Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-15 Leeward Exh A (SPP 14-161) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT MAY 15, 2014 KENNETH OKAGI AND ERIN RENE A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (SPP-14-161) was called to order at 9:37 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Brandi Beaudet presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Brandi Beaudet, Geraldine Giffin, Thomas Hickcox, Collin Kaholo, Barbara Nobriga and Thomas Whittemore ALSO PRESENT: Bobby Command (Deputy Planning Director), Margaret Masunaga (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Jeff Darrow (Planner), Maija Cottle (Planner) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And eight people from the public in attendance. APPLICANTS: KENNETH OKAGI AND ERIN RENE (SPP-14-161) Application for a Special Permit to allow the establishment of a 5-room Bed and Breakfast operation within two existing dwellings situated on a 1.428-acre lot in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located along the northeast (mauka) side of Lower Napo‘opo‘o Road (82-5856 Napo‘opo‘o Road), Kahauloaiki, South Kona, Hawai‘i, TMK: 8-2-008:057. BEAUDET: Today’s first agenda item is Applicants Kenneth Okagi and Erin Rene, application for a Special Permit to allow the establishment of a five-room bed and breakfast operation within two existing dwellings situated on a 1.428-acre lot in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located along the northeast, or mauka, side of Lower Nāpo‘opo‘o Road in South Kona, Hawai‘i. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Members of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONERS: Good morning. DARROW: Beautiful day here in Kona. Our first applicants, as mentioned, are Kenneth Okagi and Erin Rene. The location of this subject application is within the South Kona District. More specifically, we are looking in the Kealakekua area; this is Kealakekua Bay on the left side of your map; running through the middle of the map in a northwest-southeast direction is the Hawai‘i Belt Road, which brings us to the intersection of Nāpo‘opo‘o Road; and the subject application is identified with a black outline on the lower portion of the map. We’ll zoom in a little closer; again, for reference we have the Lower Nāpo‘opo‘o Road; the subject property is identified with a black outline. The different colors on the map represent the County zoning for the area; the lighter green represents Agricultural-5 acres; to the right you’ll see some green, darker green, as Agricultural-1 acre; and then the blue, which incorporates the applicant’s property, is identified as Family Agricultural-1 acre. This is the General Plan LUPAG designation for the property, the Land Use 1 EXHIBIT A Pattern Allocation Guide Map; this shows that the subject property is right on the fringe of the Important Agricultural Lands, as well as the Extensive Agricultural Lands. The applicants are requesting a Special Permit to allow the establishment of a five-room bed and breakfast within two existing dwellings situated on a 1.428-acre lot within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The bed and breakfast operation will be conducted within an existing two-story, four-bedroom main dwelling and within a two-bedroom second dwelling, which they refer to as the cottage within the application. The applicants are proposing to use three bedrooms within the existing four-bedroom main dwelling and two bedrooms within the cottage for the B&B operation. The applicants reside in the main dwelling on the second floor. The objective is to provide high quality lodging to the growing number of tourists who frequent the South Kona area. This is the submitted site plan that was part of the application. Just for reference, the lower portion of the map would be Nāpo‘opo‘o Road. You’ll have your driveway, concrete driveway access from Lower Nāpo‘opo‘o Road up to the two existing dwellings. We have the main dwelling, which is the four-bedroom main house, and then we have the two-bedroom cottage in the back. As referenced within the application, there also is a garage that appears to have been constructed within the setback, but the applicants are in the process of getting a variance for the particular structure. This is a nice aerial view of their property. Again, for reference we have Lower Nāpo‘opo‘o Road. You’ll notice the concrete driveway coming into the property, and again the main dwelling and the cottage area. So we’ll be looking at three bedrooms within the main dwelling and two bedrooms within the cottage. You can also, there is quite a bit of agricultural activities in the area. This particular property has quite a bit of agricultural activities. These are greenhouses right in this particular area. These are site photos of the area. This is looking makai on Lower Nāpo‘opo‘o Road; the applicants’ entrance is right on the right side. This one is looking mauka on Nāpo‘opo‘o Road; the applicants’ entrance is on the left side. And this is looking straight on from the main road, looking to the entrance. The actual name of the bed and breakfast operation is called Luana Inn. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission approve this Special Permit request, with conditions. Before we complete our presentation, I’d like to bring to your attention, there has been some ongoing matters with some issues along Nāpo‘opo‘o Road and the applicants’ property, some encroachment issues. But we’ve received a letter from Department of Public Works, dated May 13, 2014, which should have been submitted to the Planning Commission; we just recently were provided this, and it says that all those encroachment issues have been resolved and the matter is now closed. With that, that concludes our presentation. Thank you. BEAUDET: Thank you, Jeff. Commissioners, any questions for staff? Geri. GIFFIN: Jeff, on the first page of the Background Report, Item No. 4. Parking, “Off-street parking is available for the guests.” I thought we had restrictions in terms of, or conditions, that required on-site parking as well. Or is that not correct? This could be valid with only off-site parking? DARROW: Yes, that’s a clerical error. Thank you. That would be, oh, no, that’s off-street parking, means it has to be on-site. 2 EXHIBIT A GIFFIN: Okay. DARROW: So we, the requirements for a bed and breakfast is that they have to have one parking space for each bedroom. So they have to have five parking spaces plus two for the dwelling itself. GIFFIN: For them. DARROW: Yeah. And so the site plan that they had submitted, we worked with them regarding parking, and we were able to identify the areas on the property that would be set aside for parking. So, yeah, we wouldn’t want to see off-street parking, I mean, on-street parking; we want to see on-site parking. It’s real confusing, but it’s okay. COMMAND: Mr. Chairman? BEAUDET: Yes, sir. COMMAND: Question for Jeff. By saying that, though, that does not necessarily mean that their guests cannot park on-street as long as it’s legal, right? DARROW: I mean, I guess they could. In this particular situation it would be tough; they have a long way to walk and -. COMMAND: No, no, I understand that, but if there was on-street parking available, it would be available for them, right? DARROW: Yeah, the main thing is that they meet the requirements of the B&B, yeah, but -. COMMAND: Right. Thank you. DARROW: Thank you. COMMAND: And one more thing, Mr. Chairman. If you see me running out the door here, it doesn’t mean I’m doing anything weird. There is an Elderly Activities meeting upstairs, and they think it’s here. I’m trying to run out and keep them from unloading all the kūpuna off the van and having them have to get back on the van. So if you see me run out of the door, that’s what I’m doing. Sorry. BEAUDET: Any more questions, Commissioners? GIFFIN: Mr. Chairman. Jeff, I don’t know if you would like me to ask the applicants this, but in the Background Report, on Page 4 regarding water, would you like me to speak to the, ask the applicants this question that I have regarding the water usage. DARROW: We can address this issue, but it would be good if we can get clarification from the applicants, if that would be okay? GIFFIN: Sure, I can wait. 3 EXHIBIT A DARROW: We did receive a comment letter from the Department of Water Supply. Let’s get to that. That is dated – let me see here, it would be Exhibit 5 within the Background Report – dated April 11, from the Department of Water Supply. They are confirming that there are two existing five-eighth inch meters to the property, which allows for 400 gallons per day per unit, per meter. The usage for the property at this time is 10,420 gallons, which is, they are saying, 26 times beyond the amount allotted. It’s our understanding that apparently only one meter is connected at this time, so one of our conditions is asking that they connect the second meter. There has been this issue that has been a problem in the past with other permits, and we’ve got into a situation of just trying to figure out if we should be enforcing this issue or if the Department of Water Supply needs to be enforcing the overage of water. And in the past it’s been determined by the Director that Water Supply needs to be monitoring the overage of their meter. In speaking with the applicants this morning, and they can go into more detail, they are also very concerned about this, and in the past they’ve had leakage problems on their property, and they have been trying to find a leak, which they feel is, they said that over a period of time their water bill actually doubled, and they can’t seem to find where this particular leak is. So they said that shortly they are going to be hiring a plumber to actually try to determine where, or themselves, to determine exactly where this particular leak is. They think it’s a pretty extensive leak. GIFFIN: Yeah. DARROW: Yeah. So, and again, they can go into further clarification about that. But at this point our condition is addressing the fact that there are two meters but only one connected; we are asking them to connect the second meter. Hopefully, that answers your question. Thank you. GIFFIN: In part. Thank you, Jeff. DARROW: Thank you. BEAUDET: Any more questions or comments form the Commissioners? DARROW: Thank you. BEAUDET: Thank you, Jeff. With that, I’d like to ask the applicant or their representatives to please come forward. Thank you. So I will be swearing you in, if you could please raise your right hand, and speak into, when speaking, I’m just going to ask that you speak into the mike. That’s how we record the dialogue. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Planning Commission? APPLICANTS: Yes. BEAUDET: If you could please state your name, the area that you reside in, and please speak directly into the microphone. RENE: Yes. I’m Erin Rene. I live at 82-5856 Lower Nāpo‘opo‘o in Captain Cook, Hawai‘i 96704. BEAUDET: Thank you. 4 EXHIBIT A OKAGI: I’m Kenneth Okagi. I also live at 82-5856 Lower Nāpo‘opo‘o Road, Captain Cook, Hawai‘i. BEAUDET: Thank you. Did you receive the Planning Director’s Background Report and Recommendation reports? RENE: Yes, we did. BEAUDET: Do you agree with the Director’s recommendations and conditions of approval? RENE: Yes, we do. BEAUDET: Thank you. Do you have any further comments regarding any other recommendations or the conditions? OKAGI: Not at this time. RENE: Not at this time. Thank you. BEAUDET: Okay. So this would be your time to share with us the plans and then maybe the purpose of your application. RENE: Our intention in getting the Special Permit is to legally run a high-quality bed and breakfast to address the growing number of tourists that frequent to South Kona, specifically the Kealakekua Bay area. The number of tourists has continued to grow. It’s a popular area, and there are not a lot of accommodations opportunities down there. And we are in a perfect location to address that. That’s our reason. BEAUDET: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? GIFFIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. APPLICANTS: Good morning. GIFFIN: And thank you for coming. I’m the one that raised the question regarding the water. And more specifically, I understand that in Condition No. 4, and I don’t know if you have your packet in front of you, but it is on Page 7 of the Recommendation. RENE: Yes. GIFFIN: Okay, because I would like us to all be on the same page. RENE: Absolutely. GIFFIN: And it’s Condition No. 4. And Jeff did speak to the connection that you people need to do as part of the approval process, of connecting the second meter, which apparently right now is not, right? 5 EXHIBIT A OKAGI: The original builder on the property for some reason connected the second meter only directly to some irrigation, which was on the lower part of the property. We actually experienced a major leak there, so we just shut off the irrigation down there because we are not growing anything; we decided not to grow anything really water-intensive there partially because of the leak and the cost associated with repairing that, because some of the plumbing was running underneath the driveway and it would have been too much of a disruption to address that at the time. So we just shut everything off. So from the meter there is already a backflow preventer, and we can, it seems like, fairly easily just connect up the main house plumbing to the meter and address the issue. The issue with the current leak, which we suspect, we brought a plumber out to address a couple of visible leaks that were popping up, and we weren’t able to find the larger leak. So with everything shut down on the property and no water running, when I went down to the meter, it was going at about five gallons per minute, which I just calculated out to 7,200 gallons per day. And it’s definitely something that we should have been on top of, but we’ve just been busy and haven’t really looked at the water bill, which is on auto-pay, and so we are just literally pouring money down the ground. So we want to, of course, address that as soon as possible. So we expect that after addressing the leak, the water consumption will be in the neighborhood of about 2 to 3,000 gallons per day, which is still over the allowed consumption. And I’m not sure how we are going to address that because that’s just the amount of water that gets used. GIFFIN: So, Mr. Okagi, you are saying that for both meters the consumption will be, what was that? Did you say 2,000? OKAGI: In the neighborhood of 2,000 to 3,000 -. GIFFIN: Each. OKAGI: Gallons per day total. GIFFIN: No, no. no. OKAGI: Total. GIFFIN: Oh, oh, oh, so both meters, that would be the total usage. OKAGI: Together, right. Which, the allowed consumption would be 800 gallons per day, so we are still over that. And I don’t, other than shutting off our irrigation all together, I don’t know how we can get off of that number. GIFFIN: Have you consulted with the Department of Water Supply and gotten some recommendations from them? OKAGI: Not for the, currently not yet, but we will. GIFFIN: Mr. Chairman, I’m uncomfortable with this overage. According to the Background Report on Page 4, Item No. 28, at that time their usage was 10,420 gallons per day, and the usage is 800. So I’m in a quandary as to what to do regarding this, because I think that it’s not just affecting them, it’s affecting the whole area. And I understand that water is an issue there. And I don’t see 6 EXHIBIT A any attempt on the applicants’ part to even initiate some sort of water conservation issues or, you know, means of trying to alleviate the overage. And it’s gross, it’s gross overage that not just affects them but affects their neighbors and potentially that section of the island. So I’m uncomfortable with that. And I don’t know what you suggest we should do, or maybe we should talk to the Deputy Director and get some input. BEAUDET: Commissioner Giffin, I think your concerns are well noted. But at the onset of the meeting I think Jeff Darrow explained clearly that the issue of water management does not sit with the Planning Commission; it sits with the Department of Water Supply, and that’s per direction of the Planning Director. So maybe this is not the right, maybe this is a venue to discuss concerns about the operational quality of the tenant, but I don’t think it’s, we are the decision-making body to impose conditions. And if the Director wants to comment on that as well -. COMMAND: No, I just wanted to say I concur with the Chairman. BEAUDET: So I think having it noted there, we’ll hopefully inspire the applicant to be more forthcoming with working on a plan to manage their water better. That is just a comment coming from the Commission, not a direction. And, you know, this is a good opportunity for the Planning Department to have maybe more direct dialogue with Water Supply as well. WHITTEMORE: Mr. Chair? BEAUDET: Yes. WHITTEMORE: Brandi, I also share that same concern, but, and I’m just wondering if it isn’t possible within a motion to make some statement to the effect that they should make every effort to abide by their conditions, all County conditions, you know, as they apply to the land, whether it’s Water, Building or whatever. It would seem prudent to me, if I were in the situation, because I don’t see any active agriculture taking place on their property, that maybe it’s time to replace the entire line, you know; if there is breakage, you could just spend more money trying to find that than you are just to replace the entire line. So, anyway, my comment is more that can we make some sort of general statement in there without it being necessary a strict condition, but that they make every effort to adhere to those conditions, the Water Department and everything else. BEAUDET: I agree with you. I mean that’s well taken. GIFFIN: Jeff, would it mean -. I’m sorry. Mr. Chairman, may I address Jeff? BEAUDET: Sure. GIFFIN: Jeff, would it mean rewriting or modifying Condition No. 4? Or how would we do that? DARROW: We could add language, if the Planning Commission has specific direction that they’d like to see the applicants going. A suggestion would be, as Maija mentioned, well, in discussions with this matter with our fellow colleagues, there was a similar situation and concerns, and they asked the applicant if they could provide onsite storage for the agricultural uses. So that would be something that could be considered. But, yeah, it’s just unfortunate in regards to the situation, I mean, South Kona is a very dry area, and there is a lot of, I mean I’m sure the applicant is not alone 7 EXHIBIT A in this situation. Our understanding is that there is quite a bit of overage with water consumption in this particular area. Also being the Kona Coffee Belt, there is quite a bit of water being used just to keep agriculture continuing. But in this case, maybe I, you know, in working with the applicants, I’ve got to say that they are people that will make the effort; I have the assurance just from seeing them from the beginning work on all the issues that have arisen. So that might be a consideration, maybe we can ask that they provide onsite storage for agriculture uses. GIFFIN: Mr. Chairman, I agree, and I’m really grateful for the input. Because I’m concerned about the resource, and it’s not an unlimited resource, and so with overages like what was noted in the Background Report, that’s abhorrent. And I think that just simply saying that it is common in the region, that’s not enough. I think it’s incumbent upon us to start making a change. And not necessarily at the expense of this particular applicant. I don’t want you to feel that we are picking on you or using you as an example; that’s not it at all. But I feel that we need to do something. Thank you. BEAUDET: Let me just comment. So – I know that Commissioner Hickcox has a comment to be heard, too, but – let’s all keep in consideration that, you know, leakages are not looked upon as proper resource management, and we would, you know, we would hope that the applicant