Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-10-18 Leeward Exh B (AMEND SPP 1247) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 18, 2018 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of RT’S SERVICE, LLC (AMEND SPP 1247) was called to order at 9:45 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Keith F. Unger presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Keith F. Unger, Nancy Carr Smith, Perry Kealoha, Michael Vitousek and Faye Yates ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Scott Church and Sonny Shimaoka ALSO PRESENT: Malia Hall, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Michael Yee (Planning Director), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And approximately twelve people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: RT’S SERVICE, LLC (AMEND SPP 1247) Application to amend Special Permit No. 1247 to allow the after-the-fact operation of a motor vehicle and motorcycle inspection station; to delete Condition No. 4 (Water Usage Calculations) and Condition No. 7 (Solid Waste Management Plan); and request a time extension to complete Condition No. 5 (Secure Final Plan Approval) and Condition No. 6 (Secure and Finalize Permits to Convert Barn to Vehicle Repair Shop). Special Permit No. 1247 was issued in 2004 to allow office and storage uses for investigative/collection services, a towing service, and short term parking for repossessed or disabled vehicles on approximately 1.647 acres of a 5.006-acre parcel in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The subject property is located along the west side of Kauakea Road, approximately 400 feet north of the Kauakea Road-Māmalahoa Highway (Highway 19) intersection, and abutting the Nani Waimea Subdivision, Pu‘ukapu Homesteads, South Kohala, Hawai‘i, TMK: (3) 6-4-017:064 (por.). UNGER: Agenda Item No. 2, Applicant RT’s Service, LLC, Amendment to Special Permit 1247. Application to amend Special Permit No. 1247 to allow the after-the-fact operation of a motor vehicle and motorcycle inspection station; to delete Condition No. 4, water usage calculations, and Condition No. 7, Solid Waste Management Plan; and request a time extension to complete Condition No. 5, Secure Final Plan Approval, and Condition No. 6, Secure and Finalize Permits to Convert Barn to Vehicle Repair Shop. Special Permit No. 1247 was issued in 2004 to allow office and storage uses for investigative/collection services, a towing service, a short-term parking for repossessed and disabled vehicles on approximately 1.647 acres of a 5.006-acre parcel in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The subject property is located along the west side of Kauakea Road, approximately 400 feet north of the Kauakea Road-Māmalahoa Highway, Highway 19, 1 EXHIBIT B intersection, and abutting the Nani Waimea Subdivision, Pu‘ukapu Homesteads, South Kohala, Hawai‘i, TMK (3) 6-4-017:portion of parcel 64. JACKSON: Thank you, Chair Unger. Can you hear me? Okay, the next item on the agenda is a request by RT’s Service, LLC to amend their Special Permit No. 1247. The subject property is shown on this slide by the red dot. It is on the east side of Waimea Town. And you can see Māmalahoa Highway running east-west through the middle of the slide, and the subject property is located in this area here. Special Permit No. 1247 was issued in 2004 to allow offices and storage uses for investigative collection services, towing service, and short-term parking for repossessed or disabled vehicles on approximately 14,000 square feet of a five-acre parcel. The permit was amended by the Planning Commission in 2010 to extend the five-year permit life, and then in 2011 and 2015, the applicant applied to amend the permit but withdrew both of those requests. And, some of you may recall last year, the applicant came to the Commission and requested to amend the permit as well. The request was to remove the permit life and have the permit run with the current owner, increase the hours of operation to 24/7, and increase the number of stored vehicles on the property from 20 to 135, as well as increase the permit area to 1.647 acres. Those amendments were approved by the Planning Commission last year. So, the applicant is currently requesting the following three amendments to the Special Permit. The first one is to allow the after-the-fact operation of a motor vehicle and motorcycle inspection station within the existing unpermitted shop. According to the applicant, the inspection station for the motor vehicles has been operating for 15 years on the property, and the applicant obtained certification from State DOT to include motorcycle inspections; however, State DOT has temporarily suspended the inspection station until the Special Permit is amended to allow its operation. The inspection station will operate from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday through Friday, by appointment only, and it would be staffed by two existing employees certified by the State as safety inspectors. The applicant anticipates between eleven to 20 motor vehicles and one to five motorcycles would be inspected at the shop per month. The second request that the applicant has is to delete Condition Nos. 4 and 7. This is related to water usage and a County solid waste