it's like that with the planning committee meeting of february eighteenth two thousand sixteen please come back to order it is now march third the meeting was recessed on february eighteenth my name is don couch and the chair of the planning committee before we go any further can we have everybody turn off your cell phones or put them in silent mode so we don't have destructions of the of the meeting but first let's welcome morning and committee secretary polly martin good morning members we have one item today to finish up on hopefully it'll be pretty quickly  we recessed february eighteenth two thousand sixteenth we're still considering some amendments to the short term rental home ordinance the most recent version of the bill is the one attached to the request for legal services dated february twelfth two thousand sixteen that's what we'll be working off of if if the committee does passes out today all that stuff to work with corp council to incorporate the committees regions from the eighteenth meeting and today's meeting it with any  sign a certified certification form attesting to certain facts as proposed by council member by say in the end out to the committee on february eighteenth just saw that so  just to refresh your memory on those today we have three issues left to discuss and list is not exclusive that's the ones that i have on my list and then after that we'll go through it see if anybody has any other things that they want to talk about ink you ok first thing is the mandatory enforcement proposal by  t r age and also chapter one thousand nine hundred four which is bed and breakfast homes so we have an item for that and we discuss this a little bit with chair white last time because he knew he wasn't going to be here tonight chair white is not here proposed bill will be available also so i'll be a separate item i know he's brought it up he's decided he's trying to work on it and i feel uncomfortable with discussing it without him here so i'm fine with moving it to p c twenty six which is something that he and i discussed ok so without objection it will go on to the next item ok you should have a handout dated today from me that its staff came up and this was also in prior we discussed it a little bit at the last meeting but we didn't act on it the handout is showing the proposed change of some old language that is out of date and the language is no longer needed since it was a requirement of the department when s t r a jordan it was first adapted to let  permitted owners know how to obtain permits the department supports the change and if you look at it it's just showing the bracketing of the last paragraph or any questions on that ok if there's no discussion on that i'm asking for us a consensus to accept that change ok no questions on that all right see we got the first two i've been going back and forth on this one i just want to bring it up a little bit there's been always been talking about due process and you know i think  they're pretty corporation council who she was concerned about the due process aspect of telling people they're banned for five years without them not even knowing and then we're going to give a six month grace period so there was thought to possibly and that's the next handout to possibly asked the department to require the department to notify anybody who was on their banned list there's some issues with that that corporation council has unfortunately we would have to go into executive session to discuss those issues is there anything mr hopper you can say if outside of executive session that we might be able to discuss here just mr chair i'm not sure why there would be a notification requirement for this change and this lot of specific laws change in in there's not a requirement to notify people every time a lot changes and in this case it's a it's actually an extension of a basically an exception to the to a  ban for up for applying and i'm not certain why in this case there would be that notice requirement where all the other changes in the law are happening and yes ma'am affect how people have to apply for a permit and and for this one section to have this exception where there's a duty to provide notice that says there's there's not a duty later on but still to to recall the required no to speak given in this case where there's all these other changes going on that don't require the notice is just a bit odd and if every time there's a change there's going to be some type of notification requirement that's going to be very odd to have been in different sections of the law where you've got a bill like this that has numerous changes so just to say that that's certainly odd and not typical for changes as laws are amended and wouldn't be sure why this would happen in this case and i don't know if the department can speak on what the procedure would be in this case and what problems that may create but that's what  i just saw this is right now when i sat down that was basically my national reaction to do this ok and my only my reason for bringing it up is that it's been reported that at least to me that sometimes people will call the department say ok how do i apply and then the partner says we can apply to your band and that's the first they've heard of it so that that's my concern is and that i think was mr she's concerned about a due process saying what's going on so i don't know maybe the department has some comments on it and mr cherry would distinguish notice that you're banned from notification of this new six month exception language i mean that's a bit different but yes no notification that someone's banned if they do become on the banned list there should be a notification provided to them that they're that they're no longer able to apply but that's separate from this particular barbara thank you chair we have a couple of concerns there's there's the broader policy concern that these people have broken the law and they're actually