Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-02 Windward Transcript Poloke Farms PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 2, 2012 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of POLOKE FARMS, LLC. was called to order at 9:03 a.m. in the Hilo State Office Building, Conference Rooms A, B & C, 75 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Zendo Kern presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Zendo Kern, Dean Au, Ronald Gonzales, Wallace Ishibashi, Stephen Ono and Raylene Moses STAFF PRESENT: Ivan Torigoe (Deputy Corporation Counsel), B. J. Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), and Sharon Nomura (Secretary) And three people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: POLOKE FARMS, LLC (Amend SPP 09-95) Amendment to Condition No. 2 (secure Final Plan approval) of Special Permit No. 09-95 that allowed a country market and occasional special events for non-profit agencies within an existing covered equestrian arena on approximately 2.5 acres of land. The property is located along the north (makai) side of Highway 19 and east of the Waimea Country Club golf course near the 51-mile marker, Waikoekoe, Hāmākua, Hawai‘i, TMK: 4-7-007: 040. KERN: Application No. 1, Poloke Farms, LLC, amendment to SPP 09-95. Amendment to Condition No. 2 (secure Final Plan approval) of Special Permit No. 09-95, and this is to allow a country market and occasional special events for non-profit agencies within an existing covered equestrian arena on approximately 2.5 acres of land on TMK: 4-7-007: 040. With that, we’ll go to Jeff. Good morning. DARROW: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Members of the Planning Commission. Thank you. We apologize for our unique circumstances (change of venue) this morning, and thank you for being flexible. I’m also going to do things a little differently. I’m going to sit down. That way I don’t block everybody giving the presentation. Thank you. Our first applicant is Poloke Farms, LLC, formerly the applicant was Gregory R. Mooers. The applicant is requesting an amendment to Condition No. 2 of Special Permit No. 09-95. The location, oh, I’m sorry, of this subject property is within the Hamakua district, just south of Waimea. Waimea is actually just right in this area. This is the Lakeland Subdivision, you might be familiar with that. Running through the middle of the map is Mamalahoa Highway or Hawai‘i Belt Road. And Mud Lane is running in a north/south direction or mauka/makai. This is located just to the north of the subject property. The subject property is identified with a black outline, kind of looks like Oklahoma or, sorry -. The colors on the map represent the different zonings. The lighter blue shade represents Agricultural - 40 acres. Right next door we have a purple color which is representing Agricultural - 35 acres. The lighter green represents Agricultural - 1 acre. 1 EXHIBIT A This is an aerial photo. It identifies the particular uses on the property, as well as in the general area. You’ll notice again, running through the middle of the map is Hawai‘i Belt Road or Mamalahoa Highway. We have the existing equestrian center or covered arena with access from Mamalahoa Highway to the facility. As you’ll notice, around the subject property there are agricultural uses, mostly pasture, as well as scattered farm dwellings. Again, we have Mud Lane running along the left side of the map. The applicant is requesting an amendment to Special Permit No. 09-95 which originally was approved to allow the operation of a weekly country market to provide local farmers and ranchers a venue to sell their produce and livestock, as well as local vendors to sell their products to the general public. Additionally, it also allowed for occasional special events for nonprofit agencies. All this was within the existing covered arena. The request is for a two-year time extension to comply with Condition 2, which is the condition that requires the applicant to secure final plan approval. The reason for the request is that the applicant has been diligently working with the Department of Transportation to comply with access requirements over two, for over two years and has not been able to receive final sign-off. This has prevented the applicant from proceeding with the plan approval process. Condition number 11 of the special permit requires the applicant to comply with the requirements of the Department of Transportation for access. This is a site plan that was submitted by the applicant. Again, you see the overall property identified in the black outline. You have Mamalahoa Highway on the left side of the map. You have access coming from the Highway, and we have the location of the covered arena. This is on an approximately 2.3-acre portion of a 73-acre property. So it is a small portion. These are some site photos that were taken. This is the covered arena. You might be familiar with it as you are coming into Waimea on the right side or