management plan. The reason they’re requesting to delete No. 4 is that the applicant has removed the unpermitted bathroom from the unpermitted shop, and has indicated it will not be reinstalled. Instead, employees will use the bathroom in a nearby farm dwelling. So, based on this, the applicant has indicated that water is not needed for the Special Permit uses, and that’s the reason for deleting Condition No. 4, which required that the applicant submit water usage calculations to the Department of Water Supply to determine if a larger water meter would be needed. The reason for the request to delete No. 7 is that the County Department of Environmental Management recently approved the applicant’s updated solid waste management plan in April of this year, so that permit condition has been met. 2 EXHIBIT B And then the third request is to grant a one-year time extension to comply with Condition Nos. 5 and 6. These conditions are related to securing Final Plan Approval from the Planning Department and securing and finalizing building, electrical, and plumbing permits to convert the barn structure into a shop. The Applicant was supposed to secure these approvals and permits when the Special Permit was originally granted in 2004. When the Planning Commission amended the permit last year, Condition Nos. 5 and 6 were added to identify a specific deadline of one year to secure those permits and approvals. So the Applicant has hired an architect that was not able to complete the plans for these approvals in time, and in late July/early August, he hired a new architect who is now working on those plans, and so that’s the reason for the one-year time extension for those two conditions. The County zoning for the property is Agricultural-5 acres. It’s shown in the lighter green color. And surrounding properties are also zoned Agricultural-40 acres in the blue, and Agricultural-1 acre is the smaller lots to the west. The General Plan designation for the property is Important Agricultural Land, which is shown in the light green. And the South Kohala CDP Map shows the property – you can see it in this area here – the green areas delineate small farms and ranches. And then this is the applicant’s site plan. You can see Kauakea Road on the right side of the slide. The driveway entrance into the property is here, and then you come around, hook around the, his personal garage building, and then this is the location of the barn that’s also referred to as the shop. And then this location here is a mobile office. And then the area for the cars to be parked are in this general area to the east. This is a view of the shop, the picture on the top, and then the picture on the bottom is the mobile office building. These were taken last year. The Planning Director is recommending approving the requested amendments, but we also want to point out Condition No. 4, new Condition No. 4 in your recommendation, which would not allow the inspection station use to operate again until Final Plan Approval has been secured, and all permits required by the Building Division to convert the barn to a shop have been secured and finalized. And, the reason for that is that this barn building has been used for 15 years now, and it’s not permitted as a shop, and so for safety, health and safety reasons, we want to make sure that that gets permitted before a new use goes into that structure. I want to bring your attention to a couple other items. The Planning Director is also recommending that the Commission consider another condition. We don’t have that wording for you, but, generally, the reason that this amendment came about was from a complaint. That’s how the Planning Department became aware of the inspection station. When the permit was originally issued in 2004, there was a condition that said basically if the Planning Department receives any complaints about the operation, the matter can be referred to the Planning Commission for action. And so for several years the applicant has been operating with no complaints, which is why over the course of the amendments that have occurred the last twelve years or so, we removed that condition, but now since we did receive a complaint and that’s how we found out about the 3 EXHIBIT B inspection station, we would recommend adding a condition in again similar to that original permit condition. Basically, I can suggest some wording if the Commission is open to that. UNGER: Yeah, can you – oh, go ahead Carr Smith. CARR SMITH: Can I ask a quick question? JACKSON: Sure. CARR SMITH: What was the complaint? JACKSON: The complaint was – let’s see here – okay, we actually received three complaints, two in January of this year and one in May, and they alleged that the applicant was providing vehicle safety inspections open to the public, repairing and modifying vehicles without a license, operating an auto detailing business, storing fuel behind the office, and dumping used motor oil in the ground, and selling wrecked vehicles. The Planning Department inspectors went out and did a site inspection in, it looks like February, late February, and they confirmed that the auto detailing business had ceased, that there were no auto repairs being done, and the safety inspection activity had ceased. And, they informed the applicant that the