with the planning committee and with the planning committee meeting up thursday nov nineteenth two thousand and fifteen please come to order my name is dan couch i'm the chairman of the committee and before we get started i would like everybody to turn off their cell phones or turn them on silent mode because if it doesn't ring we'll ask who it was we did that we've done that a couple times and i will just make sure that we want to make sure there was no emergency or anything all right i first clear good morning and our legislative attorney greg our no money all right will get to the district offices shortly members today we have p c ten which is amending the comprehensive zoning orders relating to short term homes we've been working on it for a while so in a moment we're going to open public testimony for individuals test fighting in the chamber please sign up at the desk outside the chamber door if testifying from a remote testimony site please sign up with the district office and staff testimony will be limited to the item listed on the agenda today pursuant to the rules of the counsel each testify will be allowed to testify for up to three minutes them and i will also be allowing an additional minute to conclude testimony and we'll be using the lighting system light will be green for three minutes it will go yellow for one minute and when it turns red please and you discussion when testifying please state your name and any organization you may be representing members without objection will start open public testimony ok let's get the remote sites on and it will be welcoming ellie cochrane she's she'll be here shortly i see her walking down right first person to testify is the only one who has signed up so far is jim wayne d r ordinance i am here to humbly request that moloch along with lynne night be included in the consideration of temporary lifting the five year band so that current applicants who are desperately trying to get in compliance with this ordinance like myself can be allowed to complete the bidding process and get legal on a quick side note i have not actively rented or perhaps ever since we found out about this and we have been an application now for over getting to six months other than that i thank you for your time and from the bottom of my heart your consideration regarding molokai and happy to answer any questions thank you operating in then when you found out about this law you stopped operating and then applied that how it worked yeah i'm glad you asked i i have stopped actively taking any reservations once we found out about it now there were some people that had reserved to stay at our house years ago and booked flights and and i that would have been a mess in those other than that no one else have not taken a reservation ever since and how long is that in june beginning of june when we found out ok the time travel is a little slower to get there but once we found out i did the application immediately and i'm trying i'm just stuck a little bit ok members miss crocker thank you chair and thank you for coming all this way so just to get clear you said the prior previous bookings as you see that people booked in years you've fulfilled those i mean you continue to honor those bookings even under the you know i mean even during your application process as that was happening the rental agreements were signed over a year and a half two years ago they booked flights a long time ago  but there has not been one active new booking ever sence so so hardly anybody staying there anymore or very rarely ok i guess  next to testify is peter davis and so far he's the last one to sign up t good morning karen thank you for the opportunity to be here today i want to focus my comment today on something i heard resulting from the last time we had testimony on this issue which was a suggestion that there was a survey done in mali meadows which suggested that up to half of the people in my metals would be ok with increasing the number of permits in my meadows by backdrop i want to point out that there's about six hundred fifty homeowners in valley meadows  metals neighborhood association as of the first of the year was down to about seventy members down from a high of one hundred seventy members and of that about one half of our tenants because the organization allows tenants to be members the fact that it's about half t mix now is important in that by the bylaws the tenets are not supposed to be able to vote on anything having to do with something that could impact the property value having said all that as background there was a survey done it was sent out to all of the members of the meadows association something less than one hundred at that point they got forty four peace process the specifics of the responses were not revealed to us but on the question of whether the responders world k with increasing the number of permits in my meadows we were told that it was about an even split of the forty four responses was going to forty four if you take forty four respondents and you eliminate half of them as being tenants who should not have been able to get the survey that takes you down to a little over twenty people who responded as homeowners it was about an even split that gives you about ten or eleven people as homeowners who said they'd be ok with increasing the number of permits and meadows from that ten or eleven if you subtract the ten or eleven who want to get a permit themselves and you see that the actual number of homeowners who don't have a financial interest in this who are in favor of increasing the number and i meadows is right about zero in contrast to that there's been an electronic survey has a petition s license to be in b s we now have seventeen there are two pending applications in south mali for b and b s what a surprise they're both in mali metals other than thomas street and a little bit of a canna there is no attractive housing product to qualify for either of these permits other than a nine medals which is why we have over sixty percent of the b and b s now that's not going to change if you guys let this happen to us we're going to have over sixty percent of the s t r's that will the road and destroy the quality of our neighborhood those of us who bought our homes or didn't buy there to live in a hotel district we don't need the additional rebel housing in south now if you guys put a ban on the construction of any new short term condominiums twenty five years ago we had up five hotels and another once about to be completed there's no need for more because in housing we don't want to and we certainly don't want any more in mali meadows this conversation really should be about putting a cap on the b and b and not letting that run rampant that's supposed to increasing the s t r thank you thank you mr davis members any questions to the test prior thing none thank you thank you we have another person that signed up to testify salvator good morning everyone my name is our excel for door and i've come in front of you before and you probably see my face again and i see a lot of familiar faces here i want to tell you a little bit about what i've gone through at this point to to get a vacation rental or s t r h application we started this process over six months ago with direct communication with the planning office and we let them know that even though we hadn't used the website to advertise for a long and they worked with us for really six months was a long process an expensive process we turned in our application and again at the time i turned in my application planner on call they took my application asked me how you guys got going and warnings i got any complaints and i said no over a year ago there was an email sent to to this website that we haven't used in a long time and they said ok great they checked whatever they had to chat with my application for two months they signed a letter of notification to my neighbors and off we way then all of a sudden one day i'm checking my application on line nobody bothered to inform me was after sixty days said application closed i called up the planner who had my application i said what happened and she said oh we have evidence that you advertised your vacation rental prior and i said we talked about that at the point that i turned in my application we talked about that before i ever applied for this process and she said well based on that they're going to ban you for five years we haven't bothered to send you a letter we haven't bothered to communicate with you you will be getting that by certified mail but in the meantime quite honestly we should never take in your application you know it's like knowing what you knew you took my application you worked with the plate you still knew from the very beginning you were going to prove our application i was then told well listen don't worry about that because there's a vacation rental within five hundred feet of you you are going to be allowed to have your vacation rental anyway and you knew about that from the very beginning and she's like oh yes that's that's what the planning commission has been doing you know so i don't even know what to what to tell you about this process even though that the people in the planning department i do want to tell you have been very helpful very very friendly it's been a mysterious process it's been a tedious process it's been a process that's kind of cloaked in a kind of secrecy where i can't get a straight answer and it takes me kind of weeks i know that you guys have been doing this for quite a long time two or three years and i know that you've been dealing with the pick ation rental situation for a number of years on the grassroots level on my level as a citizen we don't understand this process until we actually get in it and when we get in there we're finding out things that we never knew we never knew about any kind of five year ban if you even place your property on facebook right that's considered advertising according to the planning office at this point i've tried to get a lot of people from the community who beneath the refused a vacation rental permit or decided not even to apply for because of what they heard about about the process i couldn't get one of them in there their terminology on why they weren't coming is something i'm not going to kind of repeat here but there's a there's a kind of little attitude on  the community level at this point of negativity that the planning to part man and whatever committees their commissions are involved are not going to work with you even if you're coming in to try to do the right thing when you find out what the right thing is so i'm asking you a to really really make changes to make this process supportive of the community thank you members any questions of the test up to testify at this point as you know my wife and i are long term meadows residents and we're asking the council to slightly increase what we consider to be the unfairly low malory meadows short term rental sub cap from the current five to a total of ten or fifteen so that we can apply for a permit and run our house we travel off island periodic lee you for her my testimony before so i'm not going to repeat  it i did want to bring something to your attention however and that has to do with the petition that's floating around trying to petition about people as sensibly posed to short term rentals but before i do that i just wanted to respond to the prior testimony dealing with the mallee metal surveys as many of you were here before the president of the now it was neighborhood association came and respond to surveys but when people do respond i think that what they say is important to listen to the and you never can get a full you know census of everyone's opinion but i do think that what this survey showed in what the president who came voluntarily in testified to explain to you what it meant was that about half of the people were not necessarily in favor of it not opposed to a small increase in the short there's a lot of breathing room there's a lot of elbow room and a lot of space for people to have these kinds of rentals as long as the number is controlled and i've never been opposed to short term i've never been you know an active advocate of short term metals but i've always been in favor of controls and strictly limiting the number a reasonable number and making sure there's adequate regulations and there were in fact some ten who are members of the association