ones that we have been able to catch and enforce and ban and now it's on top of that your years saying that we should go back to these people and say oh never mind you know you can have that opportunity now we understand that that's what this would create but to go so far for the department to proactively notify them just seems to be giving the clear lawbreakers more notice and more opportunity than perhaps those who where we haven't had such a clear case sure sure so there's that just broader policy concern looking at the language specifically it refers to owners who have previously been notified by the department of their ineligibility to apply i don't know how many there are some that we have notified in writing but i don't know how many we've told on the phone and so you know we could make an effort but it's it's you know again it wouldn't be we wouldn't be able to administer this consistently to everybody who has been told this because that notification isn't hasn't always been formalized in a letter i would also ask if you do move forward with something like this that it not be written notices mailed to the owners at their addresses because we can do this a lot easier and faster by e mail ok or by phone that makes it easier for us in some cases that is the most effective way to communicate with people so just off the top of my head looking at this for the first time this morning those are my  quick question do you have a list now of people that if they were to call up and and you would say well you're on our list so now you're beyond that who may not even know you know we've gotten testimony and i know you've said some of these people may not be quite accurate with what they're saying but there are people who are saying that you know i didn't know that we a had to get a permit and b so i want to get a permit of a sudden i'm banned because i've been operating because i didn't know and i know ignorance is no exception was no excuse i was just curious if there is a list of folks that that you have banned we have actually gotten a letter that says you are banned or that many of those that we have sent out the other ones if we receive an application and they have there has already been enforcement action against them we say no you can apply right we don't have a list of those but we do not have the notices ok are there those that call up and it seems ok but then you do some other you do check for ads at that time  or how does that work typically if i get the call i will ask them if they've been operating in they're usually pretty honest then then we'll all explain the policy sometimes what we'll do i plug in the address and then it'll pop up and then at that point you can let them know what i see you know you have a calendar up or i see a v r b o added looks like your operating other times he won't do that until we actually have the application in front of us from times there's trip advisor comments that detail a long history of operating and it makes it hard to create a list but sometimes you don't know that they're operating until you actually have the address in front of y deputy's mention of maybe being able to notify people by e mail because i really think that even though these people have upgraded name advertise that they've been banned and if they didn't get any kind of a notice it's just not a good leader do do stings so i wouldn't require that department to go you know through all of this registered mail and all the stuff that we do but if it would mean a quick e mail just to let people know and it may have been banned i think we should have some kind of a formal record e mail or something yes mr hopper i think what's being discussed in this proposal is not notification that your and this is a proposal to require notification that there's this new law that says that if you are already banned there's a six month period for that something's different the separate issue of notice of that you are banned i would agree should be by written notice and that should be something that is provided to those who are who are banned that is separate from this bill that or this amendment which is to deal with the laws not you don't send a notification to everybody every time the law changes but i do take the point that the original notice that you are banned is something that should be sent to people that they are banned to if they're going to be notified if that's the notification in and that's going to be something that's important that doesn't necessarily have to be stated in the law particularly but i think that's how it's going to end up working out that those people are going to have to get notice that they that they were were banned to me that it's more important than this change but again this change right right now is i mean it's up to the committee but it would be very odd to have this be the one section in the law that requires notification to two potential applicants and just let you know members that is the chair of intent once this law passes council if it passes coun is to do some publications in the newspaper and potentially on the radio it's better to say look this is this is it we've done it we've we've moved to the next phase and potentially on facebook i mean two took to put it out there and i know we've always got people come in and say i didn't i didn't know and you know i don't know how else to do it unless we have you know sky sky writing for those who used to live on the mainland in the skywriting over time i don't know if they were headed over here but i don't know how else to get that message out well i see borrowing his term again and then i think it's really important that people be told that you know we're doing that with the water meters that we're giving a second chance to actually go back in the files and finding out who did the who said no situations and the people at it said no we can't accept the word of media didn't do anything wrong and in this