he said he just couldn’t do it. And pretty much he had more important things or higher paying things to do. Then I got another guy, William something from down here in Pahoa; and he told me he would do it but it would take him a couple of months before he would get to it but give him my plans. And I said okay, and I never met the guy, I was just referred to him. So I dropped my plans off at HPM in Hilo and he was going to pick it up at the Building Department. I called him up a week after and he said, yeah, he didn’t have a chance to get it and he will get, and it will be two months before he can start working on it. Two months went buy and I called him again. And to make a long story short, the plans sat at HPM for seven months. And he told me he was working on it and finally it was somebody else’s plans and not even mine; and I ended up going to HPM picking it up. And then I had this other engineer. In the meantime, 10 months had gone by. Then I got this guy TJ and he drew it up, all the foundation plans. It took him I think three or four months. Then I submitted it to the County. But, in the meantime, a whole year had gone by. SIRACUSA: Follow-up, please? GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: I understand these kinds of delays. Any of us who have tried to build anything, you know, have experienced this sort of thing. What I’m wondering now though that you’ve explained that is why you didn’t ask the Department for an extension due to EXHIBIT A 4 circumstances beyond your control? I believe that there are provisions for that sort of the thing. Why did you let it keep going until you were in violation? GRAHAM: Mr. Miranda? MIRANDA: Okay. I didn’t, after the hearing with you folks and the special permit was granted, I didn’t realize, and maybe it’s my ignorance, that I had a time limit of one year to comply and complete everything. I never knew that, really. And I told my attorney, I said I didn’t realize we were under a time limit; if not I would have not done some of my jobs that were pressing and worked on my own stuff. And I totally admit this, if I knew. I remember a couple key things, one was having a slab down and one having a containment area for my fuel. To me those two things was high on my priority list so I wouldn’t have any fuel spills or oil spills on my property; and that I’ve been doing all along. As far as being the one-year time limit, you know, you can do whatever you have to do. But I’m sorry that I didn’t know we had a one-year time limit. And I’m wanting an extension, and I’m getting everything done. GRAHAM: Other Commissioners? Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Yeah, Mr. Miranda, one thing that concerns me, and I don’t think Jeff really mentioned this, but it’s part of Condition No. 8 of your special permit, all vehicles were to be confined within the one acre of the, that the permit allowed. And on three occasions, first on th October 6 of last year, semi-trailers were noticed up high on the hill easily visible from the highway and certainly not within the one acre; and you were notified about that by certified mail thth in October. Two follow-up inspections, December 12 of last year and January 25, there were still heavy equipment parked up there. Now evidently Chris tells me this has been moved but, you know, that makes me wonder a little bit why this wasn’t taken care of back in October and we had a continuing problem with that. And I think really from the standpoint of my concerns, that’s a bigger concern than having the paperwork in on time, to be honest with you. And, you know, I would be concerned that next week we find heavy trailers back up there again. GRAHAM: Mr. Miranda? MIRANDA: Sure. If you look at the pictures, C-1 and C-3, almost all the equipment that was up on the hill was parked in this area. And in order for me to make this slab and prepare this ground, I only have one acre that I asked for; and this is about half an acre right here. So what I could I moved it to higher ground and parked it up on the hill, thinking that it would be no problem. You know, I have to build and I cannot build with all my trucks and equipment parked on this area that you see all farmed up right now. So I moved that out of the way so I could build. I had planned to have this building up the end of August, by summer, and it didn’t happen. Then I had planned to have this building up before the end of the year, that was my goal, and it didn’t happen either. And now I’m shooting to have this thing up by this summer. Okay? If we go back just a little bit, with that big earthquake last year, you know, I worked on the Paauilo Bridge from 6 o’clock in the morning till 7 o’clock at night for seven days a week hauling fill where they have that bypass temporary bridge, me and my truck driver, for Hawaii Dredging. And we stayed on that job because that thing was pressing. My yard was like secondary, you know. I could still run my trucks so I parked things up on the hill and tried to do EXHIBIT A 5 what I felt was good for the community and everybody else. But in return, you know, it just puts me behind the eight ball, you know. Then at the end of the year that bridge was completed and I started working on my place. And then I don’t know if you Dan De Luz, Dave De Luz from Hilo Toyota, he owns Kukaiau Ranch. Well, they got like 17 families up there; and their main water system is all on pumps. And their pump broke down, two of them. They had no water for their cattle or for their people. I was hauling water up there from New Year’s eve, the whole month of January from 6 o’clock in the morning till 10 o’clock at night just to keep them supplied. You know, and if I didn’t care about the people or the cattle, I’d say, you know what, forget it, you know, I’ve got to do my stuff. But, again -. You know, I’m not giving you no line of bull. It’s the truth, you know. So this is what is taking a lot of my time. GRAHAM: Any other questions from Commissioners? Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Thank you. I sympathize with your situation that you’re in. I would like to have some clarification from staff as to the submittal of, for instance, the condition to final plan approval that would involve the plans for the, the General Plan for this particular area. Has that been submitted? GRAHAM: Jeff, go ahead. DARROW: As of this date, Commissioner Domingo, we have not received the submittal for the plan approval. That’s something that needs to be done at this time. DOMINGO: Mr. Miranda, those are the primary requirements, the initial requirements that that is requested of anyone receiving permits so that the County would know what your anticipated plans may be; and it’s very important. Now was anyone on top of this knowing that you needed to submit these plans within a timely fashion? Who’s your attorney? GRAHAM: Mr. Miranda. MIRANDA: My attorney is here, Robert Rodrigues here. DOMINGO: Apparently he wasn’t on top of it. Because you were so busy taking care of the kind of issues you mentioned, like for the bridge and the hauling of water. You know, your time was taken up completely by those projects, so he should have been on top of it and just reminded you of it, and probably even help hire or contract the necessary parties to go ahead and draft those plan approvals so that the County can be on top of it. And as suggested earlier, you know, if you were in this situation without being able to comply with the requirements some sort of notification should have been given to the Planning Department as to not being able to meet those times established by the Commission. And it seems like, you know, although you were busy and your time was taken, granted I can accept that, but the fact is, you know, that part was being done and addressing the requirements of the permit has been put aside. So, that’s all, Mr. Chairman. GRAHAM: Thank you. Commissioner Siracusa? EXHIBIT A 6 SIRACUSA: Yes. Mr. Miranda, as part of your response to an earlier question, you said that you were not aware that you had a one-year timeline and you thought all you had to do was the slab. However, everything was written in the recommendations. Did you by some chance not receive a copy of your own of those recommendations. I mean I know your attorney had those. I’m wondering if you had a copy to refer to so that you would know what you had to do and within what time frame? GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa, by recommendations you mean the requirements of the permit? SIRACUSA: Yes, I’m sorry. GRAHAM: Sure. Mr. Miranda? MIRANDA: You know, I never, I don’t recall reading that, even like what Mr. Yuen said that I was suppose to plant trees like a house lot. You know, I think you remember me saying that I planted koa trees and, you know, I planted like probably 50 koa trees or something like that along my boundary. But I don’t remember me having to plant trees like a subdivision or a house around the area. I plan to do it, you know. But I haven’t planted anything in front of my slab or along that area because everything is still under construction. And if I planted anything, I’d be running it over; and for that reason I haven’t. But, you know, I didn’t realize – I just plan to do it, beautification, because I want it to look nice. But I didn’t realize that I have to do it, you know. GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa, follow-up? SIRACUSA: Yes. There are also conditions about limiting the number of vehicles and the number of trips per day. There were all sorts of conditions that were set. So you’re saying that you never received any -? The conditions that you see on this colored paper, this gold colored paper, you’re telling us that you ever received those so that you could refer to them? MIRANDA: You know, I may have received them, and I won’t say that I didn’t. I don’t remember reading it myself now, you know. I remember the amount of vehicles. I remember everything that happened at the meeting, okay? It was a limit to six trucks. You know, and I said at that time I’m running four trucks and maybe I’ll get up to six but I don’t expect to. And I remember telling you folks that at that time because it’s just too hard to get employees and the insurance is too high, I’m not expecting to expand. GRAHAM: Any other questions? Yes, Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Yeah. I have a question for the Director. Earlier you mentioned that the Planning Department might reconsider this revocation. At the same time I had the same concerns that Rell has. And I don’t think I’d be in favor of reconsidering the revocation without any fine being imposed because I think it’s going to be a continual enforcement problem. That said though I’m wondering after all this testimony if you still stand by insisting on the revocation or are you contemplating a compromise? GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen? EXHIBIT A 7 YUEN: Yeah, I wanted to give the Commission a chance to ask a number of questions and to have the Commission go through whatever issues that