Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-02-03 Jim McMahon Testimony Aki, Tara From: Jim McMahon <jimlichun@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 3:18 PM To: WPCtestimony Subject: Public Testimony In Opposition to Special Permit Application PL-SPP-2024-000075 Attachments: PL-SPP-2024-000075 Testimony - Oppose - Jim McMahon.pdf Please see the attached document containing my testimony in opposition to Special Permit PL-SPP- 2024-000075. Thanks Jim McMahon i To: WPCtestimony@hawaiicounty.gov From: iimlichun omail.com Subject: Public Testimony In Opposition to Special Permit Application PL-SPP-2024-000075 Aloha Hawaii County Windward Planning Committee. Please accept my following testimony below in opposition to Special Permit Application PL-SPP-2024-000075. Sincerely Jim McMahon Indian Tree Road, near Papa`ikou, Hawaii Summary This testimony is in opposition to Special Permit application PL-SPP-2024-000075 - "to host an annual four (4) —day event with overnight camping and to store up to six work vehicles on the property". Myself, along with my wife own and operate a farm across which is bisected by Indian Tree Road - a private road which the applicant has been using as the primary access to his property. For the past few years we have been having to deal with numerous unpermitted uses taking place on the dominant easement estates located Mauka of our property including the subject property. For the subject property we have filed 3 complaints resulting in the following notice of violations: 1. ZCV-2021-015E - Unpermitted Commercial Rental Business/ Base Yard within the Agricultural Zoned District 2. PL- PCV- 2023- 00567 - Unpermitted Event( Falls of Fire) and Overnight Accommodations 3. PL-PCV-2023-000567 - NOV & Order Revised Repeated Violation (Falls of Fire) Of these, the last 2 are still open/unresolved and before the Board of Appeals (BOA). However, The BOA recently voted to dismiss the appeal for the 2023 Falls on Fire event. The 2024 event took place despite several warnings from the County Planning Dept. not to do so. This Special Permit application is therefore an attempt to legitimize the previous and existing uses. Although our property is located outside of the legal 500' notification zone for Special Permit applications, we believe our property is the most impacted by these proposed uses due to containing the longest section of road located between the subject property and the main public road (H-19). It also is the only property containing a permitted dwelling that is located along this section of Indian Tree Road. In addition to numerous safety, security, liability and loss of property value concerns, we strongly believe that the proposed uses are neither reasonable use of prime agricultural land nor in keeping with the character of our farming community. We are therefore asking for denial of this application in its entirety. This request is based on the following findings of fact: 1. The applicant has repeatedly defied the County's orders not hold the "Falls on Flre" events and therefore is likely to ignore the Special Permit conditions. 2. The Special Permit application is unusual in that it requests a permit for two completely different and unrelated uses - An annual 4-day long festival and a daily commercial heavy equipment base yard. We are of the opinion that each use should have its own dedicated application. 3. The size of each of the previous 2 unauthorized events were -2x larger than anticipated based on the number of attendees and traffic. The most recent event appeared to have a significant number of"gatecrashers" that were allowed to participate. Also non-camping day visitors were also allowed in. With the increased publicity surrounding the event, I question the organizer's ability to properly manage the event. 4. The application contains incomplete and erroneous information related to the proposed access. Which roads will be used, etc. Arguably, most of the impact to the surrounding landowners will come from traffic. The correct and complete access route should have been provided and corrected prior to the review process having started. We therefore believe that Rule 6-4 of the Special Permit Practice and Procedure has been violated. 5. It is my opinion that the applicant is deliberately trying to mislead the true nature of the proposed uses by referring them a "camping" event and "commercial vehicle storage" when a description like "a less constrained version of Nevada's Burning Man event" and a "heavy commercial equipment base yard" would better reflect that actual proposed uses. 6. The required public notification signs were not placed as per Rule 6-5 of the Special Permit Practice and Procedure. On at least 2 separate occasions a sign was placed along highway H-19 near the entrance to Indian Tree Road. Following each placement, the sign was taken down by unknown persons. The Planning Department was notified of the disappearing signs. In any case, these signs were not located on the subject property as required by Rule 6-5(a). 