Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-01-08 Hearing Transcript-PD INITIATED _GAMBLE_ SPP 1078 & SMA 408 WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 8, 2015 Planning Director Initiated matter regarding A regularly advertised hearing on the noncompliance with conditions of approval of Special Permit No. 1078 (SPP 1078) and Special Management Area Use Permit No. 408 (SMA 408) previously issued to John and Michele Gamble was called to order at 10:31 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i with Chairman Myles Miyasato presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Myles Miyasato, Charles Heaukulani, Gregory Henkel, and Donald Ikeda. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Raylene Moses and Stephen Ono. ALSO PRESENT: Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Danny Patel (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), Christian Kay (Staff Planner), Lucas Mead (Staff Planner), Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary), and Melissa Dacayanan (Planning Commission Support Technician). And approximately 19 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR (SPP 1078 and SMA 408) Hearing regarding noncompliance with conditions of approval of Special Permit No. 1078 (SPP 1078) and Special Management Area Use Permit No. 408 (SMA 408). SPP 1078 and SMA 408 were issued to John and Michele Gamble to allow the establishment of an 8-bedroom Inn within a then-proposed addition to an existing single family dwelling situated within the Special Management Area (SMA) and the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located on the makai side of Māmalahoa Highway (State Highway 19) approximately 1,200 feet southeast of Honomū Road, Honomū, South Hilo, TMK: 2-8- 013:portion of 038. MIYASATO: Item No. 3 on our agenda. You guys good? Commissioners, are you— everybody good? IKEDA: I’m good. MIYASATO: Okay, yeah, we’ll keep going. Planning Director, SPP 1078 and SMA 408. DARROW: Good morning, members of the Planning Commission. MIYASATO: Good morning. 1 EXHIBIT C DARROW: Thank you. This next item on our agenda is something different and unique, so it’s not something we have come before us very often, and in fact, I think this is like the first time. This is a—the Planning Director has initiated a review of noncompliance for conditions of Special Permit No. 1078 and SMA Use Permit No. 408. Just for reference, the area of the subject property is located in the South Hilo District of Hawai‛i. More specifically, we’re looking just outside of the Honomū area. For reference, we have Pepe‛ekeō on the lower portion of the map; Hakalau on the upper portion of the map; and Honomū in the middle. The Highway 19 runs in a north-south direction. The subject property is on the makai side of Highway 19, just outside of Honomū. This is a closer view with the subject property outlined in black. Again, the colors on the map represent zoning. The particular subject property is zoned Agricultural – 20 acres by the County. It’s zoned State Land Use Agricultural by the State Land Use Commission. This is an aerial photo to identify the subject property and the existing uses; mainly, the 8-bedroom inn and existing dwelling as well as the different types of agricultural uses on the property. Highway 19 and, running just mauka of the property and the entrance to Honomū is just to the north. For reference, SMA Use Permit 408 and Special Permit No. 1078 were approved to John and Michele Gamble on September 15, 2000, to allow an 8-bedroom inn within a proposed addition to an existing dwelling and related uses. You’ve, Commissioners have a copy of that, that is Exhibit 3 within our Background. Condition 3 of both permits states the inn shall be limited to the use of eight bedrooms in the addition. Additionally, weddings, community, and public meetings will be allowed on the subject property. The purpose of today’s hearing on this matter is to have the Planning Commission determine if the collectible sales business and other uses described by the Applicant is permitted under Special Permit No. 1078 and SMA Use Permit 408, or, if the Applicants would need to amend their permits to allow these types of businesses and uses to continue on the property. The additional uses that I’m referring to are in Exhibit 2. Mainly on Page 3, the Applicant states, I’ll just read this briefly: “For our part, I can explain.” This is a response letter that the Applicant submitted to the Planning Department in this matter. “For our part, I can explain that we did not list uses other than the 8 room Inn on the application for our Special Use permit because during many discussions with planning department staff during the preparation process of the application, it was explained to us that [the] existing uses on [of] the property could continue without specific mention. Therefore we did not mention in the application that the community had been allowed to use the property for weddings, High School and collage [sic] photographs, farmers markets, political fundraisers, charitable fundraisers, luaus, public and private meetings and even allowed to use the imu located on the property.” On Page 5, additionally it states, “We have been operating The Palms Cliff House Inn for nearly 14 