they had. As I said, I’m willing to reconsider our, the Department brought this request to the Commission to revoke the permit because we were not seeing any actions from the letters that we sent asking for compliance with conditions of the permit. I have to say I’m a little concerned about the answers that I’m hearing. Because the Department, we sent a letter to you saying the permit has been granted, these are the conditions; and they’re not things that are your choice to do, whether you feel like doing them or not. The Commission did not just say you can go do your base yard. They said you can do your base yard but there are certain conditions that you have to meet in connection with that; and they’re important. The things that you said when you talked earlier about the services that you performed to the community, those were the kinds of things that led the Commission, I think, to grant you the permit, the usefulness of having the business in the area that provides these kinds of hauling serves. At the same time it wasn’t just, yes, go ahead and run your business however you feel like doing it. There were certain things that had to be done and they’re not just paperwork. They did involve moving the vehicles off the site. And I want to give the Commission a chance to go through its questions that it may have; and at the end of that questioning I’d like to comment on whether the Department, what course of action the Department would recommend after hearing the reasons that the applicant has given for not doing some of the things that they were supposed to do. GRAHAM: All right, follow-up? WATANABE: I’ll follow-up. GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Yeah, the reason I brought that up is because I was really opposed to this special permit on the first hearing. And one of the reasons I was opposed to it was because of the traffic conditions and limited site distance, and the comments that the Department of Transportation had made regarding entry onto Mamalahoa. And after that meeting and after, I guess, as a Commission we went against your original recommendation, there was some discussion about that. And suggestion was made that maybe we could have added like a caution light there, you know, like in some areas you have limited site distance, caution lights or hidden driveway kind of caution lights. And I’m wondering if that might, if in the end we’re going to reconsider this revocation if that might be something we want to add in to cover a base that we possibly missed the first time around. And, again, I kind of stand by my original statement that I don’t think I’d be really in favor of letting this project or the special permit continue without a fine, because I think it’s going to be a continual enforcement problem. I don’t think he can waive it. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Watanabe. RHO: Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Commissioner Rho? EXHIBIT A 8 th RHO: There was a letter written by the Department on October 20; and at the end of the letter or near the end of the letter it talks about for violation of terms of the permit corrective action consists of, and it’s 1, 2 and 3. And I think I’m clear but I wanted some clarification on each point. So if you can start with number 1 and then proceed with number 2 and number 3 if you actually have that letter. What I really want to know is where you’re at right now on each of those three points. RODRIGUES: Excuse me. My name is Robert Rodrigues and I am the attorney for M. W. Miranda Trucking, Robert S. Rodrigues, R-o-d-r-i-g-u-e-s. My address is 64-411 Bucky Hill, Kamuela, Hawaii 96743; and my phone number is 885-1239. And I’ve been the attorney for Miranda Trucking for seven years. I’m looking for the letter that you’re referring to Mr. Rho. Mr. Rho, I have in front of me two letters: February 1, 2007; and I think the one that you’re referring to has to do with -. th SIRACUSA: October 20. th RODRIGUES: October 20, we don’t have that with us. If you want to just recite number 1 on the list, we’ll respond to it. RHO: Number 1 says “Cease and desist the operation of a contractor’s base yard on the subject property outside of the permitted one-acre area and move all equipment, trucks, and trailers to the one-acre area, within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter.” And I realize you rdth sent the letter to the Department on November 3 in response to the October 20 letter, but the reason for my question is I really want to know where we’re at or where you folks are at right now. th RODRIGUES: Mr. Rho, again, I’m looking at this letter of October 20. Of course we’ve seen it before. The pages are not numbered or anything. There are many paragraphs number l. I’d like to find exactly what you’re referring to. Maybe you can help us out here, should it be necessary. But -. SIRACUSA: Page 4. RHO: Page 4 at the top, top left. RODRIGUES: I see it, I see it, page 4 at the top. Okay. And Condition number 1 for violation of Section 25-4-4, is that what you’re referring to sir? RHO: Well, actually I’m at the bottom of that. It’s number 2 [1]. RODRIGUES: All right. We’re with you now. MIRANDA: Okay, for cease and desist the operation of a contractor’s base yard on the subject property outside of the permitted one-acre area and move all equipment, trucks, and trailers to the one-acre area, within ten (10) days, this has been done. And it was done before st the, I believe before the last meeting. My mom died on January 31; and the week after she died we