Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc 7-8-14 min KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING July S, 2014 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua'i was called to order by Chair Kimura at 9 :06 a.m., at the Lihu` e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, in Meeting Room 2A/2B. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Jan Kimura -Vice Chair Angela Anderson Mr. John Isobe Mr. Wayne Katayama Mr. Sean Mahoney Ms. Amy Mendonca Absent and Excused: Mr. Hartwell Blake The following staff members were present: Planning Department - Michael Dahilig; Leslie Takasaki, Ka'aina Hull, Dale Cua, Kenneth Estes; Office of Boards and Commissions — Cherisse Zaima; Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued: CALL TO ORDER Chair Kimura called the meeting to order at 9:06 a.m. ROLL CALL Planning Director Michael Dahilig noted that there were six Commissioners present. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mr. Dahilig requested that due to time constraints related to General Business .Matters Item J.3 followed by J. 1 be taken up as the first item of business on the agenda with Item D. Special Order of the Day to be taken immediately afterward. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Amy Mendonca to approve the agenda as amended, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Page 1 of 16 i SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2014- 18 and Variance Permit V-2014,4 to deviate from the requirement noted in Section 8-9.2 c 1 of the Kauai Co= Code 1987 relating to the minimum lot size within the Open O) zoning district involving a 24ot subdivision of a parcel located in Moloa`a along the makai side of Kuono Road and approx. 500 ft. east of its intersection with Moloa` a Road further identified as Tax MgR Keys 4-9-014 006 & 4-9-009 ; 002 and containiniz a total area of 47,899 acres = 1liolou `a Bay Co. LLC/Cam bell-Mur h Investments. LLC. [Motion to approve: 3-3 vote 6/24/14,,.1 On the motion by Sean Mahoney and. seconded by Angela Anderson to defer the item, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Special Management Area Minor Permit SMA M -2013 -22 to accommodate commercial tour boat loading and unloading activities at Black Pot Beach Park in Hanalei (pursuant to the "Peddlers and Concessionaires" ordinance situated at the northern terminus of Weke Road further identified as Tax Map Keys 5-5-001 : 004 & 011 and containing a total land area of 6. 19 acres = County pLKgua `i. Pe bartmerst o Parks and recreation a) Commission action to appoint Commissioner Angela .Anderson to serve as Hearings Officer and conduct the contested case hearing on behalf of the Commission and provide a recommended Findings of Fact Conclusions or Law and Decision and Order for Commission entertainment. Deputy County Attorney Mauna Kea Trask, representing County of Kauai Director of Parks and Recreation Leonard A. Rapozo, Jr. , was present. Deputy County Attorney Stephen Hall, representing County of Kauai Director of Planning Michael Dahilig, was present. Michael Sheehan, adjacent land owner, was present. Carl Imparato, representing Limu Coalition and intervenor Barbara Robeson, was present. Mr. Trask stated there is no opposition to appoint Ms. Anderson as the Hearings officer, but noted that Mr. Sheehan' s attorney took issue with Mr. Nakamura presiding given that he was hired for some special counsel matters with the County unrelated to this case. Mr. Trask stated his understanding is, that the other parties do not have an objection either. Mr. Sheehan stated he would like some assurance that Ms. Anderson has not represented the County in this capacity before, and if she has he would like to have some background on cases she has handled and her experience. Ms. Anderson explained that she is currently an Page 2 of 16 attorney on Kauai, and has served as a private practice attorney for the past seven years. Her specialty is alternative dispute resolution, and she has served as an arbitrator and mediator. She currently has her own practice, and has not worked as a County Attorney. Her only professional contact with the County is as a member of the Planning Commission, Mr. Hall stated there is no objection by the Planning Department Director. Mr. Imparato stated there is no objection by Limu Coalition and Barbara Robeson, Mr. Katayama asked once the Findings of Fact is presented to the Commission, what would be Ms. Anderson' s role. Mr. Jung explained the role of the Hearings officer. The Hearings officer may either take the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and make a recommendation, or have all proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law be submitted to the full Commission. As the hearing progresses Mr. Jung will work with