the makai side of the road. This is the access from the Highway looking makai. This, the applicant has also made efforts to plant trees to minimize visual impacts of the arena; and so that’s, these were taken recently. This is looking south towards Hilo on Mamalahoa Highway with the access on the left. And this is looking towards Waimea or north with the access on the right. The Planning Director's recommendation is that the Planning Commission approve this amendment request. Additionally, for your information, we have received a letter from a surrounding property owner, Joanne Frederick; and in the letter there are several questions asked. I'm not sure if the Commission is going to ask specific questions, but if I could just briefly touch upon something that I can answer. Condition number, or question number three, the applicant is asking per condition number, she says eight but it is actually number three, it says “Prior to the continuation of the Country Market and associated uses, the applicant shall secure and finalize any building permits required by the Department of Public Works Building Division.” She's asking if this happened. When a particular use is going to change its original function to another particular use, the applicant is required to submit for a change of use permit to the Building Division; and applicant has done that. The applicant actually had to go through an appeal process for part of that regarding the requirements for sprinklers in the facility; and he was able to resolve that. The applicant thought that everything was okay, but unfortunately there are still, I think what needs to happen is just an inspector needs to go out there and confirm and just sign off on the final, cause there is no construction involved with the change of use. So that's just something that he was made aware of today, and he's going to be working on that. 2 EXHIBIT A Number four, did Mr. Anderson ever request an initial extension of time for this permit? That condition number 16 allows for an administrative time extension; and Mr. Anderson did receive that for that six-month period. But, again, because of the problems working with DOT, he wasn’t able to resolve them. Lastly, condition number, or question number five, asking in regards to 16.E. whether or not an additional extension of time was required. The Planning Department was to submit the applicant’s request to the Planning Commission for appropriate action. This should have been done. Was it, well, that’s what we’re doing right now. The applicant has submitted, it has been given to the Planning Commission, and we are working on that. Are there any questions? KERN: Are there any questions for staff? Just a quick point of clarification. The DOT is State DOT, correct, that he’s working with? DARROW: Oh, I’m sorry. Yes, it is. Did I say County? KERN: No, no. You just said Department of Transportation. DARROW: Oh, okay. KERN: I figured it was the State, but just so everybody knew it’s the State. DARROW: Yes, it is. Thank you. KERN: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Ono? ONO: Yes. Was the submitting of the, was it done in a timely manner regarding the Department of Transportation? I mean was it the day before or six months prior to? I mean I just wanted to know the timetable of the applicant. DARROW: Working for the access requirements? ONO: Right. DARROW: He has been consistently working with them for over a two-year period. They are requiring a traffic study to be done. So the applicant has hired somebody to do that. It goes back and forth until that study complies with what DOT wants to see in the study. And so apparently that's the issue that has been going on. The applicant would be able to expound further on that as well when he comes up. ONO: I see. I guess what I am looking at is the letter by the individual seems to imply that there is some lack of –. DARROW: Effort? ONO: Yes. So I just wanted that clarified. Thank you. 3 EXHIBIT A KERN: Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, thank you, Jeff. DARROW: Thank you. KERN: Can I get the applicant or their representative to please come forward. And I’ll, good morning, I’ll swear you in. Will you please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? ANDERSON: Yes. I do. KERN: Very good. If you could just use your microphone. You’ve received the background report and recommendation. Do you have any comments you’d like to make? Did you receive the background report and recommendation? ANDERSON: Yes. KERN: Yes. Any comments you’d like to make at this time? ANDERSON: No. Maybe addressing yours, Mr. Ono, we submitted the application to DOT within two weeks after the original special permit was approved by the Planning Commission two years ago, within two weeks. After over a year, it was closer to 14 months, they had lost it twice. I flew down and met with the Deputy Director, Jan Gouveia, she stepped in, and she got an agent assigned to us, Mr. Travis Tomono, who has been excellent. The