would address the issue, and it sounds like they will. But as we are not in the presence of anybody from the Department of Water Supply, the Commission isn’t aware of the impact that this use is causing to the system. The 800 gallons per day is a statistic that is applied to a five-eighth inch meter, but that’s not to say that it’s depleting the resource. So those are two different things that are for consideration, yeah? So I just want to communicate that to the Commissioners that we don’t know if there is gross negligence as was put into the notes earlier. Yeah, okay. So, Commissioner Hickcox. HICKCOX: I have a question of the applicant. Do you have plans? What are your plans to address this overage or leakage? OKAGI: I have isolated the leakage to one of three lines that are coming up, so I’ve eliminated the main supply line coming up; there are three lines that come up, and I’ve isolated it to one of the three. So we are going to have a period early next week where we are going to be empty for a couple of days, which will be a good opportunity for me to just shut everything down and figure out which one of those lines the leak is in, and then from there figure out exactly where the leak is. The situation is complicated by the fact of how the plumbing was run; some of it runs under the concrete driveway and is under the main cement pad. The main house was built sort of into the hill side, so they bulldozed out an area to create a flat area, and then they laid the plumbing, and then they backfilled in behind that. So some of the plumbing is down six, eight feet under ground. So if it’s leaking there, it’s never going to come up, given how porous the land is there. So we just never see it. And that has created challenges for us before, and we’ve had leaks in the past, and actually had to even remove some plumbing from our system in order to just eliminate the leak because we were never able to find it. And if that’s what it takes, you know, we are, because we have no interest in spending so much water, money on water, both from a conservation standpoint and also just in terms of our pocketbook. So we want to address that as soon as possible. And, you know, we are conscientious, and we’ll do everything it takes. On another note, we’ve never actually received any notification from the Department of Water Supply on this issue until now. So, had it been brought to our attention sooner, we would have addressed it sooner. 8 EXHIBIT A HICKCOX: Thank you. I guess my question is that you are aware of it and you are looking into getting it corrected. OKAGI: Absolutely. HICKCOX: Okay. Thank you. COMMAND: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. BEAUDET: Yes, sir. COMMAND: I’d like to ask Corporation Counsel. Can we deny an application based on a condition that’s outside of our jurisdiction? MASUNAGA: In terms of outside the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission? COMMAND: Yes. MASUNAGA: I would probably advise not to. And if you are, any of the Commissioners are thinking of it, we would probably need to go in executive session. You know, that, in my opinion, I’ve never had this come up. I don’t know if Mr. Darrow or Maija Cottle had had this come up before, but I’m not aware of that situation. DARROW: Not to my knowledge. BEAUDET: Thank you. MASUNAGA: Thank you. DARROW: And as mentioned, the actual similar issue did come up previously, and we kind of went through everything through the process. And that’s why when this came up, we kind of relied on that previous situation to move forward. GIFFIN: So, Mr. Chairman? BEAUDET: Commissioner Giffin. GIFFIN: I’m just going to ask staff if there is suggested verbiage for modifying the list of conditions. DARROW: If Commissioner Giffin is comfortable with the recommendation of the onsite storage, maybe what we can do is ask the applicants about that if that would be something that they would consider, and maybe a size, I mean, your standard size is 10,000 gallons. And we could add in for 4 that the applicants provide a 10,000-gallon water storage tank for agricultural and irrigation purposes on site, or something to that effect. BEAUDET: Storage doesn’t manage your use; the water source is still coming from the same meter. 9 EXHIBIT A DARROW: Oh, I see what you are saying. BEAUDET: So having additional storage on site does not remediate the problems of a leak. It doesn’t help you to manage your water use. You know, I think the application is, the condition in itself speaks to the applicant accommodating the rules and the regulations as set forth by whatever department the conditions state. In this case it’s the Water Department. Again, it is not in the Commission’s purview to impose regulation for another department within the County system. So, I don’t know if we want further dialogue on this? HICKCOX: Mr. Chair, excuse me. As a matter of record, the questions that we asked in reference to what the applicant has planned to address the issues, I think it will be a matter of record. And this, if