Ms. Anderson to determine which option to entertain. Mr. Katayam` a asked if she will have the ability to vote on the matter to which Mr. Jung replied it depends on whether she makes a recommendation or not. Mr. Katayama asked what the position of the attorneys are at this point to which Mr. Jung stated those matters will be discussed in the pre-hearing conference, which will be scheduled should the Commission take action to move forward on this item. Mr. Jung noted this is the first time a Commission member is being used as a Hearings officer, and whether or not Ms. Anderson is allowed to vote on the matter will depend on what is determined at the pre-hearing conference; four votes are required for valid action. On the motion by Amy Mendonca and seconded by Sean Mahoney to approve the appointment of Commissioner Angels Anderson as Hearings officer for this matter, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Petition for Declaratory Ruling, Tax Map Key 4-9-005 : 014 and 4-9-009 . 033 regarding Facilities Clearance forms for Additional Dwelling Units for PmVerty located inKoolau Anahola County of Kauai State of Hawaii = Jeffrey S. Lindner and Ana Marie Lindner, Deputy County Attorney Mauna Kea Trask resumed as counsel for the Commission for this item. Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung resumed as counsel for the Planning Department for this item. Attorney Tom Bush was present on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Jung reminded the Commission that at the last meeting it was requested that each of the parties submit their proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, which was submitted by both parties on July 8. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Amy Mendonea to receive the items presented, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Page 3 of 16 Mr. Kimura asked :for a motion to approve either the petitioner's or the Department' s Findings of Fact. No motion was made. Mr. Jung explained the Department's proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law show that the Department's position is that if the Commission believed the veracity of Ms. Powers ' testimony, the Department has no objection to moving forward with the ADU certificate. An additional exhibit has been included consisting of a log from the Department of Health to show there was an intake of the actual certificate. Another issue raised by the Commission was verifying whether or not payment was ever made for the building permit and the ADU clearance form; however, per Deputy Director Dee Crowell, payment is only collected upon building permit issuance. No building permit was applied. for, therefore, no payment was collected. Mr. Katayama stated three certificates were presented of which two had actions taken on them. He asked if any payments were made on those two certificates. Mr. Jung stated one was completed, but the two currently before the Commission as having lost or mislaid ADU clearance forms have never been processed for payment through the building permit approval process. Mr. Katayama asked what rate would be stated onthe certificate to which Mr. Jung replied he did not know off hand. Mr. Bush stated the point is that payments would have been made. when the building permits were applied for, which they never were because the ADU clearance forms were lost, and is. the reason they, are before the Commission. He does not feel, the issue of whether payments were made is pertinent to today' s determination, noting the evidence submitted is uncontradicted and shows the ADU clearance forms were completed. Unfortunately, they.were lost in 2008. He pointed out the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law from both the petitioners and the Department show essentially the same Decision and Order, and the only reason to not approve this would be if the Commission feels Ms. Powers testified untruthfully. Mr. Kimura stated it. was mentioned at the previous meeting that there was a flood to . which Mr. Bush replied the flood is the reason the ADU clearance forms were lost. Mr. Bush noted that at the Chair' s request the petitioner presented a subsequent permit, Exhibit 13 , for another unit obtained in 2007 after the Department began keeping copies of the original permits, which they were able to obtain copies of Unfortunately, the ADU clearance forms that were lost were granted prior to the Department's requirement to retain copies, Mr. Kimura stated he also asked for pictures of the flood damage to which Mr. Bush replied he does not recall the request. to provide pictures of the flood area, therefore, he did not seek that. Mr. Jung reminded the Commission of the Department' s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, which states the Department' s position that should the Commission