case we feel that the people that were teaching did something wrong so it's kind of a different thing but i don't know i don't know how much of a hassle it is i think there's two different stories right here different you know so let's concentrate on those that have to be notified that they're banned i think that would be right mr hopper if you said it i told you over the phone another person said i never i never was told that what do you go from there we stop or you would obviously rather have the written record of the notification so in other words some formal written written record but in your files as the department and the individual or entity that was being notified then i find it hard to steve saying your band when you never been formally notified not over the phone not even by e mail but a formal letter saying that you have been banned we have found this this this and if you have any questions you better contact us thank you so i think we're duckie two different issues right mr chair yeah ok is those lawbreakers are just going to get one more chance and you know what you may be right but you miss flamm or did mention just a moment ago when you call most of them or they call you and you ask the question they're pretty honest and i think in general most people on a state cheaters will be cheaters and they're out there but most people when really put asked the question directly pretty much are honest so i would be in favor of something saying that a formal notice schools out to all of these that have been banned to warn them that this is their last chance to get in there and get it done and this doesn't seem to  year i don't think that addresses the way i would like to see it address formal notice came not to email a formal notice not a phone call again i used the word formal notice so that's my take on that was the chair  get we could discuss it work but i think that's what you're asking and this team this one and a formal notice so we've got to make sure that a formal notice is given to each one of these again and this is it this is your last shot and if we need to go any further in saying as far as notification being banned and i think working with corporation council and the department i think that build they can do that without having to be in la i think i trust this group i trust the department the question i have is a new department head or a new department are we going to you know new new folks in the department  if we don't put it in the ordinance can we count on that happening i think so i don't know that has to be in writing to get them to notify everybody in writing in that they've been banned but let me just check with the department ok i need to make something clear ok when an operator would get a notice of warning it would say we have evidence that you are operating and you have to stop advertising you have to stop operating and if you cannot prove to us that you were not operating you are banned so the notice of warning does  tell them they would be banned if they don't basically if they don't appeal our notice of warning they don't get a separate letter saying you are hereby banned i think there might have been some early on that got an actual letter that simply said you're banned but the majority of them are notices of warning that said you are beyond there you would be banned if you don't prove to us that you were an operating so those are the notices of warning it's not a list hasn't been compiled of all of those those are the notices i was saying we would consult to to to to to meet this requirement if that goes  through concern as as mike raised is there's always going to be someone who says i wasn't told you know i don't know why am i not eligible after six months and one day why can i not why can i not apply you didn't tell me and you know that's just a position we don't want to be i mean we've talked about that several times people know people know what the requirements are they choose not to meet them for whatever their reasons may be are actually in the pending process notices have been sent out i can find out very quickly for you i don't know if the top of my head but i can is it more than twenty i would think so less than fifty i don't know ok but i could probably get an answer very quickly i can text staff and ask them in the reason why i'm asking chairs if it's a high volume and we're going to go into some type of  official notification like summons or certification of service then i'd like to know what we're dealing with in terms of expenses to notify right usually usually if there would be a notice of warning issued or a notice letter sent via regular mail and there is a response to that maybe we could put in the way in which that recent reasonable notice shall consist of the last known address on file something like that and we could send a letter without it having to be certified if it's in the otherwise by and additionally i i want to hear what the corporation council has to say in terms of this issue and if it needs to going to set executive session then i'd like to move to enter into executive session ok let's me may i answer i have that as a motion but we'll we'll leave that on the table for now thank you steph said more than one hundred more than one hundred and i asked  substantial i asked less than two hundred and they said yes but we will get there soon because as we this is a as you all clearly appreciate is a huge and forcing task and we continue to send out notices of warning with the band language so we will soon approach two hundred or so it's going to be if we go certified now it's going to be expensive  path so if i just would scuse me if i may also add the notices of warning we have to send to the recorded owner of the property our son the team k h r and they're sent by  just stop the process where it is and not go into all the stuff you want to add we don't need to go into executive session because i agree with the department