inspection station activity can continue until such time that a Special Permit amendment is denied. So, the Department allowed the inspection station to continue while it was going through the Special Permit process at the Commission. If the Commission approves it, then it would continue; if they deny the use, then obviously it would, it would have to cease. However, since that time, the State Department of Transportation suspended the inspection station license, so I believe the applicant is not currently operating that inspection station. CARR SMITH: Does the existing Special Permit allow for him to store fuel? JACKSON: I’m going to ask the applicant to answer that. I’m thinking that when he gets the vehicles, he removes any fuel so that it won’t drip onto the ground. So, that may be a requirement of his State Solid Waste Management Permit that he stores fuel that was in the, the vehicles, but I’ll have him answer that question. CARR SMITH: Sorry, go ahead with your recommendation. JACKSON: And then the, this morning you also should have received a handout from the applicant; this is suggested language to amend Condition 4. Basically, it’s to remove the language stating that a Final Plan Approval shall be secured and the building permits finalized, and instead, saying the inspection station operation shall commence as of the date that the State DOT reinstates the Inspection Station No. 360. So, I did speak with the Planning Director, and we would be agreeable to adding that language but not removing the language that the Director is recommending for Condition 4. And that concludes my presentation. I’d be happy to answer any questions. 4 EXHIBIT B UNGER: Did you or were you going to recommend some, is this the language you— JACKSON: No, I can read— UNGER: Yeah, why don’t you— JACKSON: —the other language. UNGER: —give us some idea— JACKSON: Sure. UNGER: —of what you’re thinking. JACKSON: Okay. So, this is language being suggested by the Director to add as a new condition at the end of the permit: “If it is discovered by the Planning Department through investigation of the property or internet as a result of a complaint that additional unpermitted uses are occurring on the property, the Planning Director may initiate enforcement action and shall refer the matter to the Planning Commission for review. Advertising or other information from the internet shall constitute prima facie evidence that an unpermitted use is operating on the property. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to establish that the alleged unpermitted uses are not occurring on the property. Upon appropriate findings by the Planning Commission that the applicant is operating an unpermitted use, the Commission may either amend the permit to add the unpermitted use or revoke the permit.” UNGER: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any more questions? \[None.\] Thank you. Would the applicant please come forward? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission? MCCOLLOUGH: I do. TRIANTOS: Yes. UNGER: Thank you. Please state your name and area of residence. TRIANTOS: May I please, Commission? My name is Robert Triantos. My area is Kailua-Kona. MCCOLLOUGH: David McCollough, Kamuela. UNGER: Thank you. You may proceed. TRIANTOS: Thank you very much, Members of the Commission. First, we want to thank the Planning Department very, they’ve done a herculean job on this matter, and I know it says, they were very candid in their criticism of the long-term. We are here to rectify that. The application asks for one additional charge. The, all of the conditions of approval that have been submitted, we would agree to, except for the Condition 4 – and I’ll get into that in a moment – but the one that 5 EXHIBIT B was just added, was read to the Commission, I don’t know exactly well how the land use is going to come out, but we would agree in principle to that condition. So, we have an unpermitted use, and there is a complaint. We would honor what the, pending the investigation and everything else, we would honor the Planning Commission being able to review this permit. So, we’re not, we’re not arguing about reinstating, I guess, from back in 2004, a condition that was already there. UNGER: Okay so, so, essentially, you have read, reviewed, approved the recommendations from the Planning Department subject to discussion on item 4. TRIANTOS: Correct, and, not only read and approved but heard the one that was— UNGER: And the addition of proposed— TRIANTOS: —placed on today, right. UNGER: —condition. TRIANTOS: Proposed, proposed condition. UNGER: Thank you. TRIANTOS: Right. Now as to – and I’ll let my client address these – but as to, I think the Commission just heard that the Planning Department was willing at, from the inspector, was willing to allow the safety inspections to continue pending whether or not the Special Permit was denied or not. It hasn’t been denied yet. We’re asking, so we’re asking for it to be allowed to be continued. There is no new area, new use, and as you know, when you do a safety inspection on a motorcycle, it’s not an intensive use of the property. The inspector came out and figured that there is about 13 vehicles and/or motorcycles per month that come in. So, it’s not a high intensive use. If you noticed, the