years; during that time we have maintained the property as a resource to our surrounding community as well as to the entire County and even the State. Our property has been used by the Big Island Visitor’s Bureau, the Hawaii Tourism Authority, The Hawaii Visitor and Convention Bureau, The University of 2 EXHIBIT C Hawaii, and numerous public and private businesses as a location for fund raising, auctions, classes, concerts, sales, and tours.” So, the Planning Department will continue to work with the Applicants regarding compliance with the other conditions that were referenced within the Background/Recommendation that are in question. Today’s purpose, again, is to have the Planning Commission, with the information available on the record, determine whether or not these additional uses that were mentioned are considered permitted under the permit or if the Applicants will need to come in and amend the Special Permit. Let me continue on. This all started because the Planning Department received a complaint alleging that the Applicants advertised their collectible sale in the Hawai‛i Tribune Herald and on Craigslist. Our Zoning Inspector confirmed a Hawai‛i Tribune Herald advertisement regarding The Palm Cliff House, collectible sales during the Merry Monarch week. The ad also said to check Craigslist and Facebook for pictures and direction. A warning letter was issued to the Applicants on July 3, 2014, which is Exhibit No. 1, stating that the collectible sales business is not a permitted use in the Agricultural District, as well as in Special Permit No. 1078 and SMA Use Permit 408. This is a copy of the advertisement. Again, it’s referencing the collectible sale event. Again, this appears to be during a week correlating with the Merry Monarch week. These are some of the photos that were on Facebook that were part of the record with our Zoning Inspector that shows some of the item that were part of the collectible sales. The Applicant responded to the warning letter in a letter dated August 27, 2014, which is our Exhibit 2. The Applicants believe that allowing members of the community to utilize their property for events is within the parameters of Special Permit No. 1078 and SMA Use Permit No. 408. The Applicants provided references within the Planning Commission transcript, where discussion occurred regarding their request for community uses on the property. I’ll just list a couple of them that were more pertinent in this particular case. This was a reference from Neil Erickson, who was representing the Applicants at the time. He expressed to the Commissioners, “Commissioner too, in the past this house has been used for community meetings and get- togethers for things of the community concern. So in the nature and spirit of that, the Gambles would like to continue [that] and that includes events such as weddings and other things that the community would like to do.” Additionally, further on in the transcripts, Russell Kokubun, who was our Deputy Director at that time, stated “I had a question about it was raised initially about uses—proposed uses there— weddings, and then you mentioned community meetings, etc. You know, the way I see that the conditions of the permit are written, strictly for the launch and so you’re—and I think one of the guidelines for us in terms of [a] special permit, one of the guidelines for the permission, is that the uses be fairly specific. Do you have a list of other uses that [you] are proposing.” “That you are proposing for this? Because if they’re not included, or considered by the Commission, then you cannot do that—is my understanding.” John Gamble, one of the Applicants, stated, “The only thing [that] we had anticipated using it for was for what we had mentioned; were the weddings and just continuing the town meetings. That was the gratis thing that the previous owner had given to the community.” 3 EXHIBIT C So, we—the Applicants believe that what these particular uses is allowable under the permit. The Planning Director does not feel they are permitted and has issued a warning letter for the, for the particular use stating that the collectible sales business is not a permitted use in the State Land Use Ag District, or within the approved permits. We feel this is confirmed by Deputy Director’s Kokubun statement where he says, “I think one of the guidelines for us in terms of a special permit, one of the guidelines for the permission, is that the uses be fairly specific.” And that’s the way that usually when we have Special Permits come before the Planning Commission, they’re asking for a specific use. Again, he asked do you have a list of other uses that you would like to be permitted and the response was the only thing we had anticipated for was to use it for what we had mentioned, the weddings and continuing the town meetings. As a result of these discussions at the hearing, Condition 3 was added to specifically allow weddings, community and public meetings on the subject property. That concludes our presentation, but again, the Planning Department will continue working with the Applicants regarding compliance or noncompliance with the conditions. We—because of the fact that there is a disagreement regarding whether a use is permitted or not, we feel it was appropriate to come