the people who are members of the association of the ones who are the most interested in the neighborhoods they're the ones who pay their annual dues and i think that what they had to say and have said is really important and that is that about half of them are not opposed to a change and i think it's a matter of balance and taking that view of people into consideration and the idea that the whole concept of the various interests is important because  there are multiple views and it's compromise and balance and just last i want to mention the the issue of this petition it's been floating around i think there's been some misrepresentations of some some of the fact that may have gotten people to sign the petition without actually knowing what's going on the petition has said and i think this is really significant in several respects some things that are really not quite accurate like for example it said the council is considering changes to the short term mental home ordinance which would dramatically change the character of our residential neighborhood well the actual fact is that there's nothing that's being considered by this committee that will result in changes in the residential character of our neighborhood there was another statement that said that the ordinance if modified will enable the polluter formation babson to own or vacation rentals in our neighborhood the fact is that there is nothing being considered here that will allow the proliferation of rentals in the wrap it up in conclusion as you know there are many voices on both sides of this issue not just the loud ones so i ask you to please keep that in mind i think very much thank you now members were going to go to the district offices on  website i think it is dated twenty four still advertising out there i don't think they had twenty four apartment but i'm i just want to say it was really kind of out when the people had to get legal some of these owners are then contacted dunning and said you know we've got all these other people out and i think we need to do something so then it kind of went out and then he was starting to look at people and more like i and sending out a letter to get legal but again it was never really spelled out like if you don't apply by this date you know you banned for five years from now all the seventies people are just getting these letters and they're banned for five years and they can't get legal and we kind of need that we only have i think one hundred eighty one places that you can actually may i can be as i am at work so i would like to see this written testimony instead recently i lost one of my part time jobs and had difficulty finding work that would allow me keep my other part time job and be flexible i was able to find work with a private homeowner and have been able to repay one of my lost income because of it there are many other most dire as it is that depend on the private homeowners for an assortment of jobs and private rental also provide alternative places to stay when all those cows and condos are filled that is especially true during our big events like the cleaning some homes and i agree with what she says i know a lot of people who depend on cleaning the homes and being king that they're getting legal and now it's just come as a surprise that members any questions of mr sanders senior non thank you miss sanders anymore ella ok thank you back in the chambers we have good morning my name is matthew gray fetch i'm a full time resident of maui meadows i've lived there for nearly five years now and have served in the maui meadows neighborhood association as vice president i'm here to say that the language of the proposed amendment with respect to the conference concentration and short term rental homes is not to my liking i think that anything that creates the opportunity for greater concentration of short term home rentals is a bad thing i think i'm in agreement with my former board member larry shapiro that we need controls and and and one of the controls we need is for regards concentration as well as total number of short term home rentals but i believe that we should all be taking a big step back and when we look at short term home rentals and not worry so much about fiddling with the numbers but getting back to the basic principle that a residential neighborhood is not a commercial zone and i think of a neighborhood the way i think of an ecology you introduce an invasive species it proliferates the way the way things are working right now is clearly this way five permits have been allotted ok those have been used up what's the next step get ten more and when those ten are used up how many more do we get next time the they are no individual short term home run toll is likely to be a problem but when we forget that we have what we are looking at is a neighborhood a residential neighborhood in order to accommodate those who would use it as a commercial zon convenience and for their profit i think we are going down the wrong path and so that is that is my strong message here  know we're hearing both sides of this question and it's been going on now for quite a while i'm really interested in your personal experience is there any personal experience that you're having with these rentals that maybe you could share well i spoke to you couple of weeks ago i believe i was mentioning that we have are the situation where we have an adjacency with the property that may be legal may not  be for many weeks of the year there's no problem for certain weeks of the year suddenly in the middle of the night and i mean like two o'clock suddenly loud music comes on now you can't really get up at two in the morning and start driving around the labyrinth of mowing meadows to see where the music is coming from it's very difficult to determine who are who are you going to get to help you know that that is that is a problem for us and it's not necessarily only a problem with adjacent properties because i don't know how well you know our neighborhood but it's very rocky and there's a lot of echoing and it is very difficult to determine often exactly what the sources of noise so as i say in the middle up and high heat you don't want to go and go around exploring and asking knocking on strangers doors i mean i think that the the efforts to increase the number of short term home rentals and then prospectively to create more because every each time we dilute thank you abraham and i'm trying to focus on your personal involvement as to why you don't think this is a good thing you know i live in a neighborhood and most of the  time it's a really nice community we don't have bad neighbors or whatever but every now and then we have the same problem and we don't have such a mentalist but we have long term mentors and they have the birthday parties and they have been a very series and they have the graduation parties and you know we put up with all of that because we all live in a community and today it's my kids into my but so i'm trying to focus on what is this real serious fact period that we need to take a look at well you're talking about  community within which you know today it's my party tomorrow it's your party and and so it goes i think that when i'm among neighbors one certainly when there's a decent neighbor one understands that and tolerate it i think that when there's a turnover every three days and you just don't know from one day to the next who you're talking to it's it's not so great ok thank you very much  you members any questions any further questions to test fire i have one so you're talking about what you would hear noises and you just not sure where it came from so how do you know it's a even a vacation rental could be a situation where you know somebody is having their party just got a little crazy well you have a point there but i would say that if you're getting if you're suddenly look you you get to know the neighbors rhythms somewhat including the exceptional things that happen when things happen that are complete outliers that made no sense that don't fit into any pattern that you know at all after after a few years you maybe are jumping to conclusions but they are fairly well founded ok thank you members any for the questions seeing on thank you mr grave it i get that right the last person this time to sign up to testify is sherry good morning council members my name is sherry been struck by the v a and i would like before i continue to go on to speak regarding what he had just mentioned i actually live next door to long term residents that are young people that come home every night they make so much noise i'm consistently calling the police at midnight and i mean they don't even try to be considerate and you know what it is people don't realize that that border doesn't live there so that tells me that he's running a business and a residential neighborhood and that's not acceptable to me either and there's not much we can do because you know what he's they're not regulated but you're trying to regulate us people that come here for a bit cation are not pro people generally they're here to see the island to explore the beauty that we have to offer here that's what's what's the difference between long term and short term but let me continue want i'm standing here before you for what i consider not only a very important to me but also what topic that i believe is important to many other property owners but to the general public i have recently been given an order to stop and desist and operating my property in front street in ohio i ask you  try to explain the entire situation without trying to alienate myself and you know the council member believe me although i don't clearly understand the contention between property owners and the council regarding short term housing rentals i would like my voice to be heard i have been banned by my county to reapply for a permit which i desperately want to happen to be in compliance with the county's by laws and regulations i have been working with your planning department to get the arduous application and order your staff has been most gracious and working with me and guide me to getting it completed i attended a council meeting where planning director will spence said that applications with extenuating still get the order of i am for all regulations on short term housing right reynolds but on my personal platform how can you punish me for wanting to make a living with my property i have lived here for thirty years my family has supported  about changes i don't know if anyone here remembers but i think back to the day polly and tourism was like let's put them there let's make a place for the tourists to stay because they didn't want him in their neighborhoods but things change you what but there was a horse and buggy people resisted that let me have automobiles snail mail they want to charge three but now we have the world is shifting and we need to go with the shift and we need to realize that small people business people need to have an option to you had you've been running this for a while yes ok back in two thousand and twelve when we passed this ordinance were you made aware of the grace period to come in and a pply for a permit yes i was and i did have the application and order and there was consistent stumbling blocks that didn't get processed so then i reapplied again because it for some reason that i don't know the dating on it was too long that they wanted me to reapply ok and then notice to mention you know unfortunately or fortunately i probably fortunately for the staff the staff is part of the administration we are  separate from the administration they are the ones that enact the laws that we make they enforce the laws that we make so just so you know that there's that separation there ok which meeting where you two you were talking about where mr spence said that he would if there were extenuating circumstances  have you explained your extenuating circumstances to mr spence i had a meeting with him and the mayor and i tried to call him several times to give me turn my call and at this point the mayor's assistant is working with m something somebody is working with you yes randy randy you're with the department but still to this day both but it's not return my call and there was a comment that was like how did you get my number when i did get how did members go to the district offices one more time and then ask anybody who wants to testify in here to sign up quickly