time periods for safety inspections are regulated, only eight to ten and only by appointment, so we don’t think this is a major use of the property. We would ask the Commission to look at our proposal, and it says that it would be subject only to the permission of the Department of Transportation. But, I will let my client address that, and then if the Commissioners have any questions, we’d be happy to address those. UNGER: Thank you. Go ahead. MCCOLLOUGH: So, just to clarify, my safety inspection license is not suspended; it was suspended for about 30 days when the complaint came in, and then they reinstated it and allowed me to do safety inspections again until today’s date to, for a final determination. I had been doing safety checks for 15 years, and yearly, I get inspected by the County to make sure that I’m up to par with everything they need, so I just assumed everything I was doing was correct. My bad for not including it in my special use permit. I realized that after I got my permit that I forgot to include that. And, I had a choice. Do I just don’t say anything? Do I say something? I actually did call and said I forgot to do this and they were just, without going into detail, I just left it alone as advised, and then the complaint came in. So, I had a choice. Give up my license or go through the whole process again to amend my permit, which was a big process, and having that safety 6 EXHIBIT B inspection license, it helps a lot of people, my families, everybody. So I chose to spend the money to do it again, and here we are. I wasn’t trying to do anything sneaky. I wasn’t trying to have a use that wasn’t permitted. Just that 15 years of having it and being inspected by the County every year, I didn’t think I was doing anything wrong. I now understand that I should have included that, and I wish I did when I got my permit, because it would have been so easy and I would have saved myself a lot of money. So, I just want everyone to know that I didn’t intentionally try to do anything wrong. UNGER: Okay, that’s good to know, and thank you for that explanation, but it does beg the question. I mean, is there any, is there any other, is there any other use on the property that we need to know about now so that we don’t see you next year coming before us with another amendment to the Use Permit \[sic\]. MCCOLLOUGH: No, there isn’t, and that’s why I’m not opposed to having that condition imposed on me. UNGER: Okay, all right, yeah, and that is reason why I’m sure the Commission will seriously consider the additional recommendation from the, from the Planning Department. Commissioners, comments? Questions? VITOUSEK: Sure, you know, when the original inspection took place and after the complaint, the Planning Department recommended at that time that the inspection station be allowed to continue. Is that right? Maybe a question for the planners? JACKSON: Yes, that’s common practice— VITOUSEK: Okay. JACKSON: —when we get a complaint and investigate, we give them the option to get it permitted correctly, and during that time, typically allow them to continue to operate until the Commission makes the decision. VITOUSEK: So, they have like a grace period— JACKSON: Yeah. VITOUSEK: —where they get to continue the operation until we all come in here. JACKSON: Yeah. VITOUSEK: Okay, and then question for you guys. Is it like an advertised thing that you guys are putting out there to get more traffic into the place? MCCOLLOUGH: We don’t advertise at all. VITOUSEK: Right. 7 EXHIBIT B MCCOLLOUGH: We basically cater to just a small number of people that don’t want to go to Lex Brodie’s because they don’t want to get tricked into having to buy, you know, all new brakes or new tires. VITOUSEK: Yeah. MCCOLLOUGH: My neighbor next door has a two-week wait before you can get a safety check. VITOUSEK: Yeah. MCCOLLOUGH: So, we’re not doing it for any other reason but to help the community. We’re not there to try to make any money off of them except just do their safety check. VITOUSEK: I mean, and, I know you guys operate a tow business, so I mean, is that something that you use to do safety checks on your own vehicles and— MCCOLLOUGH: So, our tow trucks require DOT stickers which are a different type of safety check— VITOUSEK: Okay. MCCOLLOUGH: —that I don’t perform. But it does allow me to do all of my family, friends— VITOUSEK: Right. MCCOLLOUGH: —and the general public that is aware of what we do. VITOUSEK: What, what percentage would you say of your business is with the inspection station? TRIANTOS: If I can, there’s only 13 individual inspections per month, so. VITOUSEK: Exactly what I’m saying; it seems like it’s a very, very, very, very low percentage of their overall business and— MCCOLLOUGH: I could tell you the exact percentage. It’s very low. VITOUSEK: —that it seems like a relatively conforming use to what the purpose of the permit is. MCCOLLOUGH: The rest of the application. VITOUSEK: Yeah. Thank you. UNGER: Commissioner Carr Smith? 