i mean as they're explaining the n o v goes out there is proof on their behalf that you were operating illegally and there you go and now it's their burden of proof to prove to this department that they were not and and now we're trying to twist it all around to give them you know get out of jail free pass and you know take care of your and while we that's wrong i totally cannot support what you're trying to say your chair and i and yeah these people know better i'm just driving over i mean how many people know that the people in the back seat need to wear seatbelts they're not going to send a letter to every single driver here d m v is not going to send out letters saying you need to be they have or what have you and make some profit here and there so you know chair i mean everyone knows how i feel about this and has hired a whole entire task force of four or five people to address this situation on that island i mean it's gotten to hand and that is where we're i believe we're at but we're going to get even worse as the days go by so i think we need to keep the teeth and the hammer and everything else this department has to lay on these people to say wake up get legal or else and that's that and no our amnesty would ever agrees period's all this other stuff because i know way i proposal here i do not feel the need to give any further advice on the general issue of providing notice of people who are banned i think i've said would you all that i need to say on that it's just the new proposal right now which is to provide notice to people of the this new for a six month period if you do certain things that language i had some concerns with but not the general issue of providing notice to people who are who are banned i think that in the law right now it explains with the result is that the notification i've already kind of said what i believe should be the notification in that case so if there's a need to discuss this proposal further in and go to executive session this proposal being the new one that came in today then i then that's what i would perhaps want to speak about if there's not an interest of going forward with that i don't see the need for executive session for the other issue which is already in the law which is notification of what's already existing in the law of of people who who would be banned for five years initially so i just wanted to make that distinction between the  you know the law is the law and you need to follow the law and but you know we have different kinds of laws you know if i don't buckle up in my seat in the back of my car it's not going to affect our economy it will affect my life if i get in an accident but it doesn't affect our economy the the business that we're discussing unfortunately has become a very large part of our economic situation we learned when we were working on t ordinance how this type of business trickles down into many other parts of our economy it's not just the person who rents the room in his house but is the person that he hires to bring the muffins in and the person that cleans the yard and the one ticket is a prude in the one that caters or and then the restaurant next door in that neighborhood we saw new restaurants closed down in haiku when this happened because they didn't have people to go so i see it as a really important issue and i think think it's something that deserves us handling it well also people are suing us when we don't do this correctly and i don't want any more suits we have  enough i think that i am i don't know if i'm correctly informed but if i am it's my understanding that the notices of warning that were sent out as late as late last year did not see that the person was being to get a date because the people that are being affected are the ones that are talking i mean why would they lie why would your staff like that's the problem we're sitting here when really we if we don't know we just got to take everybody at face value that could be and then we're talking to book people running illegal rentals getting away with it up in texas doing all of this that we're talking about bringing them into the force so we can have the businesses rob we're not denying them the use of their property we're not taking anything away from them they can go because long term writable they can sell it they can do other things we can leave it empty we're not taking away the use of their property it is still do and if they use it no would probably go to a long term rental economic value in that too so it's not like if we bend them for five years because they have broken the law and they have not complied that we are really really damaging because they still have options to keep you i think we need to be tough we need to be strong if you are building a house an inspector comes or would you you don't have a permit this conversation would or or a clone is going to suffer as you know that would get you ok thank you let me remind members that first of all this is not just a maui or even the state of hawaii issue it's a nationwide issue actually a worldwide issue  it's so it's not nothing new it seems that we have been at least at the forefront of coming up with some good stuff because other and other jurisdictions have used our language almost word for word in some of the things so it's kind of cool that we've been at the cutting edge of this one and that being said mr carroll you did mention something about a building permit and what and other issues typically least from my time my short time in the in the planning department the whole idea was when somebody is doing something without a permit the idea is to get them to come into compliance that's kind of the mantra at least it was back then of the department is get them in compliance given the notice board and let them come into compliance that's what the idea is even after the fact permits for building permits yes they shut it down but then they until they can come into