problem is they use a defined term in the special use permit called a minor traffic impact assessment. They can’t tell you what that is. So we had to submit it, which we’ve done. Peter Dahlberg is our engineer. We’ve submitted the traffic impact assessment. It took three months to review. They came back with comments. We went back with changes. We’re awaiting now for their comments back. But it’s been a, this past year has been a constant, at least once a month, once every two weeks communication, a lot of downtime waiting for engineers to review the reports. We did a site impact, we did a site distance study, a traffic impact study, and there was one additional study we had to do for DOT. ONO: You submitted it? ANDERSON: Yeah. It has been frustrating. KERN: A little housekeeping. Can I get you to state your name, please -. ANDERSON: Oh -. KERN: And area in which you live. ANDERSON: Brian Anderson. I’m very sorry. KERN: No problem. I usually ask for that. I forgot to. Thanks. 4 EXHIBIT A ANDERSON: Okay. KERN: Anything else you’d like to add to it? ANDRSON: No, sir. KERN: Any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, thank you. You may have a seat. ANDERSON: Thank you. KERN: And public testimony. Can I get Joanne Frederick to please come forward. Good morning. FREDERICK: Morning. KERN: I will swear you in. Could you please your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? FREDERICK: I do. KERN: And before you begin your testimony, you’ll have three minutes. And if you could give me your name and area in which you live, then you may begin. But give me one second. Okay. Name and where you live, and you may begin. FREDERICK: My name is Joanne Frederick, and I live on Mud Lane. KERN: Will you turn that up a little bit, Sharon? NOMURA: Sure. KERN: Go ahead. Oh, we’ll figure it out. Go ahead. FREDERICK: Okay. Do you need me to repeat my name or you have it? KERN: No, we got that, it’s for the record. Okay. FREDERICK: You got that. KERN: Would you hold the microphone a little closer? FREDERICK: Sure. KERN: Okay, you may begin. FREDERICK: Okay, I think I recognize most of you at this point, having been here twice. I did want to ask, is the transportation issue the only outstanding thing that needs to maybe, to be met? 5 EXHIBIT A KERN: Why don’t we go ahead to your testimony. You can pose that question and afterwards we could get an answer to that. FREDERICK: Okay. I didn’t catch the name of the person who did the introduction, and he did cover most of my questions. I guess I would add, you’re saying that my question No. 5 which was according to Condition 16.E. if an additional extension of time was required, the Planning Department was to submit that request, and supposedly this is that request. However, it really should have been done at one year, not 2 years later, and technically 27 months. And my concern is that if Mr. Anderson hasn’t been able, if these conditions haven’t been able to be met with in 27 months how likely is it for them to be approved within 24 months? You know, I understand things take a while. It seems to me that a timely fashion is something that should be adhered to. Twenty-seven months is -. I guess I would ask you, how do you define a timely fashion? Would any of you say that 27 months is timely? So, it’s already four times the initial amount of time that was allowed, six months. It has more than four times that length of time to date; and now he’s asking for an additional two years. During this time he has been continuing to have events periodically. And in the Committee’s own letter granting the request it’s, and it is Condition 3, not Condition 8, but prior to the continuation of the country market and associated uses, the applicant shall secure and finalize any building permits required. And keep in mind this is prior to the continuation, which means that all of these things are technically by letter, you know, by how this is worded, they’re supposed to be met before other events are held. And that’s not something that has been enforced to date. So my request is that any extension the committee grants be of a limited duration, for example, six months; and during that time I’m requesting that the committee enforce its Condition 3 requiring all conditions be met prior to having other events. And, finally, if an extension is granted and Mr. Anderson has failed to come into compliance -. KERN: Thank you. FREDERICK: I’m not done. KERN: It’s three minutes. FREDERICK: Three minutes, okay. This is just my last -. KERN: I have to treat everybody the same. FREDERICK: I understand. My last request is that the Planning Commission recommend the Planning Director initiate revocation procedures. KERN: Thank you. I would like Jeff to answer that first question. Could you please re-ask the question. 