had all of this stuff moved. That’s how I remember. EXHIBIT A 9 I haven’t submitted anything, the metes and bounds. We have that map up there that we submitted, okay? I have a surveyor and his name is Roger Fellner from, he lives up in Kohala Ranch. And he said it will take two to three weeks before he can survey that place and it will take about three months before he can have everything, the metes and bounds registered. Roger’s license is LS 7276. But he told me it will be two to three weeks before he can come out and measure it, but he said it will be about three months before the whole thing gets registered. RHO: And number 3? MIRANDA: I haven’t submitted any plans of this but I can, my main structure will be the building that we’re going to pour the footing for next week. As far as having parking stalls, driveway access, we have a driveway that comes down to that area right now and I just plan to put my fuel tank in an area where it will be accessible so the fuel truck can drive in and out without having any obstacles to go around with. And I can draw that as soon as the building is done and we put in all the rock area for the parking. I can do that. I don’t know if that’s the answer you want. I’m really not sure because -. RHO: Okay, I’m not sure either. But it seems to me that the plans should have been drawn before you actually started construction on that building so that the plan would guide where the building was going to be situated, etc. So my question to you is what steps have you taken to develop this plan? And I will tell you straight up that my impression is you don’t have a plan. You’re just building this building and you decided where to put it. You decided on your own where the best place to put this building. MIRANDA: If we, Commissioner Rho, if we look at the plan up here, I can show you exactly what I’m talking about on that plan. RHO: Yeah, so therefore you can submit a plan for approval, which is what they’re asking, well, what the Department is asking for, the way I see it, submit plans for final th approval within 30 days. So you had a year plus 30 days as of October 20. And now it’s October, November, December, January, February, March, five months have passed since you got this letter in October. And as far as I’m concerned you have no plan. There is no plan. There’s going to be a building built and you’ve invested lots of money on getting that building built and the delays, etc., etc. IWASHITA: Point of information. GRAHAM: Hold on a second. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: I’d just like to raise a point of information of what was along the questioning that Commissioner Rho was asking. Part of what’s submitted today is a building inspection notice, it appears to be a County document. So I’d just like to know whether or not the second Exhibit A of what has been submitted today which shows Inspector Todd Tanimoto and inspection date of April 3, 2007 and an indication of approval for the foundation of this building we’re talking about, whether or not this is a County document. YUEN: Whether it is, I’m sorry? EXHIBIT A 10 IWASHITA: Is this from the County? Is this something that, is Todd Tanimoto a County Building Inspector? GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen? YUEN: Yes. IWASHITA: And so is this a County document that Mr. Tanimoto fills out after he actually went to this site and inspected the foundation frame that we’re looking at and approved, and indicates his approval of this foundation form work? YUEN: Yes. This is the -. IWASHITA: And so is that also then an indication that Mr. Miranda has submitted to the Building Department, anyway, some plans to make this building and the plans were approved? And so he went ahead and built the foundation form in accordance with those plans? GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen? YUEN: Yes. He -. IWASHITA: And so that does it also mean that in order for Mr. Miranda to have this plans approved by the Building Department that those plans were circulated to other Departments including the Planning Department and that the Planning Department signed off on those plans before he was issued the permit to put down this foundation form? GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen? YUEN: Yes. There -. IWASHITA: That’s all I wanted to now. YUEN: No, if I can make an explanation of what apparently happened here. He does have a building permit. Normally one can get a building permit in an Agricultural area without having plan approval. The Planning Department signed off on the building permit. It would have been circulated to the Planning Department and signed off on the building permit without him getting the plan approval. The person who looked at this in the Planning Department should have checked and recognized that it was subject to a special permit; and so the plan approval should have been obtained before the building permit was obtained. Still, there is still a requirement though for getting the plan approval which covers other things besides the building permit itself. The normal thing that is done, the normal role of the Planning Department in checking a building permit is the legality of the building as far as the zoning on the property and setbacks, and height. And, Jeff, did we look into this? What was the building applied for as, do you know? Because there is a purpose to the building, do we know what the building permit was? EXHIBIT A 11 DARROW: I think it was a storage building; and, again, as you were mentioning, those are, if they’re applied for in an Agricultural district the standard procedure for the Planning Department is to sign off on it as an Ag storage building. YUEN: Yeah, as a storage building. So the reviewer in the Planning Department would look at it and see it as a storage building and say that that’s a permitted use and sign off on the building permit. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Yuen. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Mr. Yuen, could you describe to us what in actuality is a plan approval? YUEN: It’s a site plan that includes the location of the buildings but also includes other things such as landscaping. It’s normally required of all commercial and industrial developments, multi-family developments. Most kinds of construction besides agricultural buildings and single family dwellings need a plan approval before getting a building permit. So if you were, say you had a lot in Shipman Business park and somebody wanted to put a warehouse on it, they would submit a plan approval that would show -. And this is separate from the Building Permit application, it’s a separate application. They would submit a plan approval that would show where the building goes, where the parking lots go, where the landscaping would be. And the Planning Department would check this because there are site requirements such as the landscaping on the site. DOMINGO: Okay. So in essence a plan approval is a plan encompassing the total development of that particular property to which the permit was granted? YUEN: Right. DOMINGO: Okay. So then because they have acquired a certain number of permits for whatever reasons does not indicate a plan approval was submitted legally or technically, is that right? YUEN: Right. They haven’t submitted a plan approval. It’s a separate application. It’s a point where the Department can check on the conditions, to see that the conditions of approval are met. Special Permits are in the Agricultural areas and normally agricultural buildings don’t need a plan approval. But when we have a special permit for something like this one, for example, it is like a Light Industrial use so we will typically put in a requirement for plan approval on a special permit like this, to be able to check that the things that are supposed to be done on a special permit are actually done. DOMINGO: Okay, thank you. You know as I look at this, Mr. Miranda, it seems like there has not been a follow through of all the requirements that you had to meet after the approval of the permit and, as you indicated, you were so busy and tied up in that and that there was no one else to follow up to meet these requirements. It’s too bad that it happened that way. EXHIBIT A 12 Personally I have a lot of sympathy for you and I’d like for you to succeed. But as you do it, you know, I think we expect total compliance with the requirements and the laws that, you know, govern your whole conduct and operation according to the permit that has been granted to you. Mr. Yuen, okay, putting all the issues aside and as we look at this situation, what alternative do you see? Where do we go from here? YUEN: You know, this question, Rodney asked this question a few minutes ago, and I think, you know, maybe we’re at the point of winding down the discussion. So let me say what I would suggest at this point based on what I’ve heard. I would suggest first that the Commission today defer action on the revocation, it’s not withdrawn but we defer action, with the idea that this will not be brought back to the Planning Commission if certain specific things are done. And if these things are done the Department will come back to the Commission with a report. All right, if they’re not done within the timeframe we’ll come back to the Commission again with a revocation. So then let me go through what we would -. DOMINGO: So what you’re saying is that give the Department and the applicant some time to sit down together and discuss the issues and see if some amicable kind of decision can come about so that things will proceed in their favor? YUEN: A little more than that in that there are some, I’d like it to be on the record what the conditions are as of today; and this will be part of the Commission’s vote today. And those are, you know, No. 1, all equipment must be kept out of site within the one acre; and I believe there’s a half acre that’s not being built on. There’s supposed to be maximum of six trucks, you should be able to keep the things on a half acre. That’s No. 1. No. 2, Mr. Miranda requested a time extension from the one year time to the second year by letter. That’s a formality. I know you said, gee, can I have it today. But from the standpoint of our paperwork, request a time extension from the plan approval and a survey which was supposed to be done by August 2006 to August 2007. All right. My expectation is that then the Department will grant the time extension to August 2007. I would ask that he submit his contract or a letter agreement, something from the surveyor, to show that he has a surveyor under contract. We give him a time extension to August to submit final plan approval. Now, you know, we’ve discussed this at the meeting today, if the applicant needs more information about what’s expected in final plan approval, he can meet with the Planning Department staff on this. If necessary, people, you know, people hire professionals to do these kinds of plans. If he were going into a commercial lot, like on Shipman business park, for example, typically