compliance this is the only instance where i know words are saying ok we cut you you don't get a chance to come into compliance because we cut you first that's the only instance i know of i may be wrong and the department can correct me on that but that's where i find it a little bit unbalanced all the other people that do that without permits are given a chance to come in the complaint except for this including by the me ok comments department thank you a couple of things staff told me that as of july twenty fifteen the band language was included in notices of warning if you do have one from a later date i would be interested in seeing it that that language hasn't been included that's what the verbiage was no one has had been i'm sorry the notice of warning sent out as late as late last year did not state that the person was always warned that they had been so july july i would think and then there that's not fair ok if you got a notice of learning and you didn't pay attention that's ok tough you know like mr carroll's thirds we can to begin with chances for ever but if you haven't been noticed you haven't been served and we have nothing in writing to say we warned you that you're going to be banned then that's the issue and i think that's what we're trying to do with here is we don't want people coming here saying nobody told me that i was being bad i mean that's what we're trying to do within this legislation and we're getting all caught up in semantics and timetables and whatever we're just trying to give a fair opportunity for people to be warned that they're going ok a couple of things in response to your comments about our goal is to achieve compliance this is the only statute that we have  that says failure to comply results in a ban someone's operating a b and b without a permit and we initiate enforcement and they apply we can issue the permit if they meet the requirements so comparing enforcement and regulation of s t r each is is unique in that way that this particular permit has that banned language no other one does you're doing something in the estimate without an estimate permit you get cited you submit your after the fact permit you get your permit if you're the violation the other option is also to stop that is another way to cure the violation rather than getting a permit you can stop operation right and that achieves compliance also first and foremost we want people to comply before they even start reading so this is we're talking about a situation that's you know four layers into that the language that you proposed involves people who were notified that they have been banned the ones that we have informally when i say informally if someone calls and asks can i apply for an s to reach and they're asked have you been operating in they say yes then in that context we might say well if we have evidence of you operating you're not allowed to apply that's the nature of the informal ban but i being told that as of july two thousand and fifteen any notice of warning that went out has had the ban language in there so they have been formally notified it would just be a phone call in talking it more in generalizations rather than any type of formal process that was initiated by anybody an application on an inquiry or enforcement action so the ones that you're talking about where no one was told no one told me i was banned we might not have the ability to notify them because we didn't keep track of it but if they were to come in during the six months we could process their application we just wouldn't have a way of reaching out to them proactively saying come in by here i think that that's a reasonable club move because you know if you break the law and you knowingly break the law and you told you breaking the law and you keep on breaking the law with them i have little sympathy for right you know that's the whole problem we want everybody to be doing this to be legal want to control it we want to tax it we want to limit it i don't know what else we can do so essentially this language is not necessarily necessary so yet again mr chair we're not talking about the the predominant discussion which is a good discussion which is about notification of people that their band is not with this recent proposal is corralling with yes ok with that that doesn't require any changes and this is other language that for reasons that we kind of started out with we're advised to kind of against doing so that's a bit of a separate issue but ok that's kind of is it's an important discussion ok speaking of you know one thing that we we talked about a while back that we never actually codified or anything was this whole looking back thing as long as we're talking about the band do you want direction from the council or the committee as to how far you look back what the deal is with the look back because it seems to me that that you know you you've been going fine for a long and then you decide then you started enforcing the ban which is great and then all of a sudden you start looking back from the day of the first ordinance saying oh you've been operating way back then you're banned is there any guidance you want from this committee well with  if the language stands saying that there's this six month i'll call it amnesty that's not quite accurate right well call it that if that six month amnesty stays then and people meet the requirements it's not an open amnesty you have to correct you all the tax requirements then the lookback is it doesn't matter if they have to show that they paid their taxes correct after that after that  that would be that would be the council's policy call with out any sort of date then we would we would go back to the date of the early date of the ordinance members any thoughts you've got and yes thank you chair i would like to withdraw my motion for executive session yes ok good mr victory no you're ok so members we were talking with look back just before i think we've