6 EXHIBIT A FREDERICK: I just want -. KERN: Could you use the microphone, please. FREDERICK: I just wanted to ask if there were any other conditions that hadn’t been met besides transportation. DARROW: There are certain conditions that are required prior to plan approval, and those conditions are identified as Condition No 7, which is a policy for security and traffic control for special events. Again, it needs to be done prior to plan approval. Condition No. 13 which requires the submittal of a solid waste management plan which, I think, I believe the applicant did that pretty quickly. It’s a simple process. My understanding is that the applicant had already done the policy for security and traffic control with the Police Department, but we have not received a copy of it. So we just need to get a copy of it, in speaking with him. But other than that, the one condition that Mrs. Frederick had brought up regarding Condition No. 3, again, the applicant was under the misunderstanding that everything was resolved once the Board of Appeals went through and okayed the omission of the sprinkler system, because the permit doesn’t require any type of construction, it’s just a change of use. So there just needs to be clarification from Public Works that the permit is final. FREDERICK: Can I ask one other question? KERN: Let’s see if there are any questions for you. Any Fellow Commissioners have a question for the public testifier? ONO: Yes, I do. KERN: Please use your microphone. ONO: Would you, I’m rather confused about your position here. Are you complaining about the procedures or are you complaining about the activity. FREDERICK: I would just like procedures to be followed. ONO: But the activity is fine with you? FREDERICK: Well, it’s not when I can hear it. ONO: When you, I’m sorry? FREDERICK: I live close enough so that I can hear -. ONO: Oh, I see. FREDERICK: The noise generated 7 EXHIBIT A ONO: I see. Thank you. FREDERICK: Which is the only reason I’ve been involved with this. ONO: Thank you. KERN: If any of the Fellow Commissioners would like to hear the question, I’ll leave that up to you folks. Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Yeah, I would like to hear what else she has a concern with. So try ask your question, so we can answer it. FREDERICK: Thank you. I’ve been under the impression that the Fire Department or Fire, that there had been a requirement for water tanks to be installed on the property. Is that correct and were they done? DARROW: Well, my understanding is that the, and the applicant may have to expound further on this, the Fire Department has certain regulations regarding fire flow requirements. When you’re in an area where it’s not serviced by County water, then there are certain options available. My understanding was that they were asking the applicant to place sprinkler systems in the covered arena, which was excessive. And the applicant had filed an appeal and won that appeal. I cannot answer in regards to what the outcome was to comply with fire flow. If we could ask the applicant as far as the resolution to that -. There may be County water, and at that point it might be resolved. KERN: Sure, might as well. Mr. Anderson, would you please come forward and answer the question. ANDERSON: In the inspection for the Fire Department, we have 24,000 gallons of tanked water there with a 110-pound pressure with a 2-inch polyethylene line. So that satisfied their immediate concern. Their additional concern was fire extinguishers placed around the perimeter. It’s a metal building with no sides. So there’s really nothing flammable. But for the markets they’re required fire sprinklers to be placed on the perimeter. In over 16 months, we have not had a market. So that’s kind of a moot issue as far as the fire extinguishers. Perhaps the activity she was referring to is my neighbor’s son graduated so we had a graduation party there for him. It was a noncommercial event. It was just a graduation party for my neighbor. Any other questions? KERN: Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Anderson. ANDERSON: Thank you. KERN: You may have a seat. FREDERICK: Can I ask one last question? KERN: Commissioner Ishibashi, do you want to, you wanted to know the rest of it? 8 EXHIBIT A ISHIBASHI: Don’t push it. Go ahead, go ahead. That’s okay. FREDERICK: Thank you. If a two-year extension is granted and in two years time I’m sitting back here again, and we all are, and the Department of Transportation still hasn’t worked something out, does he get another two years? KERN: Madam Director? LEITHEAD TODD: He would have an opportunity to come and ask for another extension. And typically when we review things, if it is not the fault of the applicant but the fault of a government agency that he hasn’t been able to get approvals, we tend to recommend extension. If you’re familiar with, you know, some other State Department of Transportation projects, like the Queen K Highway in Kona, sometimes it just takes a long time for them to work out the details. KERN: It’s almost a proven fact in the State that the State DOT is slow as molasses. Thank you. Any other questions for the public