7. According to the criteria Section 6-3(b)(5) (A) Such use shall not be contrary to the objectives sought to be accomplished by the Land Use Law and Regulations. While the Director in his report addresses the question over whether or not camping should be allowed on prime high productive agricultural lands, the legality of industrial uses such as a heavy equipment baseyard on such lands is not addressed. However if one reviews past Special Permit applications for other base yards one will probably not find any that have been approved on similar highly productive lands. Furthermore, when they are approved they are normally located on good public roads with the condition of a time limit. The time limits are given to allow the applicant to move to more suitably zoned lands or for additional lands to be appropriately rezoned through boundary amendments. As discussed later this kind of Industrial use spot zoning is not consistent with the objectives of the Hamakua Community Development Plan. 8. According to the criteria Section 6-3(b)(5) (B), The desired use shall not adversely affect the surrounding properties. Apparently, the Planning Director does not appear to consider the properties over which vehicles must travel to reach the subject parcel as being part of the surrounding properties. Despite having -14500 contiguous acres of land across multiple parcels including the subject parcel, it does not appear to have developed direct access to a public road. It is therefore dependent on one or more private roads in the area. As the application is unclear about which roads will be used it is anticipated that based on pass use that the proposed uses will add significant burden to the already overburdened property owners along Indian Tree Road (See Access section below for more details). This single lane private road cannot safely handle regular use by large heavy vehicles nor the high volume of vehicles resulting from these new uses. Consequently, the property owners overwhich this road passes will be impacted by damage to the road itself and the surrounding lands. There will also be significant noise, dust, vibration, impacts to farm operations, and possible liability exposure. Widening of this road to 2 lanes along with other improvements should be a condition of this permit along with a road maintenance agreement. Otherwise, the landowners rather than the major road users will have to carry most of this burden. The proposed remedies by the Planning Director such as an annual $5000 road repair fund falls way short of the required amount. It should be noted that many other special permit applications in the past such as retreat and event centers have been denied because it was determined that they would overly burden the roads (public or private) in the area. While most of the impacts to the surrounding area are traffic related, noise from the all-night long music events and smoke from the campfires and other burning are also significant impacts to the surrounding area. These impacts will certainly make this area less desirable to live in and make it more difficult to farm the land and thus will negatively affect property values. It should also be noted that having to deal with the frequent unpermitted uses in our neighborhood and then having to respond when attempts are made to legitimize these uses through the special permit process is itself a burden. Should either of these proposed uses be approved given the modest prerequisite condition imposed by the Director, we would expect there will be additional special use permit requests of a similar nature from other users of our road. We therefore would like to see a higher threshold of standards applied to these applications along with real enforcement of the conditions such that the burden on the landowners is reduced. For example, for this project it is very likely that we will have to spend significant resources (time and money) in a contested case situation. When we bought our farm in the middle of an Ag-zoned area we expected to have to deal with the normal burdens normally associated with farm activities. We did not expect to have to deal with so many attempts to change the surrounding land uses through the special permit process or via other means.The ongoing uncertainty with the future surrounding land uses makes it challenging to make long term plans for our farm. 9. According to the criteria Section 6-3(b)(5) (C), Such use shall not unreasonably burden public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewers, water, drainage, school improvements, and police and fire protection. This is partially true and only because much of the road burden will be carried by the surrounding landowners. In his report, the Planning Director provides a long list of government agencies that are required to be contacted or consulted as conditions for the permit- many on an annual and ongoing basis. So I disagree with the director over the claim that the requested use will not burden public agencies to provide additional services. Also, like the main Burning Man in Nevada and in the interest of public safety there should be law enforcement presence on site for the duration of the event. 