we've gotten the notification issue that people are being notified that they're banned in the notices of warning is that right department you will make that make i mean you already done  in till may of twenty fifty and so for may and june the recipients would have received regular notices of warning and then would have received a letter or some separate type of notification if they were banned because in may and june we were figuring out at what point you were they able to apply we are still working the kinks out of imposing the ban so may in june it would have been separate correspondence in may and june there might have been i don't know but they would have received a separate letter if in fact it was determined that the ban would apply to them we just want to make sure that the chair everyone was afforded that afforded the due course you know that no one is banned because never were told to me spice and i both agree on that you know we just want them done and done it in a legal manner not by e mail not by letter because letters can get lost and we've seen that happen and e mails can in that world of cyberspace get lost when you send something certified or registered or whatever  six month amnesty is that what you're intending to do then that's fine but just that's the way i would like to see it finished that way i can support the rest and those you have not complied there after sorry what chances do you get the right not and i you know i agree my colleagues should be breaking the law you breaking the law i know of a lot of people that speed all over this county and break the law but never get caught there's a difference there's a big difference you're talking people's livelihoods it ducie people's opportunities they're not all off shore and they're not all people from the mean because i have some friends and family that are involved you been operating and she says yes and this is so your band it could happen and so i want us to think more beyond today but i think for today i'm really happy we've made progress i think we all understand we want people to be warned before they're banned and we have six months if this passes we have six months to come up with what's going to happen ok all right members we did we were talking about look back before the break and this is the chairs fault i totally skipped it on the twenty first meeting of the twenty first of january this year but if you look at the matrix that we guide page nine is dated january twenty first page nine  this is the this is the language that the planning department has requested that we use and i'm fine with that let me read it to you with one small change says a operating without a valid permit is prohibited in order to be eligible to apply for a short term mental home permit the subject property shall not have had any unpermitted short term rental home that in breakfast home or any other type of transit vacation rental operations and the property owner shall not have conducted any such permitted operations on any property for at least two years prior to the date and which the application is submitted everything agree except for the except on the island into the summer thirty first because we already have the six month band so we don't need to put that in the six month and the stiff you well we don't need to put that in  but and that that doesn't with this language as it is that doesn't affect i mean when we have the six month grace period again if you will this language you're not doing a look back because there's no need to do a look back right right for the six months during which the amnesty is in effect the look back would apply and i just want to  say that i think the two years was discussed in a committee meeting that's why we use two years here the department would like it to be a little bit longer we think a two year lookback is comes close to the cost of doing business it should be longer maybe three years or even five years which is the same as the van when we offered this language it was because the committee had talked about to win and i want to acknowledge that that that is what the committee had said but you know there was thing you we have some of that leeway i'm fine if i don't know that two years cost of doing business especially for mr victory knows you know the local families and whatnot there are some concerns there  six months you want to change two years to six months i want to know why we shouldn't ok what this provision is saying is if we send out a notice or we take some sort of enforcement action or actually know if we do in forstmann action then that's a five year ban if someone applies and we look up their property and see that a year ago they were operating if it's only a six month look back they would be able to come in and apply and so if someone is operating now and they don't want to be subject to the ban they could stop operating for six months and only six months and then be eligible to apply we think a longer period is reasonable because six months just that's what we're calling the cost of doing business for going six months worth of revenue is not a whole lot of money in the scheme of things with operating illegally for a long period of time so you could be operating for years and years and years and all you need to do is stop for six months and then you can come in and apply we think that that period of non operation should be should be longer it's essentially a two year you know stopping your business for two years it's over very few people can absorb two years of and you know these a lot and yes many local families many generational they only quite a few properties have several homes you know as a who we would ever know and they don't live in them so they're going to run them out they were long term then the s t r is came onboard they found out they could make a whole lot more money so now these families are living in these long term workforce type housing affordable housing