or will be closing testimony so  just give us your name then you have to sign up in the back chair thomas proly on behalf of m b r eight and all i want to say is the department is bringing forward these twenty eight different amendments some of which you have already covered i want this committee to have the time to review these and go them in support of the into and ssion of all of these we wouldn't necessarily you know have all of the same method to reach the same goal but but our goals are aligned and if in your review you have questions for the industry i'm here happy to act as a resource one quick comment on some of the folks that you that you just heard from it is almost universal that there are folks out there who have tried to comply but have run into stumbling walks along the way those stumbling blocks some of them are part of the law some of them are their own fault they you know they they haven't been able to put their their homes into compliance and some of them bureaucracy you know they you run into that but there really are some people there who have been trying for a good period of time to try to get permits and now find themselves in the in the five year ban i don't want to talk about any specific circumstances but just to understand that that has been taking place thank you thank you mr crawley members any questions to the test fire mr bison just want to be sure that he'll be available because i will want to ask him more test of fire mad shaffer i was wondering when you were going to sign up as we this the last meeting but i have to tell you that my granddaughter convinced me i needed to come see her and by her party dresses texas i went so mad schafer back again i'd like to talk specifically about this matrix which i just received in particular the discussion it's on page seven and nineteen point sixty five point zero six zero  and i understand from the staff that the five is because it reads if there are five or more permitted short term rental operations within five hundred feet then an application will not be accepted i saw this the first time it didn't have the question mark next to it and now i understand it's a five it's a placeholder but that makes us those of us who are concerned about no short term within five hundred feet of another short term and that was the intent when we originally talked about this we didn't anticipate clustering but because there's unlimited b it's just a vacation rental with a shorter term term matt guess and yes there is an owner or manager on the property but it's the same thing it's strange used in the neighborhood the discussion about why am i here i don't have a vested interest except to protect my neighborhood and that's why time after time that's why i make people aware and  ask to be aware what could happen here so behind me are a lot of people who feel the same way i do they want to protect their neighborhood keep it residential and i think that it's really  just to know the thing again and you know i have complained about this before but this document was just made available to me it's excellent the way that the format i just had time enough to look at it quickly this should have been online last friday when the notice of the meeting went out it's not fair to the public to deprive them of the small of the public  they're worth thirty illegals operating in maryland meadows there are still some although i have to say there's been enforcement in the last two months the famous japanese house is still operating it has advertises up to twenty in the house it's still on the r p o i've been told that it has it cited and if there's a thousand dollar a day fine now running but they're still advertising in there still so my question might be what happens at what point do you say we're going to shut you down  you were helped you were in the group that helped create this bill so if you're going to be around would you be available for a resource of members who have a question of course ok thank you my members any questions seeing none thank you anybody else when i come down i'm assuming that the district office is if you have somebody you'll let me know especially seeing now and i'm hearing none members without being objection will close public testimony ok public testimonies close thank you ladies a remote sites we're going to hang up right now from the planning director translating a summary of comments from the hon a advisory committee the lanai molokai planning commission and a proposed bill to update the requirements and permitting procedures for short term mental homes pursuant to ordinance three nine four one two thousand and twelve we also have a correspondence dated november thirteenth two thousand and fifteen to the department of the corporation counsel transmitting everybody's proposed building title to bill for an ordinance amending the comprehensive zoning ordinance relating to short term mental homes that's the bill that we're going to be working off of and we just received unfortunately miss shaper we also just received this although it appears to be a copy of the initial  initial matrix that we got to our first meeting so it's just updated as to what the actions were and some of these items i don't and then there's the amendments at the end that i haven't seen yet so i'm going to take a look as in fact members if you're if you would like a few minutes to go through these the green section i can give we can recess for about five minutes so you have a chance to take a look at see what those proposals are it is by so is your intent to go through all of the changes one by one because if you are i don't need to read it but if you're not going to and i want to read you know we're going to go through i mean the stuff the says current firm with counsel if necessary things like that so most of these we're not going to go through the ones that they have questions the department has questions we're going to go through and miss flamm are going to start off difference between the yellow and green yellow is the things we still haven't decided on that's a good question there's no methodology to it i just chose the yellow is the one for us that have already been there were ok and i agree that that would be nice to have gotten this right a little earlier we got it i think last late last night something like that so i was up late yes i did notice the photocopying the pages are a little different but it's all there you'll see on the backside of this post be they actually the last page  but these are the same ones that were handed out at the last meeting it's the same stuff we had last m mclean gene is going to delegate this one to me on the first page in yellow relating to the agricultural district this is a straightforward policy call for the council to make  how you wish for short term rental homes to be treated in the agricultural district the question arises because we're never certain what state law is going to allow or restrict our right now state law would require a state special use permit so the question is what do we want to see on the county level if and again those go to the planning commission  gave me some information that in the first year we had forty two states specially use permits go before the planning commission all of those had fully implemented farm plans and the commission approved every single one the commission has denied a few s t r h permits not the special use permit relating to ag but the s t r h permits that got bumped to the commission for whatever reason bumped into the commission they have denied a few of those but the state special use permit when you're just looking at ag when they have a fully implemented farm plan those have all been approved and so in talking through this more  the department feels that s t r reaches could be considered excessive uses in the county ag district meaning that it doesn't need a county level permit relating to ag if state law continues to require that state's fisheries permit the state special use permit would still be required if for some reason state law changes in the future to allow it then it would be allowed administratively with the  terry permit we'd like to add the requirement provided that an approved farm plan has been fully implemented and is consistent with five so that's what our recommendation is for that first item is the option one as an accessory use today that would mean on the county as far as county egg zoning is concerned it's allowed as an excess reuse state law still requires that states use permit if for some  that the state law allows short term and all use if we have an ad tourism ordinance and that's what we're working on so potentially have we if that passes out of mr dismas committee then then you would need a special use permit that's correct we would still like to see because it we're talking about the county agricultural district and we would like to see nonetheless that requirement commercial structures had a farm plan requirement to it as well and i think that's a good idea i also would like to see a little bit as the same language that we used in the commercial agriculture structure bill and as the permits would come up for renewal we would want to see evidence that that farm plan continues to be implemented and if it's not then we would withhold renewal until we see that the farm plan or that could be grounds for revocation if the fund fails to be implemented we have a complaint we have a reason to investigate you ok members any other comments on that it's the chairs recommendation that we go with option one that it's an accessory use within a implemented farm plan had okayed the caretaker provision and at the time corps council had recommended that we use the phrase if allowed by state law when reviewing the bill again for legality court counsel decided that it read better if it were to say item above which starts actually on the page before  yeah properties subject to a c p r clarifies that lot subject to a condominium property regime are treated as a single lot less given one permit this is a situation where we've got in a couple places i just want to remind members that there are some watts in several districts that are zoned actually apart but they've been c p r and they have two single family homes on them which are allowed under apartment and the way the law reads now only one per one per property is allowed so that  would negate the other person from being able to do a short term mental if they wanted at the same time they'd have to go through all the other procedures so the thought was and especially in mis one location that was built for short term and it was all single family homes the international colony club and it is one lot one property with condominium ice so it gets messy there right now the way the law stands only one of those homes with the ok from all the other homes could be short term and on the whole property was built to be a short term metal so that's why one of the reasons why  the recommendation is to just say per t m k including the colon last for did just the  r is going to be within the five hundred foot distance anyway right so i'm not sure what we're solving by allowing it in that kind of a situation what current do to us as if there's one and then the other one within five hundred foot applies it goes to the planning commission to take a look to see if it's a valid yeah so if the loss stays the same they wouldn't be allowed to apply  you well provided the five hundred foot rule and all that other stuff at this point but you'd have to go through all the other  one or two problems like international colony club which we agree does need to be resolved we might be creating many more problems we would need to carefully go through the bill to see what other provisions would or would not apply for example there's specific language about ownership but with condominium properties you're going to have common areas that are owned by all parties so it becomes a challenge to figure out who the owners are and so who would meet the crate the ownership criteria of a natural person only being able to have one permit when the properties technically jointly owned by two people and it also does allow this would allow greater density than the bill originally contemplated i  think we can get creative and try to find a better solution for international colony club which we do agree needs to be achieved but we don't think that this  they're fairly far apart to that's