back to the Planning Commission and have the Commission make that determination. Thank you. MIYASATO: Commissioners, any questions for staff? IKEDA: Yes, I do. MIYASATO: Commissioner Ikeda. IKEDA: You know, maybe I, I misread this thing, but I read in here in two sections where it stated that the former owner of the property didn’t have meetings and things like that on his property. It was—am I mistaken? Did I misread it? DARROW: We—in Exhibit 9, or I’m sorry, yes, Exhibit 9, we had received a correspondence from Carlos Parisi, and with that correspondence were two letters from the previous owners, and basically they are stating that those events did not occur on the property previously. Additionally, thank you for bringing that to my attention, this morning, we did receive additional correspondence from Mr. Parisi as well as from the Applicant, and so those have been handed out. The Applicant submitted a response letter with items attached to that, and there were also two letters of support attached to that. Thank you. IKEDA: Okay, can I ask you another question? I—I remember reading somewhere that the street light wasn’t put in and the road condition was, wasn’t put in but it never stated it was completed or not. Was it completed? 4 EXHIBIT C DARROW: Well, that’s one of the areas that the Planning Department will continue to work with the Applicant on. There appears to be some differences in regards to compliance with that. This morning, the Applicant had submitted some information that contradicts what the Department of Transportation is saying in their comment letter, and so we’ll need to continue working with, to figure out if those items were complied with or if the Applicants were told they didn’t need to do that. IKEDA: Well, this is what bothers me because, you know when I read the transcripts, these were the conditions they agreed to and it’s not being done, so it really bothers me that, you know, you would assume that it’s done, so, but it’s not done, and so it seems like they were hedging and that really bothers me. And, I agree with the transcript also, where it stated that if they had any other conditions they wanted to add on and they didn’t so I think they should live with what they agreed to. Thank you. DARROW: Thank you. MIYASATO: Commissioners, any further questions for staff? Thank you. Would the Applicant or representative please come forward? Please raise your right hand. Good morning. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai‛i County Planning Commission? GAMBLE J./GAMBLE M.: I do. MIYASATO: State your name and residence, please. GAMBLE, J.: My name is John Gamble. I’m the owner of the Palms Cliff House, P.O. Box 189, Honomū, Hawai‛i 96728. GAMBLE, M.: My name is Michele Gamble, and I also reside at the Palms Cliff House Inn, P.O. Box 189, Honomū, Hawai‛i 96728. MIYASATO: Do you have a presentation or a comment? GAMBLE, M: Sure. I have included a copy for you guys so I’m—of my written statement—so I am just gonna hit some of the, the high points. First, I wanted to clarify that, you know, this issue with the Planning Department. They keep referring to the sales during the week of Merry, the Merry Monarch Festival, as a collectible sale business. I would like to clarify that it was not a business. What we allowed was for the community to come in and to hold a sale on the property. We didn’t charge anybody to participate in that. Nobody who attended the sale was charged for that, and I can’t even take credit for the idea to do the sale. That was one of the community members who came forward and asked if they could do that. In my response letter, I addressed a number of initial issues, but I’ll confess that each time I was speaking to Mr. Darrow, there seemed to be something new so I’m hoping that I can address all those issues here this morning and settle any questions that may still remain. I know my 5 EXHIBIT C response letter, I’m admittedly jumping all over the place and that’s partly because I’m, was reacting to Mr. Darrow’s comments each time we spoke on the phone. And, initially, I, I had a lot of confusion with regard to the warning letter because many of his initial comments about the sale, we thought had already been addressed in 2004. And, I have included in the attachments a copy of a letter to the Planning Department when we received a call from Robert Usagawa from the Planning Department. At issue was the Planning Department wanted us to write a letter explaining why it was within our Use Permit to have cooking classes at the Inn because they had seen, or they had received a complaint, again I believe from Mr. Parisi, that we were advertising cooking classes to be held at the Inn. What was actually the case was the Hawai‛i Community College was advertising the cooking classes. They asked if they could hold the cooking classes out at the Inn. We said sure. We did not charge them to use the kitchens out at the Inn. We simply provided the kitchens for their classes and meeting space for them to use as well. They did, however, charge student participants in the class. Our explanation of why this activity was included within the Use Permit was accepted. We never received another correspondence from Mr. Usagawa saying that, that didn’t qualify under the community