10. Criteria Section 6-3(b)(5) (D) Unusual conditions, trends, and needs have arisen since district boundaries and regulations were established. In the Recommendation report, the Planning Director that "The proposed uses would address the preceding by providing event guests an opportunity to enjoy an event venue on a small portion of a working ranch while helping the rancher lessee diversify their land uses and supplement their income." It is unclear how the rancher will benefit from the festival event as it has been stated that the Rancher will only operate the heavy equipment rental business. Will the Rancher be engaged in some sort or agritourism business with the festival goers during the 4 day event? 11. Criteria Section 6-3(b)(5) (E) The land upon which the proposed use is sought is unsuited for the uses permitted within the district. The director agrees that land is suited for the permitted agricultural uses. However, he justifies the festival event because of its short duration. However, no mention is made of the suitability of the land used by the heavy equipment base yard which will be permanently located on the site. I believe it is also suited for the same agricultural uses. Elsewhere in the recommendation report appears to justify the non-ag uses because they occupied area represents -1% of the total area of the lot or-15 acres. The claim is therefore that there is an exception to this criteria if the relative area is small. Where is this exception mentioned in the Special Permit Practice and Procedures?And what is the land area threshold at which this exception applies? Interestingly the 15 acre site area is inclusive of roads within the subject parcel. It does not include the roads outside of the of the subject parcel located on nearby parcels containing the road easement. For the record, -0.7mi of 50ft wide easement — 4 additional acres. These additional acres would now see industrial use as a consequence of the heavy equipment base yard. 12. Criteria Section 6-3(b)(5) (F) The proposed use will not substantially alter or change the essential character of the land and the present use. Allowing spot industrial zoning for the heavy equipment base year in the middle of normally quiet ag. district and far primary roads will have an impact on the parcels adjacent to the roads these vehicles will be using. Other landowners may decide to do the same thing and gradually the rural nature of this area will change. The 4-day festival will also have an impact- especially at night which is normally a quiet time. It will instead become the world's largest open air nightclub. Meanwhile the air will be filled with smoke from the burning effigies and other things. 13. Criteria Section 6-3(b)(5) (G) The request will not be contrary to the General Plan and official Community Development Plan and other documents such as Design Plans. The director in his report lists several goals and policies form the County General Plan and objectives from Hamakua Community Development Plan (HCDP) that would be consistent with the proposed uses. However they are simply stated without any discussion nor are reasons given as to how they are consistent. Because I don't for example see how an event largely imported from the mainland and thus an alien culture is consistent with HCDP objective to "Promote appropriate rural tourism that welcomes guests for an alternative visitor experience. Promote Hawaii's host culture and Hamakua's heritage, including historic roads and plantation towns, and festivals that celebrate our rich multicultural music, art and agriculture". Another example objective from the HCDP addresses Land Use Policy - Until the General Plan identifies appropriate areas or criteria for Industrial development to occur in the Hamakua Planning Area, industrial uses may be permitted outside LUPAG Industrial designated areas through the following regulatory review processes: • LUPAG Amendment and Change of Zone: If the subject property is located in the State Land Use Urban district, a LUPAG amendment and change of zone request to the appropriate industrial zoning could be considered and evaluated on a case-by-case basis; • Special Use: If the subject property is located in the State Land Use Agricultural or Rural District, and the project type is consistent with a permitted use of either limited-industrial(ML) or commercial-industrial zoning (MCX), the special use permit process would be the appropriate review mechanism to evaluate the specific parameters of the proposal and set any mitigating conditions. Any requests for Industrial uses shall be carefully evaluated for potential impacts and consistency with CDP policies and objectives, HRS 205 (including the land study bureau's detailed land agricultural land productivity rating), and the General Plan. Industrial development shall be located in areas adequately served by transportation, utilities, and other essential infrastructure (General Plan Policy 14.4.3 (e)). The majority of the current Industrial areas in the Planning Area, and especially in North Hilo, are no longer seen as suitable for heavy industry, generally due to their near-coastal (environmentally sensitive) locations (see also Policy 12 and Policy 2). This policy demonstrates flexibility in allowing Industrial uses in appropriate areas until the