testifier, Ms. Frederick? Seeing none, thank you. You may have a seat. Okay, I’m willing to entertain a motion. Commissioner Au? AU: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to approve the amendment to applicant Poloke Farms, LLC, Special Permit No. 09-95. KERN: Based on the Planning Department’s recommendation? AU: Based off of the conditions set forth, yes, and the Planning Department’s recommendations. KERN: Is there a second? GONZALES: I second. KERN: Okay, discussion? Any discussion? Commissioner Moses. MOSES: I would like to see where Ms. Frederick lives, based on the map that you have. DARROW: Sure. MOSES: If you could just show me. I’m just interested in that. DARROW: Okay. I believe her property is this property. So if we look at the, this would be, I believe, her residence. Is that correct? FREDERICK: Yes. DARROW: Okay. MOSES: And is there a residence on the left? 9 EXHIBIT A KERN: Please use the mike. MOSES: Sorry. Are there residents on the left as well, or is that the golf course? DARROW: Yeah, this is the -? GONZALES: Which is now closed? MOSES: Which is now closed. DARROW: Waimea Country Club. MOSES: So there’s no other property owners -? DARROW: It looks like there’s a residence here, and some here. MOSES: And a residence there, okay, thank you. DAROW: Thank you. KERN: Any other discussion? Commissioner Ishibashi, were you -? ISHIBASHI: Yeah, thank you, Brother Chair. Just one comment in regards to the, I don’t think it’s the applicant’s fault that we have these delays in processing his traffic -. So, that’s why I’m leaning towards allowing this extension. I don’t know if there’s any way we can have a year to year, come back in a year or -? I don’t know how long the timeframe would be but -. Cause I know how slow government works. So I don’t know if there’s even a possibility, or we just go with the two years? That’s the question I have. KERN: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Yes. Rather than coming back for another extension, I’m just wondering if we could ask the applicant for a progress report as to what’s the delay after a year, you know, given -. Because it seems as though the presentation indicated that it’s really not the applicant’s fault. So I would prefer just a report to the staff that this is what has progressed here, in my opinion. KERN: So you would like to see a progress report within a year from now if it’s not complete? ONO: Yeah, rather than another request for an extension. KERN: Okay. I have a question. I’ll get to Commissioner Au first. AU: Yeah, I have a question for staff. KERN: Go ahead. 10 EXHIBIT A AU: What is the maximum time limit extension? I believe it’s five years, is that correct? DARROW: An applicant can ask for any time. But when, usually it’s the time that they originally had, that’s usually a standard. You know, if they had five years to build something, they come in for a five-year time extension. In this case, because of the fact that the time was six months thinking that we wouldn’t have any issues in regards to complying with these conditions, the applicant is trying to give a little buffer in case he still has problems there. But, I mean, there’s no really set rule or condition that states you can only ask for this much time. But the standard is usually the time that was allotted previously. AU: Okay, thank you. KERN: Commissioner Ono. ONO: Just for clarification, the only hang-up right now is the Department of Transportation? All others are all met, am I correct? DARROW: If they’re not met, they don’t need to be met until he submits for plan approval. ONO: Well, no. I was wondering, .like for example, the other stipulation was the building. So that’s all done, it’s just the Department -? DARROW: Yes. ONO: Thank you. KERN: Mr. Arai, do you want to add something? ARAI: Maybe just to reassure the Commissioners of why we’re supportive of a two-year time extension, we are also privy to some information that the State Department of Transportation is asking the applicant maybe for further information. And that information, if it holds true, could take quite a bit of time to prepare. And that’s why, you know, we did assess that when making a decision whether to support the two-year time extension. So I just wanted to kind of convey that to you. It was not something that we didn’t consider, given the length of time. KERN: Very good, thank you. DARROW: Thanks, Daryn. KERN: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Daryn, are you saying that my thoughts on asking for a progress report within a year may be moot because it’s not -? If what you had just stipulated takes place, then he will definitely not be ready by the end of the year. 11 EXHIBIT A ARAI: I don’t see a real issue regarding asking for a progress report at the one-year mark. Again, I personally think it’s reasonable. And I really don’t know what’s going to come of the applicant’s consultation with the State Department of Transportation. I’m also keenly aware that we’re actually holding