and public meetings usage. So, we thought we were okay there. That’s when Mr. Darrow had told us that a meeting could not involve commerce. It seemed a direct departure from the previous decision that had allowed the community college to charge for their cooking classes. Further confused us that Mr. Darrow insisted that the sale was not a meeting. By Mr. Darrow’s interpretation of a meeting, the cooking classes wouldn’t have been a meeting either. Thus, I asked for the County’s definition of what a meeting was. And, the County Code does not define meeting, so in my response letter, I provided standard dictionary definitions of what a meeting is, and both the cooking classes and the sale that we allowed the community to have would qualify as a meeting. With regard to past uses of the property, over the past 14 years, we’ve heard many good, funny, and utterly horrific accounts of activities by the past owners. For us, that is really neither here nor there. If Mr. Parisi has letters saying that the public was kept off of the property, to us, that’s okay. It’s not a point we, you know, find as contentious. During that initial hearing, I think Neil’s comments was simply made to convey to the people in attendance and to our neighbors because we were brand new. We had just moved here—it was 2000, the economy was tanking, and here come these two haoles from the mainland who wanna open up an inn. And, I think the comments were made to try and engender to the local community that we weren’t going to be the kind of haoles who came in, put up barbed wire fence, and made everybody’s life difficult. We really wanted to be a resource for the community as long, as well as to run our Inn. And, I’d like to point out even Mr. Parisi submitted a letter of support. We continue to believe and hope that we continue to meet and exceed the conditions that were placed upon us when we received our permits. And I say hope because the council as a whole thanked us that day after the hearing for having the strength and belief in the Honomū community that we could succeed as innkeepers and be a positive addition to the community. It 6 EXHIBIT C was a profound moment for us. We continue to believe that allowing community members to host a, to host that sale during the Merry Monarch Festival did not exceed the scope or intent of the approval we were given in operating our small inn. Our SMA application even referenced special occasions. It was, and it was a mention—it was also mentioned again, during the transcripts, I believe it was Commissioner Mosher that brought up, who’s the one that brought up the issue of weddings. Also, asked what about the special occasions, and then when they were drafting the weddings and the community and public meetings, they said you know, oh, special occasions, okay, special occasions and meetings and so forth, and in the end, you know, it washed out as public and community meetings. It was our understanding that, that was all sort of the same thing. We also believe that the activity of allowing the community members to have a sale during the Merry Monarch did not alter or change the essential character of the land and its present use. We also personally, John and I, used the event of the sale to sell some of our agricultural product, which is tropical plants, which is also a condition of our Use Permit. Our property itself provided more than adequate parking for both the sale that the community was having and attendees to the open house that we were having up at the Inn. Mr. Parisi’s driveway was not blocked by anyone attending our sale. I will concede that people do park in our driveway and ask for directions to Mr. Parisi’s property. There’s also a large shoulder along highway in front of our property that many use for parking. Even the County parks vehicles there and equipment. We don’t have any control over the use of that area. It’s not our property. During the sale, we had signage in place directing traffic for the sale in to the property itself. I had with me today a letter that was distributed to also from David Ackerman. He’s the owner from Glass from the Past which is an antiques and collectible sale in Honomū Town. Good friend of ours who wrote that in his opinion, the collectible sale had no negative impact on his business. I also have a letter that was submitted from Billy Perreira. He was one of the individuals who was selling during the sale, and it was actually Billy Perreira’s idea. He was the one who came to us and said I’d like to have this sale, would that be okay, to which we said yes. I hadn’t thought that we were going to address the issues regarding the streetlight and so forth, but Mr. Ikeda, since you brought it up, I thought I would go ahead and take a moment and address that for you. I have included a set of attachments for you guys. It begins with a copy of the letter from 2004, our response to the Use Permit question regarding the community college. Followed by that were John’s notes and detailed drawings of the streetlight that was to be put in place followed by a letter from the Department of Public Works, who at that time in 2000, was the entity that installs the streetlights for the County and the Highway Department. What the letter is, it’s a refund letter stating that we were being refunded our $1,700 that we paid for the streetlight to be put in place because there was, it was found that the County would not be able to install any streetlight as there were no poles located near the site that was requested. 