for their families are now all under one roof top twenty people deep add ons upon add ons and now they can go ahead and what scrub their toilets in those homes they used to rent the yards and even the gard back to long term rental is not like they got it walk away and never ever live here ever again or have their investment here ever again that's were to go back to i'm not saying all but i can guarantee you the quite a few of those other comments members missed by so i hate to bring this up but i think we have to we were in another meeting or was it this meeting where the gentleman  m glad to go out on the it was this meeting it was this meeting ok and said publicly where this was going on and how many was going on and who's doing whatever is it still going on i mean why is it still going on i don't understand i mean this is public notification that this is going on how do we stop it well i'm not sure if those are permitted you're going not know but you know it's become public knowledge that this is happening and i don't know when that was two weeks ago or two weeks ago right they were i think this the kind of situation where we need to jump on it and you know i don't want to hear that this is going on and hearing it on t v this is terrible any comments from the department i know you heard the testimony last to two weeks ago any action on that our understanding is that one of those properties does have a permit  others are in the application process that was those were the properties that had the challenge in hono with the real terminate your caretaker provision so those are still in the process on the other is one property that has very notable violations and we are pursuing enforcement action against it so the course the slow and of the law here is happening myspace so what about this five hundred foot rule if it's in a small area i'm sorry i have not visited the area and i don't know  how close it is but it would seem that five hundred foot boom would come into effect this is a tiny little area the five hundred foot rule i'm assuming will go into effect during those two because they have to go to main planning girl  that point i'm not sure if they go to the advisory committee and then the planning commission but they at least have to go to the planning commission where then i don't think they're going to wind up being able to operate unless somebody is nice to them because  i'm just i'm just saying that you know we're talking about this and it's a it's a bad example but it's an unusual one and if we're jumping on it we can end it well that's what we should do with any of this g yes and it's you know every home in home matters because there are so few and that's what that's the whole idea behind the going to the planning commission that they take that into consideration as part of what they have to take into consideration as well absolutely ms cochran thank you chair and so the people who are in violation that you mentioned with this will be able to have this grace period and all this stuff little sort of tap on the wrist and go now now now bad bad but you know get your ducks in a row nicely fees for their s t r each operation if they comply with all the tax requirements then yes they would be able to apply but remember that's just probably up and would probably be triggered planning commission review they have other violations on the property that mr cashman also mentioned and those  that there is no amnesty or grace period for that they have to come into compliance some of the activities will have to cease some structures will have to be removed but for just the s t r each portion that yes they would have the opportunity if they've been if their compliant with the tax requirements than they would have the chance to apply there was still after the planning commission then right i'm assuming that the neighbors would say look he says that this is an estate is respected s and so the planning commission probably community and the other thing was the ones that were legal we don't have many but i've had a complete from the people who are legal that all these illegal people there's no way they're going to come forward because we're just all gr all right so we'll bring that up after we were going to look back provision right now so any other concerns about the look back provision you missed by so wanted to make it six months mr call member carol this is to change from the language from two years to one year a look back far we have no ok years everybody ok with putting that look back provision in at two years yes ok all right so we'll add that stuff all right that's it for what i had planned now i know a couple members are looking into making some potential changes it said one that she had had one and then i don't know what that adjustment is you know i would really prefer that this be handled by somebody who is closer to it but i don't know i really don't know how bad this is i've heard both sides i've heard people say it's a real problem i've heard other people say it's not a problem and i don't live in key here and i really think we should address this and put it to bed one way or another ok and i know others have suggested churches let me ask the department know we haven't received complaints about primitive operations and knowing that ok so do you have a number do you want to do you want to make a motion we have heard other numbers pull this from what i understand do we have that the only other number proposed was mr guzman saying he's he's good with to his cochran  be back on your first initial card question to department in regards have you had any means of legal ok what about illegal the same is throughout the county yes we've had complaints about illegal operations in manly meadows and that's the same everywhere and that and that's how we get the unfortunate going with the complaints that's one of the ways the other ways as they go no i mean there is at this max cap so metal has