find Ms. Powers' testimony to be valid they can approve the declaratory relief request. Page ,g of 16 Mr. Kimura stated if he remembers correctly it was requested that written testimony be provided by the Department of Health; and not just a log sheet. Mr. Jung replied the Department did verify that an email had been received from DOH and is included as Exhibit 12 . Mr. Bush stated the Exhibit 12 does indicate that both units were reviewed by DOH. Mr. Kimura asked to clarify whether there are two ADU permits to which Mr. Bush replied yes, there are two properties which are indicated in their proposal as Exhibits 1 and 21 Both were walked through in October 2006, and both were lost. The third form which was processed in 2007 was also lost; however, because it was processed after the Department began retaining originals, the petitioner was able to obtain a copy, which is indicated in Exhibit 13 as requested by the Commission. In response to Mr. Kimura, Mr. Bush stated in addition to Ms. Powers' testimony, they have the facilities clearance forms she provided; which are shown incomplete, but which Ms. Powers' testified to say they were walked through and presented to the different departments. Mr. Isobe commented that he has no reason to doubt Ms. Powers ' testimony, and based on information provided along with the fact that the Planning Department did not keep originals at that time he sees no reason not to approve the applicant' s request. On the motion by John Isobe and seconded by Sean Mahoney to approve the Department' s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the motion carried by unanimous voice voter Mr. Jung stated the draft Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order will be provided to the petitioners prior to submittal to the Commission by the end of the week. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Angela Anderson to approve authority for the Chair to sign off on the proposed Decision and Order to reflect the earlier motion passed unanimously by the Commission, and the Order submitted will include a proviso that the Commission found the testimony of Ms. Powers credible, and be provided to the petitioners within a week, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY Class IV Z O* ning Permit Z-IV-2014-18 and Variance Permit V=20144 to deviate from the re uirement noted in Section 8-9.2 c 1 of the Kauai County Code 1987 relating to the minimum lot size within the Open O) zoning district, involving a 2-lot subdivision of a parcel located :in Moloa`a, along the mak-al side of Kuono Road and approx 500 ft east of its intersection with Moloa` a Road; further identified as_Tax Map Keys 4-9-014 006 & 4-9-009: 0_02, and containing a total area of 47,899 acres = Moloa`a Bay Co.., LLCICarnnbell-Murrihv Investments, LLC. [Motion to approve: 3-3 vote, 6/24/14,1 Attorney Jonathan Chun, representing the applicant, stated the issue before the Commission is whether the variance is proper in this case. It is not about a future subdivision as Page 5 of 16 there are no plans for that, and there are no other plans other.than to obtain the variance. He noted the facts presented indicate the applicant meets the factual and legal requirements for the variance. He read the standards for a variance under 8-3 .3 , noting that the location, topography, size and shape of the property has been physically altered by erosion into two distinct parcels separated by the ocean and beach. The other standard for a variance tests whether the parcel is being deprived the privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity of the same district, and the report shows that almost all of the properties within the same vicinity do not meet the five acre minimum requirement of the CZO; why is this lot required to meet that requirement when no other properties in that area do. He added that more than half of the properties in that area are smaller than the proposed lot in question. The facts meet the law for the variance. Mr. Chun noted some of the other issues brought up at the last meeting are not applicable to the variance as it. is currently being proposed, but rather applicable to something that MIGHT happen in the future, .but is not being proposed at this time. Mr. Chun urged the Commission to focus on.the current issue before them. Ms. Anderson referenced Mr. Chun' s comments on the .surrounding properties being under five acres, and asked whether those properties are within the Open zoning. Mr. Chun replied yes, stating most of the district is Open or Agricultural. I*& Estes noted a map has been provided to the Commission showing Moloa` a Say, all of which is entirely in the Open zoning district. Ms. Anderson asked for some context on why there is a discrepancy between the five acres on the surrounding properties to which