7 EXHIBIT C John then followed up, and I have a copy of that as well, with a letter to Stanley Tamura, Highways Division, alerting him to the fact that we had been refunded the cost of the streetlight, how did he want to proceed. And, John followed that letter with a phone call in which Stanley said if we decide you guys still need to do the streetlight, we’ll get back in touch with you. They never contacted us again. With regards to the highway entrance, it’s our understanding that we’ve got the 25-foot curves and the site distance requirements. I have also included our Certificate of Occupancy. We received that in 2000. All those departments that are involved in setting all the requirements had to sign off in order for us to get this. So, that includes Highways and a—I think division of Public Works was the other one that was involved with the street, with the streetlight issue. This morning, I believe Mr. Parisi submitted a letter from Highways also that added the issue of a drainage easement being an issue. In 2000 when we did our plans and our applications and so forth, I remember myself, Neil Erickson, our architect, and John going down to the Highways Division to talk to them about that improvement because we put in a culvert in an open drainage easement. They were given the plans, and at that time— PATEL: Excuse me, Ms. Gamble— GAMBLE, M.: Sure— PATEL: If I may, just to clarify for staff, the—the Planning Department is asking for a declaratory ruling regarding the establishment of a collectible sales business only. Is that correct? DARROW: Correct. I, I believe the Applicant is just trying to clarify the matter because it was brought up. And, again, the Planning Department staff will work with the Applicant to resolve that particular issue. PATEL: Okay, so as much as possible, if we could keep to— GAMBLE, M.: I can stop, I just— PATEL: Oh, no, no— GAMBLE, M.: I just wanted to bring it up because Mr. Ikeda had, had mentioned that— PATEL: I’m not suggesting that, yeah, just to keep it within the scope of what’s before the Commission today. Thank you. IKEDA: Can I talk to the— GAMBLE, M.: Okay, I’ll just keep it brief— 8 EXHIBIT C IKEDA: No, I appreciate what you’re doing because you’re clearing up some misunderstanding that I have, and to me, it’s important. GAMBLE, M.: Okay, well then I’ll finish with the acc—or the drainage easement, and that’s the last thing. In 2000, yeah, in 2000, the Highways Division did not have a permit process in place for doing improvements. They had copies of, of the plan, and again they signed off on us to get our certificate of occupancy. Now, some years ago, I only found out about this late yesterday, and I haven’t had a chance to check my files, I’m gonna guess four, five years ago, we had a visit from the folks in Honolulu from the division of Highways because again Mr. Parisi had made a complaint about the drainage easement. They looked at the site and attempted to cite us for a violation at the point where there’s a, there’s a drainage culvert underneath the highway that empties out into a ditch along the side of the highway, and then it goes into a culvert that eventually goes down to the cliff. That culvert that it has to go into is installed higher than the culvert that comes underneath the highway and, thus, the highway culvert is filling with sediment and water backs up. So, they attempted to cite us for that at which time we informed them that, that was not actually our property. That is Mr. Parisi’s property. So, I don’t know how that was resolved. At that point, they did ask us again, did you guys do a permit for that, for the improvement that you did, and we said well, there wasn’t a permit process at that time. They contacted our architect, Neil Erickson, and he said, he reaffirmed, there wasn’t a permit process at the time. If you guys have one now, please send us the application, and we’ll do it because we’ve sent you the drawings and everything. And, again, that has resulted in no action. So, for our part, we’ve tried to do what we’re supposed to do, but to some extent, we’re being held responsible for people who don’t take notes and don’t keep a clear record of what’s happened. So, other than that, I’ll leave it there, if you have other questions, okay? MIYASATO: Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions? Okay, if not, I just have a comment, yeah, you know, you made—getting back to the issue here of compliance and noncompliance. I guess you made reference to requesting a definition, yeah, from the Department on a community or public meeting. And, you made mention of sending them a definition since one wasn’t I guess sent to you or one wasn’t explained. And, it’s my only--it’s just a comment, yeah, but my comment is you know, now with computers, if you was to Google community meeting, public meeting, you’ll probably get like about 200-250 results, and you can go, I could go through that and find a definition to suit my result that I want at the end, yeah? Being negative—you know, I’m sure you found the