this hearing in a State Building, so I’ll kind of leave it as that. But I just haven’t thought through whether we should include it as a specific condition. I mean if it’s really just a report at the one-year mark, we’ll keep that in our records and we’ll make, contact the applicant at the one-year mark if you so desire. ONO: It’s not a -. KERN: Would you use your microphone. ONO: Oh, I’m sorry, I’m sorry. I was just countering the idea that we have the applicant face us again in a year. KERN: Yeah, makes sense. Any other discussion? I’ll put in my two cents. State DOT is slow at best. I think giving them two years make sense. I think it would make sense to get a progress report, a request for that, it’s not unreasonable, the other issues we discussed at the other meeting when we actually approved the permit. So I think we should move forward, give them the time extension for the two years, ask for the progress report. And usually the way I look at it, if the applicants are making their best effort to get it done, you know, we go with that. If they are not, that’s another story. In this case, it appears that the applicant has been, so I’d support the two-year time extension. Any other discussion? Seeing none, I guess could we ask the motion maker to add that, is that what we’re supposed to do for the progress report? DARROW: Are we looking at an added condition or we’re just looking as -? KERN: Okay, well, let’s see if the motion maker would be willing to amend the motion to ask for a one-year time extension as well. Would you, Commissioner Au, one-year progress report? AU: One-year progress report within the two years? ONO: Correct. KERN: Yeah, so right now he’s asking for the two-year time extension; and then you made the motion to approve that. So you could add there that we could get a progress report in a year from now, basically it would be a letter saying here’s where I’m at with the State DOT. AU: Yes, yes. I’d like to change my motion and amend the amended motion with, I guess, conditions, to add this condition to, for the applicant to send a progress report within one year of the two-year extension. KERN: So at one year. Daryn? ARAI: So you would like to see as a special condition? I guess what I was mentioning earlier that you can just act on the request for a time extension and direct the Office to make contact with the applicant 12 EXHIBIT A for a progress report at the one-year mark. So I personally don’t think a condition is necessary. We’ll just make a note to file -. KERN: Okay. ARAI: And we’ll make contact with the applicant at one year. KERN: That is -. Ivan? TORIGOE: Yeah, it depends. You know, if you were going to put that additional condition in at this point, I would suggest that you have a motion to amend the motion that’s already on the floor. Or if there’s clear agreement you can do that by consensus on the record, but it has to be really clear. You know, it’s a matter of clarity. Because if it is a condition, then it’s right there in writing; and everybody is noticed of it. And if you just leave it to the staff and, you know, you can trust the staff probably to do that. But it’s kind of a matter of degree of clarity and certainty for you. KERN: I’ll leave that up -. Any discussion on that from Commissioners on whether we want to just direct the Department to get that progress report or we want to actually make it a condition? AU: I -. KERN: Commissioner Au? AU: Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the neighbor’s sake, I think we should hold the applicant accountable, rather than having the Planning Department contact the applicant. You know, I’d prefer having the applicant contact the Planning Department as the progress goes on, within one year. That’s what I would like to see. And would that have to be a condition or would that just, would that be an amendment? DARROW: Commissioner Au, what we would request is that we would add a new condition, maybe a new Condition No. 15, stating that the applicant submit a progress report. We can actually put a date, right, today’s date, one year from now. ARAI: One year from the amendment -? DARROW: Today’s date? ARAI: Yeah. DARROW: One year from the amendment approval. Would that be something that’s -? AU: Yes, that would be good. DARROW: Okay, so we’ll draft a condition for that right now. 13 EXHIBIT A KERN: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Yes, just for clarification. I really was thinking of a progress report in terms of just the chronology. It doesn’t have to be a detailed report. You know, I submitted a report, a request to the st DOT January 1 and they replied back in April, rather than saying these are all the things that I had submitted. So that we just have an idea that there is communication between the Department and the applicant. That’s my request. I’m not sure if that’s sufficient for the Commission. KERN: That sounds good to me. I wasn’t thinking of something complex either. Just -. ONO: Okay, thank