8 EXHIBIT B CARR SMITH: I had a question about the auto body. Was that just something that happened briefly, and can you explain that? TRIANTOS: Detail? The detailing you were talking about? CARR SMITH: Oh, yes. It wasn’t auto body? It was auto detailing? MCCOLLOUGH: It was auto detailing that they were complaining about. CARR SMITH: Oh. MCCOLLOUGH: And what they did was they went on my son’s Instagram account where he was detailing cars, and they didn’t, they didn’t look at the dates on the pictures, which shows they were like two years old. So, they used that as evidence that he was detailing on the property which he wasn’t even doing on the actual permitted area. He was doing it at the house. CARR SMITH: Thank you. UNGER: What is the Department of Transportation going to require to reinstate your license there? MCCOLLOUGH: It’s, they didn’t suspend it, it’s reinstated. UNGER: Oh, okay. So, the inspection, oh, okay, so you’re, so you are operating now. MCCOLLOUGH: Yes. UNGER: Oh, okay. Okay. MCCOLLOUGH: And so if, if it got suspended until I was able to get Final Plan Approval— UNGER: I got it, okay. MCCOLLOUGH: —it would make no sense for me to go through all of this. CARR SMITH: I had another question. So, the barn is going to become a legal shop, right? MCCOLLOUGH: Correct. CARR SMITH: That’s what your, your plans are. MCCOLLOUGH: Correct. CARR SMITH: And then you removed the restroom from the barn, and so you’re employees to go to, I think it was called an ag building or something? Where is it? 9 EXHIBIT B MCCOLLOUGH: It’s, it’s the house on the property, which they— CARR SMITH: It’s in the house— MCCOLLOUGH: —refer to as a farm dwelling. CARR SMITH: —okay, okay, all right. So, you’re not going to put a bathroom in the shop? MCCOLLOUGH: It would be too much for us to have to do a septic system— CARR SMITH: Oh, okay. MCCOLLOUGH: —and so it’s easier just to let them use that one. CARR SMITH: Thank you. UNGER: Mr. Yee? YEE: Michael Yee, Planning Director. I want to clarify that the rub isn’t so much with the inspection station. As you heard, when there was a complaint, typical, we will allow, if we have a willing applicant to come in and wants to fix things, we’re generally okay with that. I think as we dwelt back into this and realized they had an unpermitted structure of many years, I think that’s more the issue in the Condition 4, which is trying to reach the Final Plan Approval and building, electrical, and plumbing permits. And, so, there’s a life/safety issue here. That’s what DPW and building permits, that’s their area, and without knowing that they have those permits, then there’s a question, and it’s not upon Planning to make sure that building is safe. I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily odd that in the Planning, you know, condition that we include, you know, we often say you have to be consistent with, with all laws, but given the history on this, we want it to be clear that they needed to get permits from DPW. So, I think that’s the crux of the language that I have in Number 4. You know, I guess the question to the applicant would be, if you haven’t gone in for permits for so many years, what’s going to motivate you now to do it. So, I guess that’s the question. TRIANTOS: If I may, we do have the Conditions 5 and 6— SAUER: Excuse me— HALL: Please speak into the microphone. SAUER: Thank you. TRIANTOS: We do have Conditions 5 and 6, which do require us to get the permits and to get, I’m sorry, get Final Plan Approval and then permits, just like they talked about the, what comes 10 EXHIBIT B first, the egg, or the chicken or the egg. So, we do have those conditions already in the materials, in the application, in the conditions. UNGER: And that’s a one-year extension. Is that correct? TRIANTOS: That’s correct. UNGER: Or one-year time, timeframe? TRIANTOS: That is correct. UNGER: Oh, okay, okay. Yeah, understood. VITOUSEK: So, in that case, you know, when you have this condition already in place to require the permitting of these buildings, I mean, and if the safety inspection isn’t really, you know, the major rub there, then I personally wouldn’t see a problem with allowing the inspection station to continue subject to the applicant’s proposed condition where they have to get approval from the State Department of Transportation. UNGER: Yeah, we can certainly continue that discussion once a motion gets on the table, but, but certainly up for discussion. And, any other questions for the applicant at this time? Carr Smith? Commissioner Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: I have to follow up with my question about the stored fuel. Is that a part of your permit? MCCOLLOUGH: So, we don’t store fuel, and when they came out, they confirmed that we don’t take fuel out of vehicles. CARR SMITH: All right. Very good. And, can you just tell us what your plans are timing wise on that year? Where you are in the process of submitting your plan and your intentions? MCCOLLOUGH: So, we have an architect who has actually drawn everything up, and my associate, his associate, Katherine, is handling the permit right now. We’re going through the processes of doing it. It’s, trying to do an “as built” is a lot harder than trying to get a permit for something that’s new. I didn’t know it was going to be that difficult and take that long. That’s why we’re asking for the extension. And, just so you know, I, this is the first time, when I got this last permit, that it’s been required that I permit the building. It’s never been a condition in any of the other permits. So, I, from 2004, it was never a condition that I permit it and change the usage. This is the first time it’s ever happened. VITOUSEK: Did the County know about the size of the building when they came here in 2017? And the permitting issues then? JACKSON: Yes, that’s why we recommended adding Condition 5 and 6. 