result justifying having the sale and other activities there, but I could just go down the same web page and find a definition opposing community meeting and public meeting as to the activities that you’re holding there. So, I think that—you know, I’ve read your definition, and I guess for me, it’s just more of the, what was the initial intent, yeah, when you applied for your application. And, when I read the minutes of the meeting that you had, you know, none of that was clearly stated. So, I guess that’s what I wanted to hear more of in your presentation, yeah. But, that’s just a comment. Thank you. 9 EXHIBIT C GAMBLE, M.: Do you want me to respond to that or not? MIYASATO: No, that’s just a comment that I have that I was hoping that you would have had more of a presentation on, that aspect of this noncompliance meeting. Thank you. Commissioners, nothing further? Okay, thank you. You may have a seat. Okay, we have three testifiers, Blanche Makanaka [sic], Carlos Parisi, and Tom Luebben. Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai‛i County Planning Commission? PARISI: Yes. MADAMBA/LUEBBEN: I do. [Secretary’s Note: Mr. Luebben was signed up to testify on the next item on the agenda regarding the Geothermal Asset Fund and did not testify on this matter.] MIYASATO: Okay, could you, you can go first. Could you please state your name and residence? PARISI: My name is Carlos Parisi. MIYASATO: And your residence please? PARISI: I live at 28-3464 Hawai‛i Belt Road in Honomū. MIYASATO: Okay, you have three minutes. PARISI: Okay, first of all I want to thank the County. I’m here really to support their position and interpretation of the permits, in particular, the diligence of Mr. Darrow and Inspector McComber. You know, you hear Mrs. Gamble, and makes it sound like she’s the victim here. I’m gonna try to stick to the facts and what actually has happened. Give you a little background. I purchased my property in the late eighties with the intention of retiring here. Twelve years before the Gambles even came in the picture. They did contact me at the time, around the year 2000, about proposing a bed and breakfast, and I did support it. I wrote her a letter, and I welcomed her, her idea. The application during that meeting that they applied as per the minutes specifically was supposed to be for an 8-bedroom inn, okay? If you look at it closely, they somehow misstated the facts and convinced the Commission at the time to include weddings and civic meetings and community meetings, etc. This came to light after I filed my complaint because of this garage sales, collectible sales business. It was not only during the Monarch week. They’ve had it at least five times, and it entails sometimes a whole week. You’ve got people stopping at Highway 19, which is a busy road, parking all over the shoulder of the road. Their property is actually landlocked, and they have an easement through my property which is 30 feet wide, and when you’ve got all these cars parking on the shoulder of the road, that’s technically illegal. It’s a State easement there. When you’ve got cars blocking my gate, it’s a 10 EXHIBIT C problem. I did bring it up to Mr. Gamble one day. I saw him as I was approaching my gate, and he was helping a customer, and he apologized it would not happen again. And, it continued to happen, and they also have put traffic cones in front of my gate to prevent other people from parking. You know, I don’t mind an 8-bedroom inn with technically 8 cars for 8 guests staying there. That’s not a problem for that particular inn, but when you’ve got 30+ cars parking and coming in there, it is a problem. It’s a nuisance. It’s a liability for the County. And, I’m more concerned on how these permits were approved in the first place. Mr. Ikeda, you brought up the issue of the letter from the Department of Highways. Well, not only are they not satisfied with noncompliance but also there’s other departments which I’m working on, and I’m gonna have letters to support the fact that the Gambles did not comply with the requirements for them to have these permits. So, I’m outta time, I’ve been told, so I just want you to reassess this and make sure that whatever requirements are made are complied with. As far as the community is concerned, I have talked to quite a few people. We have a gym in Honomū where all the community events are supposed to take place and do take place. We also have a main street in Honomū Town for all these tourist activities. We don’t need to set a precedence and have residential inns on the main highway, you know, to compete with Honomū Town. I’ve talked to established people in the community. The majority are not aware of any civic meetings or any community meetings, any weddings that were made there from local people. As a matter of fact, on Facebook, Mrs. Gamble doesn’t even, or the Gambles don’t even imply that it’s available for the community. So, I would really like to see, you know, I didn’t get a chance yet, I was told this was kind of a meeting, was not gonna be, addressed all the issues, but I can certainly provide you people that were born and raised in Honomū that were not even aware of all these so-called civic community meetings that are allowed under this. I think, you know, we were kind of