General Plan appropriately identifies locations for Industrial uses. [Emphasis added]. A heavy equipment base yard is considered industrial use and according to this objective it shall be located in areas adequately served by transportation, utilities, and other essential infrastructure. Note that the base yard proposed by the applicant is proposed from distant public roads in an area presently unserved by any utilities. I would like to see each proposed used measured against each of the planning objectives found in both the General Plan and the HCDP. 14. As to the heavy equipment base yard uses, there are no conditions restricting hours of operation or the types of operations on site. For example, can the site also be used for refueling and maintenance. If refueling should be allowed, how much fuel would be allowed to be stored on site. 15. The Special Permit background report includes a letter between myself and the former Head of the Highways Branch of the DOT. The Planning Dept. was CC'd in this letter and for some reason decided that it should be included as testimony. That was not my intention. Meanwhile other correspondence to the Planning Dept. concerning this application was not included as testimony. So I really don't understand how the Planning Dept. decides what is testimony and what is not. To avoid this confusion in the future, I recommend that all testimony where for or against be only directed to the Planning Commission mail inboxes with the appropriate subject headings indicating that it is testimony. Thus no public testimony should appear in the application nor in the background report. Description of the Indian Tree Road Access As the application neglects to properly and thoroughly describe the planned public access to the subject parcel, the map below shows the location of Indian Tree Road. A -0.7 mile length of this road provides the present primary access to the subject parcel and is also the access route vaguely described by the application. Indian Tree Road goes mauka from State Highway H-19 and crosses several other parcels before reaching the subject property. It should be noted that because the subject property deed contains multiple easements, the proposed access is just one of several possible routes that could be used to connect the subject property to different public roads located in the area. However, the application is silent on whether or not any of these alternate routes would be used in the future. This question is probably of interest to the other property owners who could possibly be burdened by the additional traffic on roads crossing their lands. o4 . Indian Tree Rd. (0.7 (Private) i.) Subject Property TMK 2-7-007-001 . Teppy Mountain LLC O G The application claims "legal easement access over the private roadway (Exhibit A)". Assuming the "private roadway" is Indian Tree Road, then attached Exhibit A in the application is irrelevant as the nearly attached illegible and obsolete plat map appears to describe to a different and undeveloped easement near what appears to be Kaupakuea Homestead Rd located -3.Omiles to north from Indian Tree Road and above Pepe'ekeo. This apparent error calls into question whether or not the subject parcel indeed possesses legal access over the entire length of Indian Tree Road. Application Review with Incorrect Easement Documents The Planning Director's report acknowledges that the incorrect easement documents were included in the permit application. The background report indicated that corrected documents were provided but is showing the incorrect information. However, therefore I was unable to find the corrected application or a separate document showing the correct easement. In any case, given that this error was corrected only recently, it raises the question as to whether or not these corrected documents were provided to all of the reviewers of these documents including the various public agencies and interested members of the public. Indian Tree Road As described in the application.Indian Tree Road is a private road that is mostly paved. However, it is only a single lane road with much of it in deteriorating condition. Other pertinent facts include: • The width of the road is variable but only supports a single lane of traffic. Nor does the road contain any designated turnouts to allow opposing traffic to pass. Thus opposing traffic frequently has to drive off the paved areas causing damage to the pavement edge, the shoulders, surrounding vegetation, and even completely off the easement. • There are no speed signs or speed control devices located along the road. Speed Bumps used to be located on the road but were removed by the applicant's tenant without permission. Therefore much of the traffic travels at unsafe speeds (>40MPH) down the road resulting in serious safety issues to people living along and using the road. This is also a potential liability issue for the individual property owners. • Traffic on the road has increased steadily over the years with ambient traffic volume approaching -90-100 vehicles per day. However, when there are special events on the dominant estates there have been days seeing over 400 vehicles per day. It should be