where their request has come from as well how would we handle  that i don't i don't know if a variance would be an option for that or a conditional permit which is much more cumbersome than we want to see it in areas like that but again it's a solution could be to look at the apartment districts for example and may be language specific to the apartment districts rather than like the  district where we receive a lot of condominium is the center even residential districts where you might not want to see that kind of density in the apartment districts you have that kind of density you expect that kind of density so maybe for the apartment districts they could be treated differently but to just have it be a blanket provision that each c p r unit is in is eligible for a permit it goes pretty far do you have any statistics on how many you have how many applications you've received that said oh we're part of a c p r and somebody else already has because i think i got a letter just showed up on my desk this morning that says they there to to parse i mean to see p r s on the same parcel and one of them wants to apply the other ones are perennial legally and so there is there is subject to the ban which spills over to the owner of the one that wants to do it right it isn't operating at all yes see how it gets a little crazy so how do you how do you have a well it's easy for us to say you get one and if you're not in noncompliance then you're banned i mean that's that's something for joint owners of a property to reconcile sorry that's something for joint owners of a property to reconcile among themselves r it's there is there's a general understanding that c p r is as distinct as subdivision but it's not it's an ownership mechanism it would be the same as if two people one in fifty fifty to purchase a property together and then had some sort of falling out it's not for us to reconcile those differences the c p r goes a step further than just a fifty fifty under ship it  spells out your limited common elements and your common elements but nonetheless those are those are entities jointly responsible for the ownership of that property and if they're not getting along or if  at cross purposes that it's not for the planning department to reconcile or to want to venture into and if they want to if they would want to be a separate move then they can subdivided correct go through or go through completely different issues here one is the issue of some existing large properties one is molokai beach cottages and the other one is international colony club both of these properties having  vacation rental for thirty and fifty years now and we now realize hopes they can't under the current conditions so this would be one solution for both of those now as we as the deputy director described we could come up with some other solution for those guys but then there's a separate issue altogether and the other issue altogether are these residential condominium properties and i understand the idea that these guys are jointly holding the the land but most of them are set up with limited common areas this areas mine that area is yours and it just doesn't seem fair to say to one of the owners you're responsible for whatever that other owner does on his property over there giving each of them their own permit makes more sense there is no greater density then that would be created because  not dictated by this permit what's built there is dictated by what the zoning law allowed and what you know there at the building permits they were able to get in the apartment district you might have two full size houses built there and each house has its own limited common areas and they they've separated it oftentimes they've put fences up between the properties and so forth they well defined one house versus the other in the agricultural district which is the one where we're most familiar with that there would be the first farm and the second farm dwelling now jointly they're responsible to make sure that the agricultural uses are taking place on that property but beyond that what happens in one house we want to hold that owner responsible for what happens in the other house we don't want to hold the first owner responsible for that's why it's imperative that each of these people are able to get their own permit and be responsible for their own permit and the department could revoke a permit from one individual because of noncompliance or or something like that while the other individuals permit goes on just doesn't make any sense to say to someone you're responsible for what your neighbor department or whatever to one person to be responsible for what the other person's doing if that was the if that were the case why when they sub the buy as opposed to be condominium eyes that it seems like they're trying to get a wound but it might be a very onerous process by not subdividing by just saying oh it will c p r subdividing wouldn't be an option in the agricultural district where you have a two acre lot and two acres was the minimum and they have you know condominium eyes that lot so it wouldn't be an option for many applicants it might be an option in some other cases but you're you're now talking about a different issue altogether you know when we when we were talking at the use of these properties it making each owner responsible for his own use just seems to make more sense than saying the you know that we're going to make you jointly responsible for both but subdivision would not be a solution in many cases and i can tell you up to this point there have been situations where applicants have come in and the second owner doesn't want to sign on to the permit because the way it's done now both have to be joint applicants so one applicant says i want to use my house for short term rental the other guy is told you have to be a co applicant to what he does and that person says i want to be a collapse look into what he does i don't want to sign a form that says everything he submitted to you is true by fact and that i'm responsible for it and then let's say the five year ban comes down or and let's say that it affects future owners of the property now you're telling the guy who had nothing to do with it whatsoever we're now going to ban you and future purchases or of of your property because of what you know you your condominium me did just i understand there are some concerns but it makes so much more sense to keep them separate and while some in some cases a subdivision might be possible in most cases that i'm aware of it would not be possible members of the other questions miss schaefer and then i want to have the department comment on both asked my friend realtor if he was aware of the number but we think it's the re and so how would that be handled there they can't they cannot do a subdivision  assuming then they would have to go through the first one gets the if knowledge within five hundred feet gets the pass the second and third if they wanted to do it would have to do the five hundred foot rule ok there to split to two  we're not supportive of this change as a as a blanket amendment to apply to all properties i was just discussing with gin what kind of legal issue there could be if we were to owners of that property and we are giving a permit when one of those owners objects to that permit i don't know what that would mean for the county if someone applies for a permit today let's but even i reach permit you have you you have a property that's owned by several family members all of the owners have to consent to the permit being issued now with  they are joint owners of that property we would want the consent of the owners of both owners in one of the examples you gave it sounds like you we wouldn't get consent that's something we would have to have because i don't lawfully you know one of those joint owners could certainly have an issue with the county issuing a permit for that property for use that that person does not want conducted on their property so that's a question that we might want to talk through some more the other is that this is potentially doubling tripling quadrupling the s to reach density on a property right now you're allowed six bedrooms per lot so if you have a house in an ohana you get six bedrooms per lot now under this oh wow let's condominium eyes then we could get six bedrooms in the house not that you have an ohana was expect rooms but you could get six bedrooms in ohana or in the second dwelling if it's two full sized welling's whereas today that's an c p r property you get six bedrooms is this going to encourage condominium izing to double or even more so increase your density and it does also create in a sense and an unfair advantage to those properties that have been c p r that they can get to permits and more bedrooms r and that just doesn't seem to be fair i will have a question from a missile on a regarding the questions that miss mclean had but let me ask you this first either or council or department on a c p r that because of the size or whatever they're allowed to full size homes how is a building permit treated both owners have to sign on the to allow for the building permit is a building permit treated separately or jointly i don't know ok well i can say that for the department if we use you a notice of warning or a notice a violation for a property for any for any violation it gets sent to all owners promoting a use versus a permitting a building so that might be that they had their might there might be a difference because in the c p r documents it would spell out who's in title to do what on the property how much land you have there could be requirements about your building height or your building footprint just laying out the agreement between the parties as to how the property collectively can be used so it might not be as much of an issue when it comes to something as basic as building the home this goes beyond that and and that is what we look for for any type of application where there is joint ownership because we have faced situations where one owner has submitted a permit and a no other owner or another member of that family has objected and what happens in that particular case of them would be the same that ms mclean put up is that what happens if we were to do this and say ok each condominium what we can can get a permit and she says one owner says i don't want the other guy to have a permit and it's on a lot that i have control over how would that work and i am guessing you don't have to look up some stuff and it is time for a mid morning break let's give you a chance to do some research on that question hopefully and members if we take ten minutes we'll get we'll be able to get back here and finish this up or move on anyway so this meeting is with the planning committee meeting of thursday november nineteenth please come back to order to members that i discussed with corp counsel and it's a little bit more of a detailed issue than she could come up with right away so it looks like that puts us on page four ok the next three i'm going to talk about are really just cleaning up some language and i think we've gone through some of these they didn't get picked up in the new copy of the bill sometimes when there's so many changes it's hard to get exactly what all the new ones are so i talked with council services they want me just to run through real quickly with you we'll have them on the record in today's minute so dealing with permit amendments we have provided some very simple language in may and then we provided some clarifying language  later and i just want to read that to you and this is what we'd like to substitute for that section substantial amendments to a permit including but not limited to an increase in the number of bedrooms or dwellings used or in addition of a new development to the permit shall be processed in the same manner as the initial application so it gives a little more clarity is just saying that amendments are processed the same major amendments that's the that's what we changed it to yeah yeah so it's not if think you the next one is on the next page page five at the very top this is the language we had originally tucked in there is part of our policy and that had to deal with ninety days prior to the expiration date we were requiring people to submit their renewal application we discuss this a lot in the department it's not only this permit but we have other permits and we've come to realize