Mr. Dahilig replied he thinks it is a consequence of pre4972 laws prior to the zoning code being established. Mr. Jung added that many of the lots are pre-CZO kuleana lots. . Mr. Katayama asked why the Commission would agree to retroactively allow this parcel to not meet the current five acre requirement just because there are other parcels in the area that are less than five. acres, and pre-CZO, noting the . applicant has the ability to remedy the situation in several. different ways to meet the statute. Mr. Chun explained there are no other alternatives aside from the subdivision for the smaller lot because there is no way to physically join it to the larger parcel. A subdivision requires a contiguous parcel, which is not possible due to the erosion creating a section of land between the two parcels that has been claimed by the State. In response to Mr. Katayama, Mr. Chun stated the map provided does not show the current shoreline, noting that further erosion has occurred; however, he pointed out on the map the area of land that has now been claimed by the State. Mr. Kimura commented that it has been stated that there has been a lot of erosion on the property, and asked if there is any mitigation to stop that. Mr. Chun replied he does not believe the State would recommend any shoreline protection measures; they will continue losing land. Mr. Chun noted that the study on the coastal erosion rates done by the University of Hawaii are included in the application. Ms. Anderson requested someone from the County provide more explanation of the erosion study:presented. Page 6 of:16 Ms. Ruby Pap of the LJH Sea Grant College Program was present. Ms. Anderson asked in looking at the particular parcel and the habitability of this lot is it appropriate to establish this lot to have a single-family home on it looking at the erosion potential. Ms. Pap stated most of that information is contained in the memo she submitted on June 6, and explained the erosion rate she calculated for this parcel is approximately 1 . 1 feet per year. Due to the size of the smaller lot, she feels it would be very difficult to establish a home that would last its expected economic life, which is estimated at 70-100 years. She added there are high tsunami hazards in the area, and it is in the high flood zone. Mr. Kimura commented on a house in `Aiioinanu that was less than 50 years old, and washed away due to erosion. Mr. Jung referenced that particular case law regarding hardening the shoreline, which can cause more erosion in other areas. There was further discussion on that particular house, and the details of the case. Mr. Chun stated he does not foresee what happened then to happen in this particular case as it is not subject to the same circumstances. The applicant is aware of the shoreline setbacks, and should be given the opportunity to do something with his property. They are not requesting a building permit or a subdivision, they simply would like to be granted a variance on the required lot-size. Mr. Kimura stated his understanding from the report is that the parcel is eroding at over a foot a year. Mr. Dahilig added that if the applicant should apply for a building permit to construct a home on this parcel, it will come before the Department again .for a shoreline setback determination. If it is determined that a house cannot be built based on that, the applicant will need to come back before the Commission to request another variance, or prove that it is the only economically viable use for the property. However, at this time, all the applicant is requesting is a variance from the setback standards, separate and apart from the use. Ms. Anderson stated she understands it is a separate issue, but noted that their petition includes their intention to build a single-family residence. Mr. Dahilig stated that would require additional approval by this Commission if they do not meet the setback standards pursuant to whatever the shoreline requirements are at that time. Mr. Dahilig stated the Department still -stands by its recommendation in the Director' s report that the one-time subdivision requirement is being asserted, but not being determined at the present time. He clarified the Department is not waiving any night to contest the applicability of the one-time subdivision requirement should it occur in the future•, however, they do not believe it should be argued at this time as the applicant is entitled to request a subdivision since it is the first instance of the request. Mr. Jung reminded the Commission that a motion made at the last meeting to approve the permit received no valid action; however, the motion remains on the table to be voted on. Ms. Anderson stated the issue before them of separating one lot into two, with the potential of subdividing the second lot raises