presented a situation and they took advantage of the good faith of the Commission to get these meetings, permits approved, and they actually haven’t complied with the basic requirements, and are now trying to stretch it to create more businesses. I don’t mind them like I said having an 8-bedroom breakfast inn. That’s what that area’s suited for, but when I’ve got 30+ cars parking on my property or on the shoulder of the road there, it’s a problem. And, it’s a lot of traffic and it’s unwarranted. MIYASATO: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you. Go ahead. MADAMBA: I’m just gonna address the, the one week of Merry Monarch-- MIYASATO: Okay, please state your name and residence? MADAMBA: My name is Blanche Penny Madamba, 957 Kumukoa Street in Hilo 96720. I’m referring to the week of Merry Monarch Festival of which I was a, a part of that. I was invited. There were no charges, no fees to the sale of our memorabilia or Hawaiiana, and we only had about three or four people. And, it was an enjoyable week full of customers and I know that the Gambles, Michele—Michele and John—are reputable, that some of that provisions or requirements are very vague, so like you say, you could go through a whole list, and it will appear that you know she could have this and have weddings and whatever. So, it needs to be 11 EXHIBIT C more designed, or more let’s see appropriated for a special events so to speak. Can you have teas, luncheons, whatever, yeah, weddings, so—on that, in that respect, I’m just gonna finish up on that one week where they opened it up for people to enjoy that week and to enjoy the ambience of The Palms Cliff House. Upon that, I’m just gonna close and just say that maybe they’ll be more, you can, you know refer to more of a specific or provisions on, on the requirements for such activities at the bed and breakfast. And, I’d like to close in respectfully yours, Penny Madamba. MIYASATO: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you. You can both have a seat. PARISI: Can I ask—okay. MIYASATO: Your three minutes are up. PARISI: No? MIYASATO: No. Anyone else wishing to testify on this matter? HENKEL: I move that public testimony be closed. IKEDA: Second. MIYASATO: All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. MIYASATO: Any opposed? Okay, I’ll be closing the public testimony. Commissioners, any discussion? Commissioner Henkel. HENKEL: We’re, part of the material that we’ve got here, the transcripts from September 15, 2000, were the Commission at the time unanimously approved the SMA and the S—and the Special Use Permit, with conditions for you know everything that we’ve heard—special occasions, community meetings, town meetings, weddings. I don’t really know why we’re doing, what we’re doing here because it’s, it’s been approved. Personally, I feel that the Gambles are providing a service to the community that the County cannot or will not provide, and if they, you know, maybe take a little care in the, where people park and stuff in the future, I don’t see any problems with what they’re doing. HEAUKULANI: But that’s not really the issue at hand. That’s why I was so confused during the public testimony. I had no idea why we’re talking about streetlights and all the rest of the stuff. It’s very narrow, the issue that’s before this Commission—oh, we’re still in the morning— this morning. It’s whether the establishment of a collectible sales business upon the property is or is not permitted use allowed by Special Permit No. 1078 and Special Management Area Use 12 EXHIBIT C Permit No. 408. It’s a—I’m, I don’t have a problem that they are maybe providing a service to the community, but that’s not really the issue. HENKEL: Mr. Chair, I don’t see them as establishing a collectibles business. That’s, that was during Merry Monarch. It’s not a permanent, you know, thing that they’re putting on, to my knowledge. And, as far as you know, having commerce at town meetings or gatherings, I don’t, I don’t have a real problem with that either. It would, it would, it’d be like saying that the Girl Scouts couldn’t sell cookies at a Girl Scout Meeting as a fundraiser. HEAUKULANI: Under this SMA permit, I don’t think they could. MIYASATO: Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. You know, I, I don’t have anything against their selling, but I think they should amend the conditions that a—on their permits, and then that would make it very clear. Right now, it’s kind of hazy, and so, I kind of support the Director’s Recommendation and have them come back and make a, and amend their permits. MIYASATO: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: If they’re granted an ambiguous permit, is it their responsibility to change it? I mean, it seems to me that the problem is with the Commission in 2000, if, if indeed the permit is ambiguous. IKEDA: I don’t know. When I read the minutes, it, they, they were stated. Is this all you want and they agreed that’s all they wanted. And, so I have to—I only can go on based on what I have on the minutes. And they were asked, and they were agreeable to what they were presented or what they had asked for. I think these are all coming up later on as--I don’t fault them. I think they’re doing a good job, but I think, I still feel they should amend their