that in putting that ninety days shall mandatory  filing it changes the expiration date so what we've done is we've changed the language so that you have to submit it within ninety days however this is a permit condition that goes on every permit so we will just keep it on the permit as a condition we don't need to she typed that kind of language into the law with not renewing had discussions with you realized boy you know we really need to be much more clear in our language so we added an entire new section called non renewals and we mirrored it with the replication procedures and we spent a lot of time in july talking about  it we did not take out that little paragraph here that we later turned into entire section and reading it again and talking with the council services we think it's ok to take this out because the exact same thing is in that entire new section that we put in that triggered a discussion which led to this becoming an entire new section where many more things were spelled out in a much more clear manner we can leave it in it doesn't really change anything it i ok so you're asking to remove that and it's going to happen somewhere else down the line it already did we discussed it a lie so it's already in the bill and adopt it in so you want to remove it from here it just makes more sense to keep all the non renewal  we that we gave you this time the table had some of these are kind of long so the table just kind of a summary of the changes the first one that we're dealing with deals with  the triggers for planning commission so it would be under number two amendments and then just for clarity the second page the other part of it is on the back of the first page so the first thing that we're looking at and we put a question mark on the table at the number just because it's a policy call with council we're looking at a density cap we didn't when we first passed the bill we weren't looking so far down that down the road we might see eight or or more come in within five hundred feet we were kind of surprised when that started happening what we've come to find out there are concentrations of areas where you're going to get multiple ones  is it ok to set it to commission commission started discussing it what point do we just put a cap on it why do we have to see it when it's the tenth is that ok it takes a lot of time with that so we're just asking you to take a look and make a policy call the areas where we're seeing the most concentrations right now i don't know if this will change in the future hina and we get a lot of neighbor opposition in the hina pili lot concentrated right within one area and then and then also mccann a kind of down by the maori prints you do have a large number right there so over time those are going to be kind of the areas where we're going to see them there are some other changes in this but maybe it's easier just to take basically an application will not be accepted any comments from the members mr white your way before we get the chair the green says nineteen point six five point zero change i'm looking at to look at what i thought was the amended bill oh the the amended bill that you have is only what's already well known so i you know ok good i didn't i thought to throw in our department amendments would be a little too confusing so the bill that you have is everything that was okayed up until this point ok but i don't see a recommended change in the green if it's on the second you got a second thing with that is oh you know i didn't put in that because it's a two page amendment to i just i gave a summary at some of the bigger issues and then the actual amendment itself is the handout to  so it says basically however no application shall be accepted by the department when there are five or more permitted short term outcomes on lots within five hundred feet of the proposed short term any questions on that mr way and  this doesn't have anything to do with the need to go to the planning department or planning commission if you're within the five after they've all gone through if there are if there are five in this area that have all gone through whatever five in case one of these people drops out i want to get my foot in the doors i want to be the one the first one in line to be the same way we handle the mountain meadows cat is that you have to wait for an opening to apply so we just don't accept there's not we don't take waiting lists we don't we don't create which time to process couldn't we have somebody ready to go just in case an alternate or whatever hick you want to call it at least one i'm worried about time you know you heard this story short of these people and we're talking years and years and years so if you wait until you have the vacancy and then you announce it  process is pretty quick if it's administrative you're looking at ninety days or l that's they got a commission and then it could take a little bit longer the other thing is circumstances could have changed i don't know that we would want to have an application that was outdated we probably want something that was new and fresh door even if your application is stale at some day it should still be you should still be given the right to updated when the opportunity presents itself the other oh i didn't know you were doing that i'm sorry  the other concern that i have is that there are areas where i think short term rentals are far more prevalent and far more of just and somewhat accepted so i have no problem limiting you know limiting the number and and for residential areas but oceanfront those in the majority of parcels there are very very high priced the ones across the street should  victor may know and then mr guzman well you know good boy agree with having some people ready to go do we start and let's remember my son and mr y i know that when we started that this exactly what we were trying to do is have a priority list so and whatever was available you know it was there and it grew to to to to to to to how was it scuse me and so i'm very concerned that we marching in some similar path and now what it's ten five eight twenty fifty i don't know you know and then where do we stop you know and who first come first serve and then when we go to a first come first serve is that person still the owner of the property is that person the still be wanting to do it so again exactly where you're coming from but i'm concerned that we open up pandora's box for another challenge in the future i really don't have a quick answer to these questions i guess we've been pandering them for so long but and also the final thing i'll say where there is opportunities and there are are areas for which this fits better than somewhere else like for example would this fit in why google heights would defeat somewhere else in any area in any particular category ok so that's your thoughts on the list part but what about the limit i'd you know i'm one of those and then some gentlemen as i walk back in said all long term rentals can be just as bad as truck terminals grant you we have a very very short supply in fact no supply of rentals right now because the market has we've built and so the market has shrunk so badly i'm really scared in this one i'm really really scared to try to see i want long term i only want short term i know there's rental needs out there and long term is part of the equation ok so i 'm i'm comfortable with the limits we have now i'm afraid to just open up the open up in any area might hurt some people that are living there and my manager is a classic example that that's one of the examples i rentals versus residential and sometimes it is better that's some ways to keep it condensed in concentrated in cities that have red light districts and stuff but i'm not comparison it to that but at least everybody knows where that district is for that zone to area so if we do have high concentration and some of that identified area why don't we you know basically put them in that area or we can change the language there to say except for and identify exactly where these high concentration and allow that those sections to have more than five but then that said you know any other area when it would be held to this standard that you have here before us so  i'm kind of like in the middle you know like high bred some sort of hybrid and so we kind of like when i remember a bill where we wanted to isolate honna and i was trying to pinpoint the exact locations where it would most likely affect certain areas so we did it by mapping and basically drafted an ordinance that identified which area was exempt specifically not just one area all together but we had to be more detail and so if you think there's a way to draft it where you can isolate these type of condensed areas and exempt them but then that be it you know no other area to have that type of exemption all other areas would be held to the standard that we have before us thank you so kind of like a resort overly yeah i know we there's been a talk about that a lot actually this is a resort district so right in the resort district and we can maintain them all right then there's no limit to the number next to each other is that what you're yeah yeah yeah ok and even i'm not  street you know from well sure to whatever to to what street you know and then kind of make your own little boundary my concern for instance i have two areas in my district halma street actually three in the mckenna you know they're there linear all along the oceanfront and they're in high end homes the question is if you limit this to five you have one two three four five and six comes right next door or one house down do you count the you know there's five in this five within five hundred feet is it within five hundred feet of that house or is that you talking about the cluster or if if house number one over here is outside of five hundred feet from house number six then this now becomes house number five in a new grouping oh no that's a good question we're only looking at the application comes in and we look at that particular five hundred feet we're not going to be doing any kind of proactive so house number six which is which is four there's only four of them within five hundred feet yet there's another one right outside and that's the cluster of five that wouldn't hurt it we would look at it that way we would look at it only from the property itself and that five hundred foot so i think you know just just to kind of clarify more so if if you're in if we create this like condenses owned area for you know all these type of t v ours and it was more than five in one area and then it would go to commission and have them that it out  if it's not within that area then we would say hey no application would be accepted if there's more than five so it wouldn't even go to the right right right so you just so there is a vetting process there is a  you know a board or a commission that would say ok you know that that six the one shouldn't get it or if the six one should get it you know it depends on so you're saying if there's more if the six one comes in then  application at all or should that all of us believe it's in that condensed area right that we zone i don't know that we kind of cap and then that would that would allow public employees or at least the vetting process for the commission to look at if they're going to be able to allow for more than the five but then outside of it outside of that zone or area or residential if it's more than five they don't even bother applying because it says here no application would be accepted if there is more than  i think another thing day we've talked about before and we want to keep it in mind when we're deciding about these areas that we might make exceptions for whatever was brought up and it was about value sure that we protect areas where property values are lower therefore windows are lower therefore we might be impacting the rental market in the long term mental market you know because people can afford to rent those homes there's a real big difference between you know holistic can rent for fifteen hundred two thousand a month and one day it's going to rent for five thousand dollars a night so you know i move we're worried about the lower end and i so we're going to be careful with that but you know this whole a deal rentals i'm housing it's becoming very interesting as we proceed with this crisis about housing i'm learning an awful lot about three weeks ago i was asked