11 EXHIBIT B VITOUSEK: Got you. JACKSON: When the, when we issued the permits, right, when the Planning Commission issues the permits, there’s always that, that catch-all condition that says the applicant shall comply with all regulations, and so, there must have been some misunderstanding when the permit was first issued in 2004. The assumption on the Department and, I guess, the Commission’s assumption was that the applicant was aware that the barn had to be converted in order to use it as a shop. But, when the applicant came in last year to amend the permit, it’s clear then that it was not clear, and so that’s when we added the condition saying you need to do this conversion. UNGER: Thank you. Commissioner Yates? YATES: I just wanted to know. You know, regarding the complaints from the neighbors, is it because, you know, something specific happened and made them complain about this, or are they happy with you in the community, or how do they feel? MCCOLLOUGH: So, it actually didn’t come from my neighbor. It came from another tow company that came into Waimea Town who got in trouble because they’re running illegally, and so they decided to go pick on me. YATES: So, as a whole, the community is happy that you’re there. MCCOLLOUGH: Yes. YATES: Okay. UNGER: Any other, further questions? Thank you, Applicants. Please be seated. MCCOLLOUGH: Thank you. UNGER: Pono mākou i ka noi, we need a motion. HALL: Oh, for the testimony? UNGER: Oh, I’m sorry, is there any members of the public here to testify? Seeing none, I need a motion to close public testimony. VITOUSEK: Moved. YATES: Second. UNGER: Motion by Commissioner Vitousek, second by Commissioner Yates. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. 12 EXHIBIT B UNGER: Opposed? \[None.\] Public hearing portion of this agenda item is closed. The floor is open for a motion. VITOUSEK: Let’s see, I don’t have the sheet, but I make a motion that we accept the recommendations, although I would like to include the condition that was recommended by our planners about coming back to the Commission in the event of any complaints that are verified to be inappropriate use of the property. And, I would also recommend that, that the Condition 4 be amended to indicate that the inspection station operation shall commence the date of the State Department of Transportation reinstates Inspection Station No. 360, as the applicant requests. UNGER: Do we have a second? YATES: Second. UNGER: Motion by Commissioner Vitousek, second by Commissioner Yates. Wehe ka papa no ka ke kūkākūkā, the floor is open for discussion. Maybe I’ll take a run at clarifying the motion. So, Commissioner Vitousek is making a motion to approve the applicant subject to the conditions by the Planning Department, including the additional condition that the Planning Department put onto their original conditions, and also the suggested change to item 4 as Commissioner Vitousek just explained. So, that, that is the motion on the table, and again, we’re open for discussion. Question? CARR SMITH: I’d like to look at what was quickly read to us. Is that, I guess that would be Condition 17— UNGER: Ms. Jackson, could you please re-read your Condition – what is it – 7? CARR SMITH: Or show it. Let us look at it maybe? \[Ms. Jackson handed Commissioner Carr Smith the wording.\] Thank you. This one. UNGER: Because the floor is open, I will comment, and I, I am going to vote to approve. And I would say – I understand what’s been going back and forth with the Planning Department and the applicants – I would say my opinion is going to be different, if they come back here within the year or after the year and apply again after-the-fact; but, I think there is a clear direction here and we have a clear response from the applicant on what is expected and what is not expected, I’m comfortable with the change the applicant made that is a, that is a relatively tight timeframe to get the building permit for the, without that, I would have some concerns and more comment, but as stated and as on the table, I will be voting yes. CARR SMITH: I have one comment about the condition. Is the intent of this strictly as a result of a complaint? JACKSON: Yes. 13 EXHIBIT B CARR SMITH: Is that really what you want? Just a complaint would trigger this? Or “through any investigation of the property or internet— JACKSON: Well, the Department— CARR SMITH: — or as a complaint?” JACKSON: —typically does not go out and investigate unless we receive a complaint. CARR SMITH: I would think that “or as a result of a complaint” makes more sense, but that’s fine. Thank you. UNGER: Any other comments? \[None.\] Hea inoa, roll call, please. JACKSON: Commissioner Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Kealoha? KEALOHA: Aye. JACKSON: And Chair Unger? UNGER: Aye. JACKSON: Okay, the motion carries, five-zero. UNGER: Thank you. You’ll be notified in writing by the Planning Commission. The discussion ended at 10:25 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 14 EXHIBIT B