noted that most of the increasing traffic volume is a result of ongoing and increasing unpermitted uses and unpermitted residential construction. • There is no HOA or Road Maintenance Agreement (RMA) in place to share the costs of improving and maintaining the road. The maintenance costs and liability are therefore the burden of the individual property owners and not the actual road users. . • To the best of our knowledge, there have not been any engineering studies to determine if the roadbed can support the volume of traffic as well as type of heavy equipment vehicles which would result from the proposed use. Our house for example is located -30' away from the edge of the easement and is shaken each time large vehicles are passing by. • Additional impacts from the increasing traffic and poorly maintained road include dust and noise. • The road junction with H-19 (Belt Road) is also a serious safety concern. This intersection is located on a 55MPH section of the highway, in a passing zone, unlit, and where there is a limited sighting distance due to both the curvature of the highway, an embankment, and often tall vegetation. Additionally there are no dedicated turn lanes on H-19. Increased traffic volume on Indian Tree Road will thus increase the risk of high energy collisions on H-19 and also cause additional traffic backups on H-19 as the north bound traffic from that high attempts to make a left turn onto Indian Tree road. This issue has been raised with the District Engineer- State Department of Transport in 2021 - well before the additional traffic proposed by this application. • Indian Tree Road is also a gated community. A gate across this road presently exists near the junction with H-19. The gate is presently closed at night. In any case, the all night traffic which occurred during the latest event did cause some traffic backups unto H-19 as well as damage to the gate. Also, providing the gate access codes to 100s of visitors raises security and privacy concerns for the people living on the road. We would like all of the above issues to be addressed to the satisfaction of all property owners located along the road as a condition before any Special Permits are issued to the dominant easement parcels. Two disparate proposed uses in a single application It's very rare to see 2 completely unrelated uses contained within a single Special Permit application. The 1st being for a single annual "Falls on Fire" festival and the 2nd being for continuous/daily use as a heavy equipment baseyard. It does appear to be contrary to the public interest to allow this practice for submittals as each proposed use has different impacts and concerns. Presumably, such complex applications increase the workload for the county staff and the cost to the taxpayer. It is therefore unreasonable, in my opinion, to combine 2 or more unrelated uses in the same application. The remainder of my testimony will be organized according to each use. Use #1 : to host an annual four (4) — day event with overnight camping AKA "Falls on Fire" Firstly, it must be said and it is my opinion that calling a less constrained version of the more famously known annual "Burning Man" event that takes place on Public (BLM) land in a remote corner of a Nevada desert a "camping" event is probably not the most accurate description of the proposed use. This is not a situation where a group of friends set up a traditional campsite, roast marshmallows over a campfire, and sing Kumbaya. There are reasons why the applicants are seeking to host this event in a secluded private location and not in public spaces that are normally considered adequate for other festivals. Mostly these reasons are centered around the need for"radical self-expression". Or in other words, the planned activities for the event would probably be illegal within the public spaces, or at least offend the prevailing social mores. I am not concerned about what takes place between consenting adults on private property. But I do care about the local neighborhood impacts and the spillover impacts to the general public. This includes noise arising from all-day and all-night activities, impaired drivers traveling on our roads both private and public, smoke from numerous campfires, cooking fires, and the burning of effigies, water contamination from runoff into the streams, increased need for law enforcement and EMS intervention, etc. Notes from previous "Falls on Fire" events Living on the access road to this event and within earshot of the site has unwillingly given me a "front row seat" to this event which has been held twice in Nov 2023 and Nov 2024. Here are my notes: • Attendance and traffic- • For the 2023 event, we were told to expect 50 attendees but at least 100 people showed up. In 2024 only 200 tickets were supposed to have been sold. But my estimate of the number of attendees is -400 based on -500 additional vehicle trips on our road (-200 vehicle unique vehicle license plates). In addition to traffic for the 4 days of the event itself there is significant traffic during the days preceding the event and after the event for setup and takedown. Some of the traffic was from support staff, caterers, hired