concerns that the creation of a coastal lot being eroded at a rate of almost 2 feet a year, has no access to watery is much smaller than the five acre Page 7 of 16 Open zoning doesn' t make sense from a planning perspective. She noted that there are adjacent lots smaller than the five acres, but this particular parcel takes up over 50 percent of the area. She. does not feel a variance is required, or proper in this particular situation. Mr. Isobe asked what the alternatives are if the Commission does not approve the variance. He pointed out that;the lot is subdivided into two distinct parcels, and questioned how that is recognized. He has been hearing that there may be alternatives, and asked what they are. Mr. Dahilig noted that this has the potential to produce appellate case precedence because of the unique nature of the facts as well as being the first instance where County laws could potentially deprive property rights. The Department has made thei recommendation to acknowledge the factual issues, but also to resolve the matter amicably without waiving their rights to avoid litigation. Mr. Dahilig pointed out that if the applicant chooses not to appeal the matter and it remains as is, the Department would have to treat the parcel as one, whole parcel. Therefore, the applicant would still be entitled to apply for a permit to construct a home on that physically separated area; denial of this request would not inhibit such action. Mr. Jung stated for clarification that the applicant could. come in to apply for a permit to construct a house as the lot currently stands now, and go through the normal protocol because even the larger lot is entitled to density. Mr. Isobe asked how they would create a larger lot when the State has bisected the property and claimed ownership. : If they do not grant the variance, how. will the owner create a lot that meets the current requirement of five acres? He referenced the rate of erosion, stating that even if the lot was five acres today, it would be less than that in a couple of years anyway. He also noted that many of the coastal homes in existence today will eventually face this same problem. Mr. Chun commented that as a practical matter, the County of Kauai has recognized there are two separate pieces of,land, and Real Property has already assigned two different tax map keys for each piece of land. Additionally, the Subdivision ordinance limits subdivisions to parcels that are contiguous, and this property is divided. Mr. Katayama asked for clarification on a section in the preliminary recommendations which state the applicant is advised that the. approval of this variance does not imply approval of subdivision or its configuration proposed herein. Mr. Dahilig replied that it would require the applicant to go through one more approval through the subdivision committee. Ms. Anderson asked to clarify that information from the tax assessment recognizes these pieces of land as one lot to which Mr. Dahilig replied the Planning Department does not recognize it as two separate parcels of record for zoning purposes; it. is treated as one lot. They do not have any control over how the tax office chooses to recogni ze valuation of the parcels because Real Property Tax is the agency that sets the TMK numbers; because of the bisecting of the lands, they saw fit to value the property as two separate pieces. Ms. Anderson asked if the pieces are currently owned by separate owners to which Mr. Chun replied yes, and has been since mid-2000s. Ms. Anderson: stated she :would be more comfortable if the applicant were. Page 8 of 16 coming before them today to subdivide the property. As it currently stands, she questions if this unique lot is created whether it will provide the economic incentive that the density is allowed; is there a way to preclude that in the conditions. Mr. Dahilig stated the question on density is valid, though they need to consider whether the applicant will agree to such a condition, but it is the prerogative of the Commission if they wish to propose that. On the motion made and seconded at the previous meeting to approve the Class IV Zoning and Variance Permit, the motion carried by roll call vote, 4 Ayes (Mendonca, Katayama, Isobe, Mahoney); 2 Nays (Anderson, Kimura) (The meeting recessed at 10:29 a.m.) (The meeting resumed at 10:48 a.m,) HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Continued Agency Hearing (None) New A eg_ncy Hearing _Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2014-20 and Use Permit U-2014= 18 to construct and overate a roadside fruit stand within a parcel located along Hanalei Plantation ,Road situated a rox. % mile east of its intersection with Lei O Pa a Road in Princeville further identified as Tax ME Key 54-004: 054, and affecting a portion of a larger parcel containing 5.058 acres= Ed Ben Dor. [Director' s Report received 6/24/ 14.] On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Angela Anderson to close agency hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Class IV Zoninp, Permit Z4V-2014-21 and Use Permit U-2014-19 to construct a farm dwelling with garage, lanai, and associated improvements on Lot 12 of the Seacliff Plantation Subdivision in Kilauea,_further identified as Tax Mat) Key 5-2-004 : 085, and containing_a total area of approx. 