to help find housing for a student who is coming to a foreign student and i put it on facebook in less than a half an hour i had five opportunities so there properties  there but it's what the landlords are willing to take into their homes or who they're willing to rent to and i get a lot of pushback with and i get a lot of pushback  with people who think that the section eight rental reimbursement is too low and then the employers i mean that of owners of course are dealing with people skipping damage and whatever so because housing market is really complicated it isn't simply we don't have housing why don't we have posing do we have it why is it not being offered it's a very complicated thank you chair we thought it would be a good idea to give a little bit more background on this most of the impetus for this came from the planning commission because right now if there's a certain density in the area the permits get bumped up and even in areas like that we would think to be over that you know a long front street that's a logical place to have density we get opposition and so the planning denied permits in those circumstances and some of those are getting appealed because those applicants say you know three other in this area got approved why not me what makes me that extra drop of water that finally makes the barrel overflow what about the other groups that were in there before me why not and so it's difficult for the planning commission to feel like they're hearing input from the community that we have enough in this area already it's changing the character of the neighborhood police say no and they say no and that gets appealed and it could potentially be successful and so now what did they do when did they say no so they were asking you know these permits get bumped to them to determine will they be detrimental impact on the neighborhood and their e in their judgment in some cases have said we're denying it because we think that would be detrimental and so this amendment would be a policy saying no at some point there's a limit and understandably there are certainly there are areas where you you might have a greater density than this so maybe you want to increase that number from five to a higher number but it came from the commission who are the ones who are saying no and are just saying come on why are these going to keep coming to us when certainly they shouldn't even be accepted in the first place their head just like you put caps on the community plan regions and you put caps on mowing meadows this is a similar kind of thing that there is at some point there's too much density and even if you have one neighbor who is the lone guy who hasn't done it and he jacks you know the planning commission is listening to those people and they're getting challenged on those denials so that's where this that's where this came from and five might not be the right number but but that's the idea that even in the  places everyone would think oh sure you know along front street of course they've been denying applicants in that area and getting challenged on th they giving examples of how we're changing the character the neighborhood and if so that's our first the very first thing and they're saying it should be shall not change the character of the neighborhood and that's the reason for the commission's denial yet they give examples of you know partying or how beach access is being being used or you know people on the beach that used to be more local people and everybody knew everybody and now they are you know visitors that don't have the same respect for the neighbors and you know it could be the case of a few bad apple visitors  but nonetheless you hear from long term residents or owners who don't necessarily know how to file a complaint but then they get a notice saying oh i'm applying for a vacation rental and they realize oh this is my opportunity to come out and say you know enough of this it's a difficult thing for people to do to come up and express their opposition or we get letters  as a result of it not just in person testimony but opposition letters and they they describe their concerns but this is before a permit gets issue so you know the process is working that in the in consideration of an application here they're looking at potential impacts to the neighborhood and say you need to be a little closer to the mark  sorry the the process is working that neighbors are being notified and have their opportunity to to express their support or their their opposition and the commission is listening to those who are opposed to leaving in that community input it could be detrimental to the neighborhood but and that's part of the process great you know that's what the planning commission respect him you know i been very favorable to trying to amanda and make this short term rentals fair and accessible to those who do really want to do it and section eight is not the only pushback you know it's just ridiculous how rains have escalated because there is nothing out there escalated homes that were going for twelve hundred nala going for two thousand twenty five hundred and i'm not exaggerating when i get the calls i get the calls i'm having working people that are being pushed out there's no place to go as not to do is short term used to chair i don't think it's anything to do wit it's a lack of affordable first of all thought about holmes ownership and then did trickles down to the next the affordable rental and my neighborhood has been sold out left and right i drive on every street in this neighborhood now in white google and i see for sale signs all over the place and those are going for five hundred thousand i checked the listings homes are going for five hundred thousand anyhow it's not what we need to kind of what kind of solution can you help us with because there's got to be some compromise somewhere do we want to mow medals who has five to go to ten and maybe that's it but you know the problem w three years from now five years from now some of those will come in and say maybe we need to increase it at that point and maybe you and i and others are not going to be here to the next group understand what's happening you know i game there's no point but i guess what i'm looking for is what is the bass compromise that we could come up with to move this on because we've been here and we've discussed this five six times already so i'm looking for some some guidance if that's you know i know what you put believing and maybe i don't remember correctly but i think there are others who are here wish who were here with me and we remember we were trying to involve the planning commission in cases that were really needed to be heard the entire case and the opportunity for the presenter to come and present and for the neighbors to be notified in common comment and whatever and that was going on in council and it was taking up all of our agendas we c anything done and so we said well maybe the planning commission could help us by reviewing these things one by one on a case by case basis and making a decision based on the merits of the individual situation well no we're trying to narrow it down so there's even less discussion you know you don't even get in the door because we have five i'm beginning to wonder if the solution to all of this instead of trying to find a number because you know number is arbitrary you say five six s omebody else is seven what about fifteen i mean you know what i mean could it be the opposition by the neighbors or by the people around would be more of the deciding factor then a specific number because to me if you closing problems in your neighborhood that are identified and if you can describe it as you can tell it's very difficult when you ask people to say exactly what is your problem they even have a hard time explaining but you know that what i'm worried about i don't want to ruin our neighborhoods and if somebody is going to do that or could people we can prove that the problem i don't have any problem with saying sorry can't do that but are number six even though you're not a problem at all and i have a hard time with that as cochran thank you chair and you know the more and more our initially just with this whole short term or just runnels in residential areas period it was always very difficult for me and the whole b and b thing finally was able to digest that and be ok with that so this is beyond here we are you know doing all kinds of different uses in residential areas and now here we have been issues so you know for me i think the character of law in a town has changed way beyond this ever came to light you know my physical address in lyon is seven sixty four front street which is right there in the military and across from the sea wall i grew up that is where i grew up so those days and across there was my other friends i grew up where we lived in la in a town itself and so now you see these homes you know all along the shoreline there were once plantation little fish you know families and you still have the there and it's just the characters change period so now you have these competing uses and people who want their investments to grow and to have return on these investments and it's a perfect area for visitors intransient accommodations and what have you i see that but you know yeah there's needs to be a cap and there needs to be a stop somewhere it can't just continue on and on and you know it's go that says if you cross this it's a no and if you're here then it's a yes and we can vet it through in a very open fair manner and you know yeah there's no easy answer to all this but you know i think the idea and i do have an issue i have a concern in regards to taking a long term rentals but i also know the multimillion dollar lots where those will never be regardless so i think it's great opportunity for these people to have this family that lived there but outside family decided saw dollar signs and they had to sell the property in order to pay their share to their cousin wherever they were from and now it's become this rental which unfortunately so here they are applying for these and it's not going to be any of a used but that because of the way it was built so perhaps it started from you know from permitting the building permit stage to begin with so i don't you know i  a quicker solution just hearing the discussion and this is why we wanted to put this issue out there to lay you know what the planning commissions are facing we're comfortable just withdrawing this altogether it sounds like there is support for there to be dense arrest here each uses in some areas and that can only happen if these applications go through that there is also support for drawing the line when there's a reason for the line to be drawn and that's what the commission is there for it might be that when some of these appeals play all the way out  if it does turn out that there are issues with how this decision making is going that we do come back to you with something like this to say you know the planning commission is exercising the authority you've given them and this has what this is why that's been problematic those haven't played all the way out yet so we can leave the process as it is and then if there are changes that we would like to see later on once won went to court and the court did it to the planning commission for because there were some procedural issues that the court felt needed to be needed to go through commission the application to go through commission again there have been a couple of requests for reconsideration or recession that the commissions that the commission has had to consider and one of those they revisit it hasn't been a final disposition on that yet the other one they chose not to revisit it and so the denial stance what that applicant is going to do at this point we don't know yet ok members that that's an interesting and very plausible solution let me toss something else out at you i think part of the issue is that there's a lot of these going to the planning commission because of the five hundred foot rule which is understandable and they're you know already they're sort of biased in one direction because they've sent a letter saying no more so you know that ha s and since that letters come out have they passed any yes they have they have approved since that letter yes ok so then that bias is not quite there oh wait no no they've approved or not approved since i think we got it last