you would be hiring somebody to draw up the plans. The fact that he is going into an agricultural area should not really change that. He is being given a special permit to go into an agricultural area so he doesn’t have to hire somebody; but if it’s going to be necessary to meet the deadline he can hire somebody. The plans, and this is an important part of this application, the permit is spelled out in a letter, landscaping shall be required in accordance with the requirements of Planning Department’s EXHIBIT A 13 Rule 17. There’s a rule, and it says follows the standards applicable to Light Industrial zones that abut Residential zones. That’s in the rules. It requires quite a bit of landscaping, and this would be around the one-acre area. You can use existing woodlands. If there are trees that provide a visual block you can use that. But essentially this rule requires a pretty strong, pretty thick planting that forms a visual buffer; and it’s spelled out in the rules how this is supposed to be done. Again, staff can point out the rule. But the plans have to show it; and then we will have somebody check to make sure that the landscaping has been implemented, that it has actually been planted. You can’t just show it on the plans. It has to, you know, the inspector will at some point come out and check to make sure it has been implemented. There will be fines. The fines are an enforcement matter and I don’t want to discuss the fines at the meeting today. We will discuss that separately. The Commission should not be involved in the level of fines. There have to be fines.My expectation is I’m not going to fine $500 a day from November till now, for example. But we would have fines. At the end of this, if all of this is complied with, my idea is that the Department would come back and make a report to the Commission. It would be put on the agenda as simply a report. Then we would say everything was done according to the requirements. And we would report back what the fine was and just what was done to comply. If it’s not done, then we would bring it back to the Commission to continue the revocation. Now we don’t want to have to do that. This is a matter that takes time for us as a Planning Department, for the Commission as well. And, you know, we understand the personal professional difficulties that led you to this point, but these things are the requirements of a permit, they do need to be done. As a Department we need to stay on top of the permits. So we need people that receive permits to take the conditions seriously and to implement the conditions when they’re done. And so that’s my recommendation of what to do today with this. IWASHITA: Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Let me ask Mr. Miranda a second. Do you have any comments, Mr. Miranda, on what you just heard from Mr. Yuen? MIRANDA: Yeah. I understand what Mr. Yuen just said; and I can comply with that. I’d like to know, well, I’ll talk to him on who I can work with to get this Rule 17, that is like how we can do that, you know. I never know there was something and it’s my ignorance not knowing Rule 17 and all the planting and everything; but we can work with that and whoever. If it’s Jeff or whoever we can get the information and work with, I’d be glad to. YUEN: Yeah, Mr. Darrow can help you with that. GRAHAM: Commissioner Iwashita, did you just have something? IWASHITA: Yes. You know, Mr. Miranda, I’ve been listening to all the comments, questions and your responses. And my main concern given what the Director has said, I just wanted you to clarify for me personally that you understand what the requirements are now that the Director just discussed it? EXHIBIT A 14 MIRANDA: Yes, I do. IWASHITA: And, frankly, you’re a mechanic, right? You know, this original, I voted in favor of granting you this application back in August of 2005, I guess it has been, yeah. And you had a year from then to basically make things work, and that expired back in August of 2006; and the Director is suggesting, you know, he can give an administrative extension to August of this year, right. But based on what you told us, that’s barely going to be enough time to get your metes and bounds description if this Roger Delamar (sic) , whatever his name is, if he has a delay you’re not going to make that deadline. And I’m not sure, you know, if you don’t have any plans to start it already and you have to hire someone, I’m not sure you’re going to be able to get that done by August of 2007. So, Mr. Director, I guess I would have a concern given Mr. Miranda’s history thus far in making the time deadlines that August would not be a sufficient enough time. And I was wondering, Mr. Director, if you thought that giving him till October would be a more reasonable amount of time, anticipating potential delays with professionals and so forth? YUEN: Yeah, procedurally they’ve never requested a time extension. The time extension from the Commission has never been requested and it’s not on the agenda; and, second, you know, that is four months. And the plans for plan approval -. IWASHITA: Well, I understand that. But for the metes and bounds, the surveyor, he’s not going to go, he said he’s going to go out in two or three weeks from today, it may not be a month, and that’s a month, and then he says once that’s done it’s going to take at least three months to prepare the description. Well, that’s four months. And if he has any kind of delay, he’s going to be outside of August. WATANABE: Mr. Chair? YUEN: See, I don’t understand that. Because to prepare, I suspect that if the surveyor sat down and did it, a surveyor could do it in a day. You’re talking about the boundaries of a one-acre area. Now it’s a matter of where the surveyor juggles his timeframe. You know, just procedurally we cannot extend the time beyond -. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, point of order. IWASHITA: So -. GRAHAM: Commissioner Iwashita, hold on a second please. Yes, Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: I think it would be best that we entertain a motion at this point and then have discussion on the motion. GRAHAM: All right. Is that all right with you, Commissioner Siracusa? You were waiting -? SIRACUSA: Well, I’ve been waiting for a while to speak so it’s not all right with me. EXHIBIT A 15 GRAHAM: Would you prefer to speak before we have a motion? Commissioner Siracusa, would you prefer to speak before we have a motion? SIRACUSA: Yes, I would. GRAHAM: Go ahead then, please. SIRACUSA: I wanted to comment that Mr. Miranda’s surveyor is not the only one on the island. He could always shop around for another surveyor who could do the job and start sooner and do it faster. And that would be one suggestion that I would make rather than increasing the timeframe. We’ve got other people here in the room who are applying for permits and if they think that we’re just that lax, they’re going to go ahead and think, oh, well, they can fudge on their permits, too. And I really wouldn’t want it to start, you know, set a precedent like that, because then we’ll end up with a real can of worms in this County with people not th complying right and left. And, for example, this letter of October 20, the agricultural trucking base yard shall be conducted in substantial conformance with representations made in the application,” that was one of the conditions. Putting up a building was never one of the representations, not a storage building like what Mr. Miranda is talking about. Granted he is th doing the paved area, you know. But I’m wondering if he ever, I mean this was October 20, and that was before his mother’s unfortunate demise, and yet he still had not complied with moving the equipment at that time. He was given 10 days of receipt of that letter, of the October thnd 20 letter. So I’m wondering also if he did pay that civil fine no later than November 22. So he wasn’t in compliance with that either? These are some of the questions that I think that Mr. Rho was asking about, where are you, where do you stand in regards to having complied with these requirements. And so it seems to be there were other requirements that he has not complied with, besides what we were talking about before. And I just wanted to mention those before we went ahead and got a motion. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: And, oh, I had a question of Mr. Yuen, excuse me, about if the cease and desist order is still in effect and will it be with what the new, you know, what you were talking about, what the Department would be willing to entertain. YUEN: Yes, that’s the part about keeping the equipment on the one-acre area. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. I think we have some interest in moving forward at this point. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Yeah. I move that we defer action on the revocation of special permit application SPP 05-009 until August of 2007, subject to the conditions previously stated by the Director. And, well, I can state my reasons when we get into discussion. DOMINGO: Second. GRAHAM: All right. So we have a motion by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Domingo. Do we need further discussion on that motion? Is the motion clear, or is there a question? EXHIBIT A 16 WATANABE: Well -. GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: May I make a comment. I understand what Mr. Iwashita’s concerns are; however, I think the Department is trying their best to work with Mr. Miranda. And I think if there is substantive progress this issue will not be before us again. And, hopefully, Mr. Miranda is convinced that these conditions are important so compliance will occur, and I’m satisfied with that. I think we should trust the process and see what happens. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Yes. I will speak in favor of the motion. And I’d just like to point out that this motion has been made with respect to the discussion that preceded it, and that it would be the questions that the Commission had and the answers that we received from the applicant and that somehow, someone indicated the willingness of the Commission to see that we work things out amicably to the satisfaction of the Department and at the same time of the applicant. And for me personally I felt, as I indicated I have sympathy for him, for the applicant; but I think along with that there has been a great amount of, I’m going to put it simply, ignorance to the process and the requirements that should have been met; and as the Planning Director indicated had he hired those who were so-called professionals in the various fields he wouldn’t have gone to this point of having it be considered for revocation. Because if had done so the plan approval would have been submitted in the earlier stages of the development, but instead unfortunately Mr. Miranda had gone out and purchased the building, prepared the land and is in the final stages of having the concrete poured. Now I think having gone through all these hours of discussion, I’m sure that