musicians, DJs, etc. and not from the actual participants. • The Indian Tree rd. gate along the belt road was closed after 6PM as per the regular operating schedule. But many people still entered by piggy-backing when someone would leave the event. At one point there were up to 7 vehicles waiting for the gate to open - backing up onto the main highway. The gate was also forced open at least once and probably more than once. By Sunday night the gate was no longer functional. • The event organizers didn't seem to have a plan to deal with the large number of uninvited attendees/gate crashers. A few of them that I encountered did return back down the road after they reported that the gate above us to the ranch had been closed. But it appears that most were allowed in to stay. Some only stayed for a single day or night- others stayed for at least 24 hours. • We were told to expect most of the traffic at the beginning and end of the event when the campers were arriving/departing. However, there was more traffic on Saturday and Sunday during the middle of the event- mostly due official attendees making day trips to go shopping, go to the beach, joy riding, whatever. in addition to the gate crasher traffic. • Other Observations: • Noise from the event was less than the 2023 event but was still audible most of the night. Many of the vehicles travelling along our road late at night had very loud sound systems and even a few blasted their horns as they were driving past our house - I assume it was because they were protesting our opposition to the event. • Bothersome smoke was only noted on Friday night. I woke around 11 PM with burning eyes, lungs, and a slight headache.. Often the night winds are off the Mauna and the smoke from fires on properties above us are basically funneled along the Hanawi stream gulch down to our house. The normally nightly westerly winds were more from the south on Saturday and Sunday which probably explains why we didn't get smoked out during the rest of the event. Use #2: Commercial Vehicle Storage "Commercial vehicle storage" is again not an accurate description of the actual or applied use. Such a description implies that vehicles are going to remain on-site most of the time. Also, stored vehicles are often deregistered so as not to have to pay the vehicle registration fees. A more accurate description of the actual use in a heavy equipment base yard. The applicant claims that while these "vehicles are primarily used for cattle ranching purposes, the vehicles are also used to transport gravel to local businesses when not in agricultural use." This is not an accurate statement. The reality is that most of the vehicles are used daily off site for non-Ag. related commercial purposes. Prior to the above-mentioned Notice of Violation. Many vehicles were observed leaving the ranch early in the morning (-6AM) and then returning later in the afternoon or evening. There are also adjunct uses such as vehicle maintenance and refueling that generate additional heavy vehicle traffic and are not mentioned in the application. Study of Previous Similar Special Permit Applications According to the County Code, heavy equipment base yards are only allowed with industrial zoning. However, there are a few Special Permits (SP) for similar uses that have been previously approved in Ag. zones. The table below lists the 4 most comparable SP applications for the past -35 years. The first 3 applications were approved with conditions and the remaining 4th application was denied. It appears that for all of these applications the subject property was located along or very near major roads or highways and thus didn't require the use of private or minor roads. There was also an interest in relocating these uses as soon as possible to a more appropriate zoning through by time limits while the county was also exploring making boundary amendments to increase the available amount of industrial zones lands SP# Issued Date Use Conditions/Notes 06-0030 yes Aug-2006 Base yard •1-yr time limit to give applicant time to find a more suitable location *There are several nearby light industrial zoned areas already available to the applicant *Public road access *No fuel storage or fueling of vehicles allowed on-site. •Doesn't appear to have met conditions - base yard use still appears to be active today 05-0009 yes Aug-2005 Contractor's • Planning director recommended denial yard • Approved based on re typed to "an agricultural trucking baseyard" because 61% of trucking business is agricultural related including hauling livestock, ranch and farm supplies • On main highway H-19 SP# Issued Date Use Conditions/Notes • 4 trucks- permit max of 6 • Applicant has addressed the adverse negative visual impacts by moving all of the heavy equipment into an area that is not visible from the highway or from neighboring properties • Conditions: o Fuel storage, fueling and oil changes shall be conducted on a paved area o A description of the 1-acre permit area in map and written form by metes and bounds as certified by a registered surveyor shall be submitted to the Planning Department. All vehicles and equipment storage shall be limited to the specified I-acre