you. KERN: Okay, so what we have right now is we have a motion on the floor to give the two-year time extension. So what we need to do to make it clean is to have an additional motion to amend it. So it’s to be a whole new motion to amend, to have the amendment of that motion with the one-year progress report. So can I get a motion to amend the motion? AU: Can I make the motion? Can I just amend my motion? KERN: Yeah, you can. AU: Okay, Mr. Chair? KERN: Yes, Commissioner Au. AU: I’d like to add Condition 15 to the amended special permit for Poloke Farm LLC, Special Permit 09-95. KERN: Is there a second? ISHIBASHI: Second. KERN: Very good. Any discussion on this amended motion? Is it clear what it is to everybody? So the amended motion is just to add the one-year progress report. So let’s go ahead and vote on that right now, which will put that into the original motion, and then we can have our second vote. Jeff? DARROW: Okay. I’ve got to be clear on this. So we’re taking a vote for the amendment at this time. If I could read the condition for the Commissioners. It’s a standard annual progress report condition, and it does, unfortunately it does require the applicant to submit a pretty thorough report where he addresses each condition specifically and separately. And that’s just for our benefit so that we can make sure we’re all on the same page as far as clarity with the conditions. Is that okay? KERN: Any, I think we should ask the applicant how he feels about it at this point in time. It sounds like he just got a lot of it. Mr. Anderson, would you please come forward. We’ve got motions flying. 14 EXHIBIT A ANDERSON: I think it’s fine, Mr. Au, concerning your concern about putting the onus on us. You haven’t worked with us, we’re a pain in the ass. And this staff is super working with us; and it goes back and forth on a weekly basis, even for a meeting like this. But we really give them a hard time, and they’re super in responding and then walking us through the process, and venting our frustrations on them. So, unfortunately, the workload is on them. But I understand your condition and, yeah, it’s totally acceptable. KERN: Okay, thank you. Have a seat. ANDERSON: Thank you. AU: Question, Mr. Chair. KERN: Oh, yes. Mr. Anderson, Mr. Au -. AU: You have another neighbor. I’m just curious, that neighbor is closer? ANDERSON: Yeah. Ms. Frederick lives about a half mile away from the arena, from here to Chinen Auditorium, to put it in perspective. The neighbor next to me is Monty Miranda and, yeah, I’ve never had a complaint from him. And then we’re surrounded by the golf course on the other side, or ex-golf course. AU: Okay, thank you. ANDERSON: Thank you. KERN: Okay, so that condition sounds acceptable to my Fellow Planning Commissioners. So, yes, let’s vote on the amendment. DARROW: Okay, if I could read the condition -. KERN: Please do. DARROW: For the Commissioners. And “A progress report shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the anniversary date,” of this amendment, “of the approval of this amendment. The report shall address in detail the status of the development in compliance with conditions of approval.” This condition shall remain in effect, oh, I’m sorry, we’ll just state that. “The report shall address in detail the status and development and the compliance with conditions of approval.” KERN: Any questions on that one? Makes sense, everybody? Okay. So let’s vote on that one. Jeff? DARROW: Okay. My understanding is we are voting for the amendment request, I mean the additional condition -. KERN: Yes. 15 EXHIBIT A DARROW: At this time. Okay. Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Gonzales? GONZALES: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? KERN: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes six to zero. KERN: Okay. So we have an open motion right now to allow the two-year time extension to occur. Any other discussion on that? Okay, seeing none, Jeff, we can take the vote on that. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to approve the amended request, along with the amendment to the request. That sounds correct? KERN: Yeah -. DARROW: With that I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Gonzales? GONZALES: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. 16 EXHIBIT A DARROW: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? KERN: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes six to zero. KERN: Okay, just for a point of clarification. On the original motion that we made for the amendment, was it, was it you, Wally, that made the second or was it -? ISHIBASHI: Yeah. KERN: You made it. Okay, then we’re good. We’re good. Thanks. I figured you had it. I thought I’d double-check. Thank you. All right, so you’ll be notified in writing. It has been, the two-year time extension has been approved, with the one year progress report. Thank you. The discussion ended at 9:41 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 17 EXHIBIT A