Mr. Miranda is appreciative of the whole planning processing and that there is a need to comply with the requirements. That’s the most important thing. And I think that was the reason why we deferred action on the revocation of this permit the last meeting here in Hilo, and th that was on March 5. And the whole, I think it was the statement made, I made a statement that unless the primary requirements for plan approval are met, you know, it’d be hard for us to go forward and consider continuing this permit. But in view of the fact that the Panning Director sees some positive, I think, some positive light on this whole issue by sitting down with the applicant and working out some plan and being confident that it can be worked out, then there would be no need for us to consider a request for revocation. On that basis, Mr. Chairman, I will vote for the motion. WATANABE: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: Hold a sec. Commissioner Woodward, did you have something? WOODWARD: Yeah, I just wanted to say, the question was brought up about the duration of the extension. My understanding is that we can only extend for the same period that the original time provided was. That is if it was a one year period, we can extend it for one year. Is that correct, Mr. Yuen? EXHIBIT A 17 GRAHAM: I think Mr. Yuen can extend it administratively for one year; and we can extend it if we wish but we need to have it agendized, what we’re doing.And that’s what he was referring to till today, was no extension on the agenda for us. So it’s only available for him to extend that one year. WOODWARD: Okay. And then I just wanted to make a comment to Mr. Miranda. And I think that is if Mr. Yuen had not been willing to extend this to you, this compromise, that the Commission likely would have voted to revoke your permit. And I think if things are not taken care of in the timeframe that’s provided to you, it will be a slam dunk next time it comes before us. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Given what the Director suggested earlier -- that is part of the suggestion being that he anticipates if there is compliance within, if there is compliance, then he would just be submitting a report and would withdraw the request -- I think that the motion with the reference to being deferred to August as a specific time frame, that the August time frame should be removed and basically be deferred without a time reference. And if the Director, so that leaves it up to the Director if there is nothing worked out and he wants to continue to seek revocation then it can be reagendized, the present revocation request can be reagendized. And if there is compliance, then all he needs to do is provide a report. If we leave the date in, the cutoff date, basically that requires that this matter be reagendized for September after the expiration of the period, and I don’t think that’s the intent. GRAHAM: Mr. Watanabe, is that your intent with the motion that there be sort of a date where action comes forward from August, like to us to either revoke or a report from the -? WATANABE: No. And I take that as a friendly amendment. GRAHAM: Okay, fine. We could do, go with a vote on this motion then. WATANABE: You want to have Mr. Domingo second that friendly amendment? GRAHAM: Mr. Domingo, would you second that clarification or amendment? DOMINGO: I will, I will. GRAHAM: All right. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes. I was one of the people who originally supported Mr. Miranda’s special permit as being a bonafide agricultural related use of the property. And at a previous meeting, Mr. Rodrigues said he felt that the Planning Commission had not bent over backwards to support Mr. Miranda. And I just want to say that I don’t think our job description includes contortionism. I would have been prepared, like Mr. Woodward, Commissioner Woodward, to vote against this, support the revocation. But considering that the Planning Director is willing to reconsider based on a new set of recommendations, including the old recommendations, I will be voting in support of this motion. EXHIBIT A 18 GRAHAM: Okay. I would also like to ask Sharon, Sharon if you would, Sharon could you perhaps the minutes of this particular agenda item maybe send a copy of those to Mr. Miranda after the meeting. NOMURA: I will. GRAHAM: Thank you. All right, Jeff, you want to take the vote on this? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The motion before us is to defer this matter until further notice to allow the applicant to have an opportunity to achieve compliance with the outstanding conditions, mainly Condition No. 2 to submit final plan approval, and Condition No. 8 to submit metes and bounds in map and written form by a licensed surveyor. With that I’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Ayes. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. We’ll inform you in writing of our passed motion here today. Thank you. Excuse me, hold on a second. Mr. Torigoe. TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make sure that Mr. Rodrigues was aware that if you find that you need to come back to the Commission to ask for a time extension, please pay attention to Commission Rule 6-8 on amendments of special permit EXHIBIT A 19 conditions, because you do need to file the request not less than 90 days prior to the expiration date. So please look at Rule 6-8. Thank you. GRAHAM: Okay. Thank you. The discussion ended at 10:22 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT A 20