may or something we we would have to we would have to let since the whole idea is character of the neighborhood and i understand ok so many medals doesn't want a lot and that's very understandable which is pretty much the character of that neighborhood right or i don't know how many houses in on that street and what's the story on that one though this is an appeal where you would think would be a resort area at very high end houses you're looking at an average of about six million we have the seventy coming in within five hundred feet the commission has deferred it twice and they're going to be hearing it on tuesday for a third time their hundred twenty days is about to run out for decision making they that called a sack but it's right adjacent to it so that area the department felt was residential i mean it was restored it looked restored it looked high and where it wouldn't be residential housing it would probably remain empty during the times the person wasn't there however the commission felt that just in the fact that it's the seventh coming forward that they will change the character just from that believe there was only one letter of opposition in that particular case but they feel very comfortable with the number s same and that's members is that's going to be the tricky one is that it's in a resort area that mr grossman was kind of talking about what's the expectations there and how many  know how many are too many verses again mckenna or have a computer where there's a string of them what's that's expected versus maui meadows way where you don't want to have a whole bunch versus you know why do go heights where you don't want to have any you know i mean i don't know that anybody has applied for up there because it's kind of far away for a vacation rental playing but so there are different areas so it's not a one size fits all but the common denominator in all of this is neighbor neighbor input neighborhood complaints i think that if if we if people get noticed that it's happening and a sign put out as soon as a notice is put out a sign put out saying hey look we're doing it here's the here's how you can comment on it whether you like it or you don't like it and why and if if there are valid complaints within the five hundred feet that you know certain percentage especially right next door which we are trying to have that language in there then it would go to the planning commission to decide but if there are no complaints or ferbey says yeah we're fine it's a high end house owed never be for rental for you know affordable in and what have you so it's not i wouldn't call it a resort because i know people in there that are they're just they're just rich people and it's their residence and their i are there are people who are very comfortable stating objections but it's not it's not normally something that most of us who grew up here comfortable with and so i'm i'm a little uncomfortable saying that going just by the you know the number of comments is really the appropriate trigger  changing the five hundred foot rule as a trigger for the for going to the going to the planning commission and i realize that the planning commission can be you know can ask tough questions and  take some challenging positions but at the same time i have to think that they're for the most part rather reasonable when we're new when the by the department gave us an update and i don't have it with me but my recollection was that they passed the majority of the ones that came before them and i think it's because of the you know the type of issue that we were just discussing where it's a high end you know high end property is not  used for something else so i'm sure there are some situations where the people walked away feeling that they had been dealt a bad hand but  were i'm i'm just not i'm not comfortable putting the responsibility on neighbors to go against their neighbors because it's not something i'm terribly comfortable doing i know it will likely happen if it goes t it's just a comment based on like the value of the property being a consideration get a little bit closer than i'm sorry for getting into a bad habit just a comment about using the valuation of a property as criteria even though we imagine these high end vacation rental homes in high end areas you could have a high end home occupied by a full time resident who may not want to vacation rental next door you know there are people who object to vacation real next doors of all income levels so that in and of itself shouldn't be  might it might not be appropriate for the for the valuation the property all by itself to be a consideration because you can have high end resident long term residential areas that people want to stay long term residential  similarly more modest home the someone of more modest income might what the financial benefit of doing a short term rental on their more modest lower and property because it's a small charming home or at the location or whatnot could still be desirable even though it's not a big luxury home it could still benefit someone of more modest means from  from putting that into short term rental so valuation all by itself might not be the way to distinguish how review takes place  there are some on the commission feel that you know our housing crunch isn't for super high end people but for every you know we have x number of homes on the island and even if you put high end homes into short term rent all the people the high end people who might live in those long term have to find someplace else to live so all units matter when we're talking about a housing crunch so even the high end ones which aren't for working families the units that would be available to them are occupied by someone who might be any higher and you know it's all part of the same inventory the same overall inventory so that's that was part of the their moratorium concept was a no it's not just high end of course we know that these high end ones are going to be occupied by the people who are really struggling to find housing but those that are being used for short term rental could be occupied by someone else for long term purposes the one below in the one below d friends own and while they're not here it's rented home you know they take care they look after the home they take care of the yard while they're away and now they get whether it's a trade i don't know but you know probably some type affordable rental per se to watch the house while the people are away so that is how we seen a couple people work in the restaurant industry so right but that's an illegal use because if it's a short term i mean if they run it to him or even swap it work we can sit here and come up with whatever list we want the planning commissioners unfortunately that's their response to and this old dimmock decision falls on them and they have to  that's why we gave it to them and i don't feel comfortable that we have an understanding or prejudice that we're not going to prove these things because if we're not been approved and then why do we put people to all these rigor of filling out these applications and spending a whole lot of money to do all of this it doesn't make any sense i would want to know if i wanted to do this that i did went through all that and then i would go before it citizen committee that would you know really carefully and seriously look at my application and judge it fairly and so this is not a simple solution here it's complicated and i understand that planning commission is just bombarded with a lot of this stuff because i look at all of the agendas and i watch t v it's funny people laugh when i tell them i go home and watch a couple but i'm watching things that i can't watch while i'm here i watch the planning commission i watch the culture resource of that what's the cost of government you know what all of these things so i know what's going on in other parts of my colleagues government but it is a very big responsibility to be on the planning commission i applaud people who are willing to do that because it's hours and hours and hours of sitting and reading and understanding but you know that's the deal when you agreed to be on it and we try very hard when we vet the commissioners to make them understand the commitment that they're taking on and i thank the very very much but unfortunately like we take on what we take on and have to sit here and make these agonizing decisions unfortunately you know that's what the planning commissions job is so  if we are happy to withdraw this request we appreciate and i know the planning commission will greatly appreciate the time and thoughts that were put into this we felt it was worthwhile to put out there good guideline sure number  area wise i mean we began to be again as i said earlier one side's rights all i think this is what we've come to this conclusion i think you've heard that loud and clear from all of us so what i would like to do then is to leave it as is for now oh yeah and then not hold up the whole bill for this whole thing because we are operating now under a certain method greek and but then we had that earlier number in the maricopa value based or clustered piece any of those are part of this whole equation i think we need to have something there in front of the applicant so that day understand what's happening i'm not in favor of a weed english i'm sorry you know excuse me for being honest because i saw what happened with water right and i believe this would be the primrose pass we'd be heading down ok i don't want that to happen that's my way that you know i mean  move down the page for the amendment we've come to discover that adjacent is not as clear as we had won it so abiding is actually a better word so we're asking for that and we're actually asking in all the areas of the bill where it does use that jason that we could just substitute it with the budding ok and then also we wanted to clarify that across the street it's the street where the access is made up with the access is made to the proposed short term rental home it's not a street that could be behind the lot it's actually the street that's where that the home is the access to the home and also roadway lots and road lighting routes do not count in our equation of the protests are in are looking at the five hundred feet kate and members of i'll give you two examples one of the first one where access is made to the post or terminal home an application was made up there's a road here up on the hill here's the house and then down below and across a common area is that street but still part of his property and this person down below objected wasn't across the street you can't get to this house up here from down on that street but it was technically across the street across the property t so is this to clarify i know there's i was just trying to figure out the street name but it's off the front and it's kind of a dead end and i know there's some vacation rentals it's kind of where shar the beach access is down to shark pit and then on the back side of those proper this road i think was supposed to go through to a subdivision so on the other side the backyard of these homes is a cocky street have a house there are a lot that has one street here one street here but the street has no access to it with the single lot ok ok up here is where you access it down here or way over here there's no access to that to the house from the street but the the ordinance as it says now is it across the street from the lot so that technically is actually across the street from the lot but there's no access to that property because it's way up access is made to the proposed property the driveway is on this side of the property what parcels across the street are included in this group it's parcels alone or is that all four of us because we're kind of in close proximity and and if if the driveway is where miss flamer is and the house is where  our staff is it would seem to me that even though the driveways over there on the access point is over there the people who are crossing the house itself should also be able to it's actually the lots so if this is the whole lot it's anybody thought that's not what it says unless he has a record of two or more lots of adjacent are directly across the street from where access is made you know the refers the access ok we can work with staff on the language the intent is for it it has always been in would continue to be the entire frontage of that