area. 02-0031 yes Dec-2002 Base yard • Class E soils • Borders state highway • 5yr time limit • Building permits (final approval) for all structures obtained in 6 months • Landscaping • Hours of operation conditions • Annual status reporting requirement 91-0026 no May-1992 Base yard • The industrial nature of the proposed use is not consistent with the character of the existing community • The proposed use is better suited to an Urban area which has been determined to be appropriate for such industrial use. • The desired use would adversely affect surrounding properties. The character of the surrounding subdivisions is residential/agricultural in nature. The close proximity of dwellings conflicts with the proposed use by the applicant. This application for Special Permit is the outcome of complaints filed by surrounding property owners. Complaints were based on negative visual impact as well as noise and traffic problems created by the activity • The proposed use will substantially alter or change the essential character of the land. The proposed parking of dump trucks and heavy earthmoving equipments on the property will substantially alter the existing residential/agricultural character of the land. Applicant's Financial Reasons - Discussion of the Starving FarmerArgument One of the reasons cited in the application for justifying this use is the rancher's "ability to use his farm vehicles for other commercial purposes is vital to his ability to finance the vehicles and earn a living". I have some difficulty with this argument because there are many farmers, perhaps a majority of farmers, that are part-time and most do not derive most of their income from farming. Farming is therefore often a secondary source of income. Other than agri-tourism which has specific income thresholds to ensure that it remains secondary to the primary agricultural operation, it seems difficult to justify the co-location of other commercial activities on the farm. What if the heavy equipment rental operation is more profitable than the ranching operation? Shouldn't there be income thresholds and therefore some amount of financial disclosure before approval just as for agritourism? This is similar to the argument around allowing transient rental accommodations and other non-farm uses on agricultural land. To allow non-agricultural commercial uses on farm land would seem to represent a kind of subsidy. Rather than having to pay for a 2nd property zoned commercial or industrial site to host the non-farm use, one can move all of these activities to a AG-zoned lot. There they can enjoy reduced property tax based on the dedicated use value. Meanwhile a non-farmer engaged in the same commercial activity will have to pay higher taxes for their conforming parcel where their business would be located. Thus this would seem to provide an unfair subsidy to the farmer. Special Considerations for Private Road Easements Regrettably, we have had to request law enforcement support dealing with various illegal and unsafe activities taking place within our road easements. This includes: • Various forms of harassment resulting in temporary restraining orders, • Operating vehicles in an unsafe and threatening manner when there are presestrains present along the roadside. • Damaging our property through the unauthorized removal of speed bumps, trees, and herbicide usage. Damage of other personal property located near the road and elsewhere within the property • Agricultural theft of both produce and equipment • Driving off the paved areas and onto the shoulders with heavy vehicles in an apparent attempt to damage the underground electrical utilities supplying electricity and telecommunications services to our house. • Excessive use of Jacobs (AKA Jake or Compression Release Engine) Brakes at all hours of the day and night • Frequent "Coal Rolling" • Frequent distracted and impaired driving • Allowing unaccompanied minors to operate motor vehicles • Recreational use of our road by operating ATVs and similar recreational vehicles on the road without permission • Improperly secured loads resulting in litter and other debris on our roads. The police have very limited ability to enforce traffic and other areas of civil law on private roads. Also, we have no HOA to other organizations that could possibly intervene on our behalf. We are therefore mostly on our own when dealing with these challenges. We would therefore like to make the Planning Commission more appreciative of some of the additional and often unexpected challenges private road owners may have to deal with as a consequence of increased use that those fortunate to live on public roads would be less likely to have to deal with. Conclusion Many reasons and arguments have been presented as to why these proposed uses should be considered unreasonable for our community. It also touches upon many of the challenges created by the County's Special Permit process as it currently exists why the State Land Use Commission believes that Boundary Amendments instead of Special Use Permits (AKA "Spot Zoning") is a much better method of managing growth and development that is consistent with the General and Regional Plans.