there is any kind of sanctions or enforcement action that needs to be taken in the future, it will be done so by the Board of Water Supply, not by the Planning Commission. But it is a matter of record that the applicant has been made aware of it and has told this body that they would be addressing it. COMMAND: Mr. Chairman, I’ll make note of this and speak to the Director, and make sure that we start another conversation with Department of Water Supply, just begin another conversation about this issue. BEAUDET: Thank you. Commissioner Giffin? GIFFIN: Yes? BEAUDET: Any follow-up comments? GIFFIN: No, thank you. BEAUDET: Thank you. Would the applicant want to take the opportunity to close, maybe address some of the dialogue that has happened before you? OKAGI: Yes, we are so sorry. We, yeah, and so the plumbing has kind of been a nightmare on this property from the get-go, and we’ve had to address numerous issues. And we should have absolutely been on top of the bill escalating in that fashion, but we’ve had other things going on. So now that it has been brought to our attention, we absolutely intend to address the leak both for our own interest and also making sure that we are not impacting our neighbors and the fellow residents. So please rest assured that we will take care of that as soon as possible. BEAUDET: Thank you. So I’ll ask if any further comments by the Commissioners for the applicant. WHITTEMORE: I have a question on a different subject. So do you want to close this portion of the question? BEAUDET: Yeah, maybe we should close. Thank you for your time. I have in front of me that we have no one from the audience who has signed in for public testimony – and you may take your seats, I’m sorry. With that, Commissioner Whittemore. 10 EXHIBIT A WHITTEMORE: Question of staff, I guess, is one of the things that got my attention in this request was the length of time from the time the warning letter went out to the date we are looking at today. And I guess my question is, what is the standard policy in the Planning Department with respect to that? Once the warning letter goes out, are the applicants allowed to continue to operate as an illegal bed and breakfast until such time as it’s agendized and the Planning Department takes action? And, you know, this seems like an awfully lengthy time from the time the warning letter went out to when here today, so. DARROW: Okay. Unfortunately, I can’t speak directly in regards to what happened between the date that the warning letter was issued to the date that the Special Permit could come in, I mean, in regards to the warning letter matter. I can speak to the fact that the applicants, after this warning letter happened, they had several processes they had to go through. And this is unique to their situation because of the location they are in; they are within the Kahalu‘u Historic District, No. 1; No. 2, they are in the Special Management Area. So there were these extra processes and layers that they had to go through before they could actually submit the permit. There were some questions on our part that we had to deal with. But through the process they were continuing to do what we asked them to do. They had submitted a draft application. The first thing they did was they had submitted a request for the Special Management Area Minor Permit, which took some time. They did get approval of that. We cannot accept this application until that process happens. We struggled with whether or not this had to go through an Environmental Assessment, but we were able to find out that this particular property, through the subdivision process, had previously gone through an EA, and so that took care of that situation. When they came in originally for the first draft, there were some things that we wanted them to address before we would accept the application, so we returned it and then they resubmitted it. So I would have to say it’s not all the applicants’ fault for this delay, that it was the processes they had to go through, as well as us returning the application. And I can’t recall offhand if we returned it once or twice. But it’s the process we go through. A lot of times, even without a warning letter, sometimes we won’t accept an application the first time, especially when the applicants are doing it on their own; they usually aren’t familiar with the entire complexity of submitting the permits, and so we have to return it and kind of give guidance on redoing the application and then resubmitting. But as I mentioned previously, going through this process, they have been consistent on addressing all the issues we’ve asked for. Thank you. BEAUDET: Commissioner Giffin. GIFFIN: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask Jeff if, to the County’s knowledge from the onset on September 6, 2011, till today, were they able to operate illegally? DARROW: In the past, and I don’t know if there was an actual determination made in regards to this situation, but in the past when we had this situation, as long as it wasn’t a significant impact type of use, that the Director, as long as they were active in getting the correct permits, that they would allow them to continue, with the understanding that if at the Planning Commission they did not receive the approval, they would obviously have to cease and desist. But that’s been the standard in the past. There are situations where we’ve asked applicants to stop because the use was significant, creating significant impacts. In this particular case, usually B&Bs, have minimal impacts. 