lot anything across the street from the entire front edge it's not intended to be just across the street from the or is the only one that can complain or there in the view of the other side include we take the property boundaries of his lot and go perpendicular across the street and anything within those lot well that's one of three or four different circumstances that trigger commission review and over this only requires two people two or three people right and i just that are touching you right but they once on the corner touch to the touch corners ok maybe but i'm not sure that's a body and if it's just a corner is that had no no i understand we lose it's not clear to me and it what is clear to me by the definition is that if the light hits the boundary lines line up across the street that only one person across the street is going to be able to low no everybody can complain anybody within five hundred feet can come play not under this one yes but what it says is the if two or more that are that close that triggers it immediately if there's there's a percentage if it change it it's intended to say that in the rare circumstances where a property is ford by more than one street ok that we only look at the the sideboard by the access street and not the other street that s it's not changing how we've looked at what across the street means and we read it you're probably correct but i'm still concerned about the  the fact that people on either side of me if i'm the one who's directly across the viands exactly line up if i'm the one on either side of the one directly across i would want to be able to included in this if the lines line up completely you're correct that the ones on either side of the one directly across the street would not be included in this your interpretation o kind of language is used in the code when it refers to across the street closer to the microphone place we go straight across closer dari and that is how the department administers that requirement anywhere it is found in the code when there is something that says across the street we follow the property lines perpendicular across the street and whatever falls within that so if in the case that the property across the street those lines match exactly then it would just be that single lot are the only thing they have in common is a quarter touch point so they're still considered a body yes still don't see why that wouldn't apply to the ones across the street o i still don't like it but i'm not going to fuss over it ok so we have consensus on former access is made yes no hearing nothing there was a roadway light widening right there and so he said well the next that's not an abiding lot and then across the street the person across street complained well there's two law there's the road a lot and then the the house because that lot was a roadway widening lot so that we're we're kind of saying just so that we're clear roadway lots don't count broadway white me watch those little r there right that's correct and actually we have not counted those in the past but an argument could be made that we should have counted them and we want to be clear that we are not counting those who are only talking about discussion we were having just that when we come back to that we'll also talk about talk about that ok so dealing with minimum ownership requirements that's where we're looking at the front page of these amendments which says number three we have had a couple long discussions about this there's been an interest in clarifying what the minimum ownership is just for any type of ownership the department right now is looking at twenty five percent because twenty five percent is already in the bill for limited liability and for other types of entities but it is your policy call we just want to bring it to your attention what we'd like right now there is no  minimum interest it could be a quarter of a percent and then we'd already added the limited liability partnership previously so that language is already in there and then what we're doing further on down is we're just clarifying a family trust and that's because we've come to realize that we need to also just look at the beneficiaries in a family trust and make sure that they're all related as well that's just a little bit of clarifying language ok i thought at one point we were discussing maybe it was just between the department and me but it's not a single individual has to have twenty five percent ownership it would be if there are enough people that it has to be at least twenty five or maybe even if you percent ownership so what you're talking about is after all of this came out we started having more discussions about it there was an idea thrown out that everybody seemed to agree was ok and what what you're talking about is that all the applicants that are applying hold a certain minimum interest and that could be fifty percent or could be more then the department would be ok and that goes back to larger families but right now if you have a family of five and it's owned in a limited liability company they don't qualify because that applicant wouldn't be twenty five percent it would really only apply to families of four so we had a long discussion you kind of asked us to go back take a look at this we talked about twenty percent at one point but we found that was a little too confusing so i just went back to the twenty five so that is another compromise that we could discuss i think members the concern was you know at one point during the troubled times  one of the operators said well i'm going to give somebody i don't even know one percent on the deed and then that person is going to the applicant we want to stop that but now that we said everybody has to be a member it has to be a member of the family it can't be people who don't know each other in this any of these corporations right any of these entities so now as a member of the family and then i think we we want to go back and say you know fifty percent fifty percent ownership that's it that where you want to have most of the family say ok if if it's a seven member to our ten member family everybody has ten percent five people say ok we're good to go as opposed to twenty five percent one individual have twenty five percent of the see what are your thoughts on  yeah we can we can discuss and come back perhaps with some revised lines if we get the gist of it we're just confirming that the owner is one entity and as long as you know there are let's say several family members who constitute that ownership entity we don't get involved with whether or not there's complete agreement among those owners if a majority fifty one percent or more say we want to apply for this that is what ownership entity you're saying we are applying it to what led them to that decision isn't up to us to i just wanted to make sure that that when we talk about fifty one percent that yes that has to be how that cision is reached to apply and we do not require all members of that ownership entity to sign the application that it can correct us to be the representative for a greater than fifty percent it could be fifty point five percent i would say greater than fifty members greater than fifty percent or fifty one percent hearing we check the ownership to ensure that it meets the requirements of one thousand nine hundred sixty five that the make up of that a little c is what's prescribed in the law but in terms of who consents to applying for the permit if we there are family trusts out there with dozens of members and maybe many of them are very small ownership percentage but however that entity arrives at its decisions on what action to take for the property we don't get involved in that that's for them to whatever thing fifty one is i understand i understand your not wanting to get involved think our hour in ten with this language was to keep it from being this is more for personal you know personal and immediate family kind of operation and not a no not an l l c with seventy five members right then it's i have a hard time seeing that any different than a corporation my recollection but i do know mr chair that we that i think there are now a c yeah but why would why would we want you know fifty percent ownership to sign off on it i would think they would have to if it there's a difference to us between looking at who owns this property and seeing a list of individuals who each have an individual interest in the property versus a property that is owned by one entity an l l c that has a large membership is it one ownership entity or is it a handful of individuals that's a difference to us if it's a handful of individuals we would want to see that each person supports the application if it's a single ownership entity we just need authorization from the person who is authorized to represent that end and how they go about coming to that decision making is up to them actually l l c you have a manager right and and the members really don't get to have much able to do and i think our staff will to a real quick members keep in mind let's see if there's something we can do about the five year ban i have some ideas i still want to keep a five year ban but  maybe another grace period i don't know just think about that and also it was mentioned in testimony about why and i am very curious about it as well  one about enforcement one place in maui meadows that has been issued notices of violation is continuing to go on so how does how do we get them to  stop we actually have initiated the process with corporation counsel to go to court i don't know if it's for that property in particular but that is our next step after we issue notices a violation the operator still does not cease then we get a court order and we've initiated that for a handful of properties and collect a lot of bucks to that i don't know but all right members thank you so much in the air you know i court proceeding if there is payment due the county but if there's been a notice of violation and there are daily fines is there a point at which you send the bill if you know it says it only if it do we have to go to court to collect that and i can understand them saying you know about payment and then we go to court but we sent them a bill i don't think we send a bill after the notice of violation excuse me i can comment that we do have the ability to put the fines on the tax bill we do have the ability to do that and that would become an issue and people would become a bean on the property well it would have to go through the process to establish not sure about whether bills are being sent to the owner but after that notice a violation and if it comes to the point where our office is getting involved then we would take them to court and ask the court to  anything that restricts the department for or the finest department from sending them a bill after thirty days is up and they've got thirty thousand dollars or thirty i don't know what the fines are that have been noticed but is there anything that it's from the department's perspective it's it is something we could do we could send out monthly reminders there was neither weather alert you're still in violation this all tired out you're still entirely sure this is where you patience but if you have any ideas take a look at this matrix you know get them to us and maybe we can make this we can someone parks illegally they get a parking ticket they move their car they pay their parking ticket but you've seen cars that sit there with parking ticket on top of a parking ticket on top of parking ticket on top of parking ticket and maybe they pay them maybe they don't and at some point that catches up with them so sure we have operators who don't stop we don't stop and they'll be one of those cars that accumulates a stack of tickets on them you know this is a relatively new thing for us it's a relatively new thing for people to truly just ignore our notices sending bills could very well be the next thing we have to start doing for this particular type of zoning violation you know we don't do it for any others because generally we achieve compliance relatively easily so that may be something that we that we have to do for the ones who continue to absolutely defy the notices that they g other comments questions thank you guys so much and thanks stuff and thanks for the testifiers in the resources and we're going to do it again december i think it's fourth is that whatever day that is the thursday