5,259. acres = David Wilmot & Olivia Collings,Wilmot. [Director's Report received 6/24/24.1 On the motion by Amy'Mendonca and seconded by Sean Mahoney to close agency hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Page 9 of 16 Continued Public Hearing,(None) .New Public Hearing (None) CONSENT CALENDAR Status Reports 2014 Annual Status Report (5/2/14) from Lorna Nishimitsu Esq for Project Develo ment Use Permit PDU-2008- 11 Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV 2008-12 and Use Permit U-2008- 10 involving-the develo ment of a 34-unit multi-family residential condominium pro ect and commercial com lex containing a ox. 45,000 s . ft. of commercial retail and office space, Tax May Key 2-8-002: 001 , ,K61oa, Kauai = SREI galoa LLC , (formerly Village at Koloa Town LLC. Director's Report(s) for Projects(s) Scheduled for Agency Hearin on 7/22/14 Class IV Zoninp, Permit Z-IV-2014-22 and Use Permit U-2014-20 for the installation of a 70 feet high stealth monopine tower and associated equipment on a parcel situated in Lawa`I situated along the mauka side of Koloa Road, approx. 700 ft. east of its intersection with Mana Hema Place, finother_.id_entified as Tax Map Key (4) 2-7-003 : 021 and affecting a 1,000 sq_ ft ortion of a lar er Rarcel approx. 4.8 63 3 acres in size = New Cin ular Wireless PCS dba A Class IV Zoning_Permit Z-IV-2014- 15 and Use Permit U-201444 fora development containing a mixture of commercial and multiwfamily residential units - on a parcel located along the western side of Po`i u Road in Koloa situated just north of the Koloa Estates Residential Subdivision and approx. 850 ft. from its intersection with jMaka PgRa Boulevard further identified as Tax Map Key (4) 2-6-004: 032, and containing a total area of approx. 63 ,815 sq ft Gwendolyn A. MocksinP et aL ZA-2014 79: A bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 8 Kauai County Code 1987 as amended, relating to Additional Dwelling Unit The proposal extends the sunset date of the Additional Dwelling Unit on other than residentially zone. lots and establishes an annual s recertificationreauirement and fee - .County ofKaua `i, Department offlanning Mr. Dahilig noted that the Department anticipates no quorum for the July 22, 2014 meeting; however, the meeting will be called to order and agenda items will be moved to August 12, 2014. Page 10 of 16 Shoreline Setback ActivitjDetermination ' Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR-2014-26 and Shoreline Setback Determination SSD-2014-65 for a shoreline activily determination Tax Ma &ey 4-3 -002 : 012 Waipouli, Kaua`i, ' for acceptance by the Commission= Coconut Coast Partners LP Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR-2014-27 and Shoreline Setback Determination SSD�2014-70 for a`shoreline activity determination, Tax M4p Key 2-8-019 : 019 Unit A, Po` ipu Kauai; for acceptance by the Commission = Searock Properties CA, LLC Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR-2014-28 and Shoreline Setback Determination SSD-2014-75 for a shoreline activi1y determination Tax May Key 2-9-001 : 002 K61oa, Kauai, for acceptance by the Commission = 8awailoa Development LLP. No action was taken on the Consent Calendar. EXECUTIVE SESSION (None) GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Re nest 4/9/ 14 for a time extension to com fete construction of an Additional Dwellin Unit (ADU) in Wainiha regarding Special Mana ement Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2008- 15 Wainiha Kaua` i = Daniel & Linda DeRohan. Staff Planner Dale Cua noted a correction to be made on the Director' s Report on Page 2 to the date of original Planning Commission approval that should be April 8, 2008, not 2014. Mr. Cua read a summary of the Director' s Report and recommendations into the record. (On file) Mahina and Tapuarii Laughlin, representing the applicant, were present. Ms. Laughlin explained the reason they were unable to meet the original deadline was because they needed to return to Tahiti for a family emergency. Subsequent to that, the loan they were trying to obtain never came through. Ms. Anderson asked if the current proposed deadline is a realistic timeframe to be able to complete by June 30, 2015. Ms. Laughlin replied they definitely hope so, noting the most difficult part of laying the foundation and pillars has already been completed. Page 11 of 16 Mr. Kimura asked if construction will be done by June 30, 2015 to which Ms. Laughlin replied they are already here, and questioned what other options they have; can they extend longer. Mr. Dahilig commented the Department would not have any objection should the applicant need to extend the deadline to 2016 to which Ms. ' Laughlin agreed. The Department will amend the Director' s Report to reflect 2016. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by John Isobe to approve the . extension request to June 30, 2016, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. COMMUNICATION (For Action) (None) COMMITTEE REPORTS Subdivision Subdivision Committee Vice Chair Amy Mendonca read the Subdivision Committee Report into the record. (On file) The following tentative subdivision action was approved 3 -0: S-2014-21 = Valerie Ventura/Ronald Magrin, Proposed 2-lot Boundary Adjustment The following subdivision extension request was approved 3 -0: S-2011-20 = Kukui `ula Development Co. (Hawaii) LLC; Proposed 6-lot Subdivision On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Angela Anderson to approve the Subdivision Report, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (For Action) (None) NEW BUSINESS Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2014-20 and Use Permit U-2014-18 to construct and operate a roadside fruit stand within a parcel located. along Hanalei Plantation Road situated approx. '/ mile east of its intersection with Lei O Papa Road in Princeville further identified as Tax Mau Key 5-4-004: 054, and affecting a portion of a lar er parcel containing 5 .05a acres-- Ed Ben Dor. [Director's Report received 6/24/14.1 Page 12 of 16 i Staff Planner Ka'aina Hull read a summary of the Director' s Report into the record. (On file) Applicant Ed Ben-Dor was present along with Summer Ben-Dor, and Joan Ben-Dor. Summer Ben-Dor distributed written testimony which she read aloud to the Commission. (On file) Ms. Anderson stated it was mentioned that the applicant would be making Pesto sauce, and asked what types of products other than fruits and vegetables, value-added products, are being proposed. Mr. Ben-Dor explained they have been on this road for four years, and have met with the Mayor, Beth Tokioka, and George Costa who have all visited their farm and have seen their operation: They were told they could sell cacao and sugaz cane with no permits. They have created a candy from those two products. They also grow lotus, which they use as paper plates, and for which they had obtained SMA permits to grow. They also dehydrate bananas, and have hothouses where they grow their trees: Mr. Hull read the Department' s recommendations into the record. (On file) Mr. Hull noted the applicant did object to Condition 2 which reads Because of the subject site 's location within the Open Zoning District, and in order to ensure the continued preservation of open lands on the subject property, the sale of products at the agricultural stand should be restricted to fruits and vegetables grown on the subject property and/or value-added products that were produced using agricultural goods grown on the subject property, noting the Department was careful about using the word "should" rather than "shall Mr. Hull stated the condition is just a guiding condition, not an overall requirement that they must sell products grown only on the property. Ms. Anderson proposed language combining the applicant's proposed language with the Department' s guiding language, stating she likes the idea of restricting the products to Hawaii resources. She suggested the language as read: The sale'ofproducts at agricultural stands shall be restricted to food products that contains substantial Hawaii sources and/or material and that the majority should be restricted to fruits and vegetables grown on the subject property and/or value-added products that were produced using agricultural goods grown on the subject` property. Mr. Kimura stated if they change the language now, they will have to change it for everyone else 'that comes before the Commission to which Mr. Hull stated it is a case by case situation. Mr. Kimura questioned whether it is a potential lawsuit to allow one and not the other to which Mr. Jung replied it depends on the circumstances of each individual case; but noted that Ms. Anderson's comments are consistent with State requirements. Mr. Hull stated he does not feel the Department has an objection to that condition, but noted pursuant to Hawaii State law without a special permit the applicant can only operate a Page 13 of 16 roadside agricultural stand using Hawaii-grown products. Therefore, Ms. Anderson's suggested language is already under State law. Ms. Anderson stated the Department's conditions should be consistent with State law in using shall instead of should. Mr. Dahilig noted the language presented by Ms. Anderson will be adopted into the Director' s report. Ms. Mendonca asked if that language were acceptable to the applicant to which Mr. Ben- Dor replied, yes. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Wayne Katayama to approve the Class IV Zoning Permit and Use Permit, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Class IV Zoning Permit Z-lV-2014-21 and Use Permit U-2014„-19 to construct a farm dwellin with garage, lanai and associated improvements on Lot 12 of the Seacliff Plantation Subdivision in Kilauea, further identified as Tax Map Key 5-2-004. 085 and containing, a total area of approx. . 5,259 acres = David Wilmot c& Olivia Collin s-Wilmot. irector' s Re ort received 6/24/24.1 Staff Planner Jody Galinato read a summary of the Director's report into the record. (On file) Ms. Galinato noted there was a similar application for the neighboring lot a few months ago. Mr. . Kimura asked: to clarify whether the warehouse height was 30 feet. Ms. Galinato stated the poles,were put up .based _on the finished floor, which raises it 3 '/r feet higher than the finished house. Everything else on the property will be at 25 feet. Mr. Katayama asked to clarify that the applicant submitted a farm plan, and asked what exhibit that was. Ms. Galinato replied it' s a site plan, and is shown in Exhibit F. In response to Mr. Katayama Ms. Galinato stated there. are approximately 150 fruit crop bearing and ornamental trees in total. Mr. Kimura asked,how far up the hill the house will,be to which Ms. Galinato replied it is below the ridgeline, noting there is a use permit that defines the building envelope. In response to Ms. Anderson, Ms. Galinato explained the details of the previous application she referenced. Ms. . Anderson stated the Commission had requested a status update in the previous application, and questioned why that was not a recommendation in this case. 1 Ms. Galinato stated she did not include it because she had the hoped the Commission .would have had a chance to review the farm plan. Ms. Anderson stated she also believes that the Director was going to review the potential policies on how to address these farm plans based on the previous application, and asked if there is any update on that. Mr. Dahilig stated he does not have anything presently, but it is something that can be provided at the next meeting. Page 14 of 16 Ms. Anderson asked if the Director has a recommendation regarding the absence of the status update in this application, noting she would like to maintain consistency with Commission decisions. Mr. Dahilig stated the Department would not have any objections to include that for consistency purposes. In response to Ms. Anderson, Ms. Galinato read the following Language regarding the status update: Status or implementation/maintenance of effort as laid out by the farm plan shall be submitted every five years to the Planning Director starting January 1, 2019. Laurel Loo, representing the applicant was present along with applicant Olivia Collings- Wilmot. Ms. Loo noted she and the architect met with the Mauea Neighborhood Association last month where they did a presentation and provided a copy of the application. She was informed yesterday by Beryl Blaich that a letter on behalf of KNA was being drafted stating no objections to the application. The letter was not submitted because Ms. Blaich thought today' s meeting had been cancelled. Ms. Anderson stated the Commission has been discussing the possible addition of a five year status update, and asked if the applicant had any objections to that to which Ms. Collings- Wilmot stated no. Mr. Dahilig clarified that the proposed language regarding the status report will be included in the Director' s Report as part of the recommendations, and be designated Condition 14. On the motion by Angela Anderson and seconded by Wayne Katayama to approve the Class IV Zoning Pernut and Use Permit, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. ANNOUNCEMENTS Topics for Future Meetings Mr. Dahilig reminded the Commission that there will be no quorum for the July 22 meeting, but the meeting will be opened to memorialize the no quorum call. Commissioner Mahoney will come in to declare a no quorum. The rest of the Commission members do not need to show up. The following scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m., or shortly thereafter at the Lihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha August 12, 20149 ADJOURNMENT Chair Kimura adjourned the meeting at 11 :47 a.m. Page 15 of 16 Respectfully submitted by: Cherisse Zaima Commission Support Clerk (} Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval). O Approved as amended. See minutes of meeting. Page 16 of 16