no opportunity for at least two people to get people you know i so i'm trying to get you know somewhat of a compromise and in giving that to other than that i know i don't think i'll get you know support anything higher than a tear ok thank you and the other comments of those in our report to you in august indicated that we had received twenty one applications twenty one ok applications that doesn't mean all of those have been approved but certainly there are no more than twenty one twenty one  existence right now that are permit it i don't know but it would certainly be fewer than twenty one because we know that every application would have been approved but to be safe if all of those applications for approved  there would be twenty one twenty or thank you what we're discussing well we'll get this if this goes we we end up with twelve away from the four hundred so let's deal with that in a minute and have a discussion on the thirt carroll i heard those comments also in the community also there even actually reading the harnett advisory committee minutes they're even going to go lower it's like a twenty five but i'll be you know i'll stick to the thirty representative of the district is looking at that and they know they are happy anything below which exist they'll be very happy with so i mean huge support an and three knows the nos were member victory no member cochran a member carol ok now we have now that gives us twelve i mean if we're going to stay at four hundred four hundred department do you have any questions or concerns on that you know no questions no concerns there's one thing that you know with the condominium thing that happened in this car can i just i'm not i'm not pointing out you however it would with this condominium thing that happened in international colony club there's twenty five units there i believe so that takes twenty five off the cap on west maui know anybody else on that ok anybody else has any other things to add department nothing to add thank you to your members revisions and filing of county communication fourteen dash two seventy eight the conditions that were required for the applicant to meet during the grace period and first of all number one was to show proof that they've had they have a or license and or have been paying it and number two pay off all the real property taxes and i believe that we added if the if the applicant had been you had been utilizing a homeowner's exemption that would basically disqualify them to be an application that one where the applicant has inadvertently i guess applied for homeowners exemption and i kind of have an issue with that because it's it doesn't really indicate whether the person was ok did they make it a true mistake or did they you know if i guess let me rephrase it if the goal is to make sure that we get tax revenue then why wouldn't it just be  i guess fair if they just pay the difference between the homeowner's exemption that that they've been utilizing and and pay that as well as opposed to the difference between and once if they've done that then to that clear them ok all right department that was discussed at the last meeting council member white  proposed all the tax language was asked so people are have the opportunity to pay their back property taxes right they were taking the homeowners exemption can they also pay that back and he his feeling anyway was no if you're taking a homeowner's exemption then you're not eligible that was his his discussions so  should reflect that so if you do want to change it then i think the language would have to be changed if if you want people to also have the opportunity to pay back their homeowners so basically my understanding as it's property tax but if you've ever utilized the homeowner's exception everything is moot you can't get in at all you can apply it all right it's that correct that is what the council chair said at the last meeting so that doesn't make sense to me so you can pay that you can pay you can pay off your you can pay if you're real property and if if the applicant has been utilizing the homeowner's exemption we're saying that no matter what you're out you have no don't have an opportunity to pay off the different and i remember him saying yes i do see what you're saying residence and only that so you've lied on that application and that not you know have not applied for so so you it's a double and he was pretty adamant today that's good for ever and ever and ever so one of the cases you sort of the scenario that you were describing of someone sign that twenty years ago and now think now thought oh well ok maybe i'll do short t rental they don't have to recertify it every year and they do it one time and it's it stands and so that's another if it's something they decide to do they might not even be thinking about it they get their tax bill they pay it they don't think white proposal so yes this operates look we've had a homeowner's exemption they're off they're not going to get the grades they claim to hold on exemption and so it's clear that was what came out of our last for guidance you know we're clear ok ok thank you i'm good thanks chuck any further discussion i just want to say thanks guys for hanging in there it's been a long time and i'm sure there's going to be more as things go along that the farmers going to want to do more things to the industry may want to do some things that this isn't the end but this is a good tweak now unfortunately we have to do the same thing for the bed and breakfast that's going to be later down the line so with that thank you for all your hard work all those in favor please say i opposed caved in the records show that the there are five eyes and one no member cochran and one excused council chair white all right members thank you so much next meeting is going to be the department enforcement side because i do want to see how they're doing on enforcement as well ok so at this point this meeting is a