11 EXHIBIT A COMMAND: I also think you need to look at what the end result is; if the end result may be that they are allowed to run a bed and breakfast, that’s a different story than an illegal use where they are not supposed to be doing what they are doing on the property, right? So we, and it’s more of a philosophical thing, we want to try and help them become legal rather than just say no. And maybe other administrations might feel a little bit different about this, but I think that if we see that there is a way for them to get to the end result and become legal, we’ll do everything we possibly can to make them legal. We’d rather them be legal than say no, no can, and then turn around and they are doing it anyway after that, so. Anyway, I don’t know if that clarifies anything for you. GIFFIN: Thank you. BEAUDET: Which has happened in the past, I mean, we have, you know, the County Planning has issued immediate termination of operations for different types of operations. So, and most of us, you know, are familiar with a few of those applicants, so. HICKCOX: I think that maybe perhaps this would be a learning experience for everybody here as a matter of fact. The time that went by from September 2011 until the final issuance, until the issuance of the response to the warning letter, now, that seems to be internal and that’s something that needs to be looked at internally as opposed to having to be addressed by the Commission itself. I mean, and we are not here to tell the Planning Department how to do it, right? So what we are here for is to say okay that’s a long period of time, maybe you should look at this and come up with some kinds of checks and balances that will prevent this from happening in the future, period, you know? Mahalo. BEAUDET: Thank you. COMMAND: And let me just say one more thing. There is a number of different letters that we send out. The first one normally, which I’ve seen, and forgive me because I’ve only been doing this for about a year, but normally we’ll send out a warning letter, which is not necessarily cease and desist; tell us what you are doing here, tell us that it’s okay, we’ll leave you alone. The next step would be a notice of violation; then you have to do this or we are going to tell you to stop. And I think the final one would be cease and desist, right, and that threatens legal action. So, I mean, the period of time that those letters are, that they give to the person to correct whatever violations, and I’m not exactly sure, but do you have any idea what those are? DARROW: Warning letters are mandatory 60 days. And a lot of times this is common the applicants need more time, so they ask for a time extension, and we usually grant those. As long as the applicants, as mentioned, are working with the Department to try to be legal, we will work with them and, rather than just come down with the hammer. BEAUDET: Any more comments or questions of staff? Thank you. With that, with the closing or our comment period, I would just ask the audience if there is anyone left in the audience who may wish to speak on the application. Thank you. With that, Commissioners, I would like to ask for a motion. GIFFIN: Mr. Chairman? I would like to move that Special Permit Application SPP 14-000161 to allow a five-bedroom bed and breakfast operation within two existing dwellings be approved by this body, along with the conditions as noted in the, by the Planning Director. 12 EXHIBIT A BEAUDET: A second? HICKCOX: I’ll second. BEAUDET: It’s been moved by Commissioner Giffin for the approval of Special Permit Application 14-000161, and seconded by Commissioner Hickcox. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, we’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Giffin? GIFFIN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Hickcox? HICKCOX: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Kaholo? KAHOLO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Nelson? GIFFIN: Absent. DARROW: Oh, I’m sorry, well, I’m not, I thought somebody was missing. Commissioner Nobriga? NOBRIGA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Whittemore? WHITTEMORE: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? BEAUDET: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, six to zero. BEAUDET: Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you, Staff. Thank you, Applicant. You will be notified of the Commission’s decision in writing. The discussion ended at 10:23 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 13 EXHIBIT A