conditions. DARROW: Mr. Chairman, if I can interject. I—when the warning letter was issued, it was for a specific use, the collectible sale business, and then when we received a response from the Gambles, it went into even greater detail regarding uses that are so-called considered permitted under the public and town meetings, including farmers’ markets as mentioned earlier, classes from the University of Hawai‛i, fundraising, auctions, classes, concerts, sales, and tours. So, again, the concern was that it’s like an open-ended permit that you could justify any type of use under this community and town meeting definition. HENKEL: Mr. Chair? MIYASATO: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Specifically, if we ask the Gambles are you establishing a collector’s business, I, I think their answer would be no. 13 EXHIBIT C MIYASATO: I have a comment. You know, in lines with Commissioner Ikeda, you know, I, I commend the Gambles on their efforts and community participation, and as you said, not putting up a barbed wire fence. You know, those are beautiful grounds out there that you share with the community. But, we’ve had previous applications for farmers’ markets and other applications that are specific uses, and I think we can set a bad precedence by leaving things open-ended and to your own interpretation for future applications so that’s my concern, with leaving it as it is here. Commissioners, any further discussion? If not, I’ll accept a motion. IKEDA: Okay, I’ll make the motion. I move that the Commission confirm and adopt as proposed the Planning Director’s Recommendation and findings that the establishment of a collectibles sales business upon the property is not a permitted use allowed by Special Permit No. 1078 and Special Management Area Use Permit No. 408. HENKEL: Second. MIYAMOTO: Motion by Commissioner Ikeda, seconded by Commissioner Henkel. Any discussion on the motion? Commissioner Henkel. HENKEL: Yes, I would comment that if the Gambles had conducted a special event during Merry Monarch that, that would not constitute establishing a collectibles business. MIYAMOTO: Any further discussion? Commissioner Ikeda. IKEDA: Yes, you know, like I’m saying, if we approve this, I don’t see why the Gambles couldn’t come back and amend the conditions which you know, and put it to more to their liking if they wanted to add more things and let us, you know, whether, approve it or disapprove it. MIYAMOTO: Any further discussion? You can call the roll. DARROW: With that, we’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: No. DARROW: Commissioner Heaukulani? HEAUKULANI: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman. MIYASATO: Aye. 14 EXHIBIT C DARROW: The motion does not pass, three to one. MIYASATO: Any further discussion? I guess my comment is again, you know, we’re not, we’re not denying outright the use of special—of them doing this in the future. We’re just saying they need to come and specify in a future meeting events that they would like to conduct and give the public their due opportunity to give their comments, and at that time, we could decide what events are proper and not proper, and not set a precedence of leaving an open-ended interpretation by the private owner. HENKEL: Mr. Chairman? MIYASATO: Commissioner Henkel. HENKEL: I would agree, too, that you know to keep this from happening again in the future that you might try to amend specifically your S-your Special Use Permit. IKEDA: Yes, I agree. MIYASATO: That’s what I’d like to see. I’d like to see the Gambles come back with specific uses that you could include specifically within this app—their permit. Commissioners, any further discussion? If not, I’ll accept another motion. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Excuse me, I have something. MIYASATO: Our public testimony portion has been closed. Okay, Commissioners, no—no motion to put forward. Okay— DARROW: Mr. Chairman, if I can interject, just so we can kind of understand where we go from here. With no direction or motion that passes, it appears that the Planning Department is still in the position that if we do receive complaints, similar complaints, we will have to follow up similarly as we have in the past. And, again, the Commission has recommended to the Applicants that it would, it might be good to come back for an amendment to specify those units [sic], those additional uses, but just to clarify, the Planning Department is still in a position that we would have to enforce the particular complaints that come in. Thank you. MIYASATO: Okay, Commissioners, if there’s no motion, then I guess for the recommendation should be to the Planning Department to follow up with a letter of the concerns that was put forward here today and continue working with the Gambles. DARROW: That’s the other option. We can continue, if you, if the Planning Commission feels maybe to bring this back to the Commission, maybe with additional Commissioners. It’s, that’s another option. MIYASATO: Okay, Commissioners, no motion to defer or continue, then, if not, we will leave it in the hands of the Planning Department. 15 EXHIBIT C IKEDA: Yes. DARROW: Thank you. MIYASATO: Thank you. The discussion ended at 11:24 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 16 EXHIBIT C