the planning committee meeting of july second two thousand and fifteen please come to order my name is don couch on the chair of the committee before we start please i want to remind everybody to turn off any noise making devices you  council chair mike white as he scoots across and then council member mike vick to reno a lawyer good morning from the far end of one way over in siberia and council member goodman will be here shortly and from the administration i want to welcome michele mcclain from the planning department good morning deputy director and then gina flambe or planner good morning preparation council michael hopper good morning mr hopper and from our staff we have committee secretary pauline martens and legislative as well as jordan molina all right members today on the agenda we have items number p c ten which is amending the comprehensive zoning ordinance relating to short term rental homes and p c twenty six proposed amendments to the comprehensive zoning ordinance relating to enforcement of veteran breakfast homes and short term mental homes regarding p c twenty six we only deal be dealing with the short term mental homes in today's meeting in just a minute i'm going to open the floor for testimony for individuals testifying in the chamber please sign up at the desk just outside the chamber door if testifying from one of the remote testimony sites please sign up with the district office staff testimony who will be limited to the items on the list of the it didn't agenda today pursuant to the rules of the counsel each testify or will be allowed to testify for up to three minutes p item and i will also be allowing an additional one minute to conclude the testimony so the way the lights work on the podium and hopefully will have the speakers well  green light for three minutes and then our engine light for one minute and red light when the red light goes we'll have the top finish your sentence in and  you all right so far we have three people signed up to testify here in the chambers i see a whole lot more than three  and i'm not sure if we've got that set up for the right timing so we'll see how it goes it's not ok to share the green light will run until two minutes and thirty seconds and the yellow light will be can it at that point and the red light will start at three minutes ok so when you see the red light flashing i mean you have one minute left and we'll try and give you about a ten second warning to finish your testimony first up to testify is jim smith followed by maj schaefer what was able to help me very much in receiving some documents and looking for documents and i'm i'm grateful for for all of you and your staff as well the first item i'm three of the draft and that would be the two thousand and thirteen draft and it basically says that housing is a big problem and and  references the problem of vacation rentals on the molly and i think that's significant as it relates to p c to twenty six k and i find that there is a connection between these two and it's very serious this connection because what it's basically doing is breaking away from our political structure we have we have a legislative and we have powers that are some specific an individual and if we don't focus on the problem and we'll never find a solution and this is where the problem is and that idea came to me from a great american sees a survey is ok and he says the task is not ok the solution the task is understanding the problem and the solution will commies and the problem is referenced in this document and it has to do with a request for service  and that was march first two thousand and eleven the managing director proclaimed that there are going to identify anyone who filed a request for a service and that was going to be a policy the problem is that was an administrative rule and there was no rule making procedure so that made that whole thing wrong and everything that transpires from that cannot be right and the bed and breakfast in the transmission vacation rentals and the home business and all of this kind of stuff rests on the shoulders of this the legality ok so that's the problem you have to start with is the authority and we have a different political system and that to me is the problem that is brought to you by the alumni community plan as well as mr dante is thank you very much disturbed one more minute i'll take it so as we progress in the solution of this problem ok i think you need to get some expert so i think you need special counsel to address this notion of administrative rules being shifted to a legislative body and i have two names i'll give you and you probably have more and one is sherry broder and she was special counsel for the charter commission in two thousand and two when they revised our planning provision of the charter and the other is d john mcconnell and he was a judge of a case i brought regarding a violation of the whole i administrative procedures act and the department of water supply and in continue along this idea it's not about putting words in there they're going to force somebody to do something or making life uncomfortable the way this thing started off was a special use permit  champion and her husband had a piece of property they bought it for one hundred forty thousand dollars they wanted to send their son to college they wanted for a special use permit before the land use commission i opposed that the land use commission gave it to them they sold the property a couple of years later for three times as much so there's never been a doubt about the impact ok upon our economy and our lifestyles and all that of putting hotels in ag lan it's discretionary authority codify it's don't blame me it's giving to the director some sort of a mysterious power that only god should have and it's saying that you guys say it's ok so you should just walk away from that whole mess ok and get yourself a special counsel who can spell out and define and give you a clear idea of the separation of powers the administrative power is not saying no it's doing it right when you administer ok legislative power is where we're at now but these guys don't get it when you want to change the government you mix it up so nobody knows and then you have your own government and we can't have that so i ask you please don't file these communications and don't do anything with what's there that you've gotten from the planning department because they are obviously ok overburdened overworked and not really focused on the problem i hope you will focus on the problem go back to special use permits better have them apply the law better you know complications you come for your permit you don't get at somebody's next door compliance we take it in the existing code you've got to have three complaints before you they're professionals they know what the hell they have to do they don't have to have it spelled out in a pseudo administrative procedures bill this should not be in our code this kind of stuff this directional stuff is why we have an executive three minutes thank you so much thank you members any questions to the testifier ms mr chair white why didn't you use your extra minute good morning i've learned from mr smith i'm here on to one second before you start for there was some planning department suggestions handed out to the members what benefit is there for a neighborhood to have vacation rentals very little revenue accrues to the county the absentee owners profit and the neighbors pay the price people buy into a residential neighborhood with the expectation that their neighbors will be permanent the two area plans that have the most accommodations hotels condo rentals also have the most number of permits there are twenty four hotels and key have mckenna and thousands of rental condos plus several time share complexes the area plan permits two hundred licenses it's  area plan permit limits should be revised to prohibit proliferation of b m b s and short term rentals in one subdivision it should be based on a percentage of total single family units in the area plan a fair share plan would prevent a neighbor from being overrun a neighborhood from being overrun with temporary housing using ever this plan the five cap limit on short term vacation rentals was calculated in mowing meadows a cap on b and b s in meadows should also be devised based on that fair share plan today eighteen percent that fair share plan be used across the island i think and molokai have some it's special problems and they should probably devise their their own fair share schemes regarding the short term vacation rentals that s t r h is just the council has had residents of a family and a position that they have to defend the character of their neighborhoods against people who don't live here and want the golden ticket a permit to make thousands of dollars each year the owners are buff buffered by local managers so they're only involvement is going to the bank it is so lucrative for them they are willing to pay up to twenty thousand dollars to consultants who help them get the prize at the very least the county should remove that buffer and lists the name and phone number of the owner as well as the manager on the transom rental section of the county website then neighbors can make the owners aware of the problems created by their vacation rental firsthand please reconsider where your did you get this i don't recall well i gave it to the clerk and she said it would be distributed so can we can we mr chair which you hold on for a minute and see what happened to it when i checked and i gave it and said it was over we didn't get enough copies so they're going to go make coffee i made nine copies and we need sixteen ok well are they somewhere where we can get for the planning committee meeting of july second two thousand and fifteen please come to order were on testimony from mad schaefer un p c twenty six now ok enforcement enforcement enforcement brilliant and i appreciate the trouble that he went to i think is his suggestions are excellent i believe the county should also advise the other air b n b and those other  immediate freeze on issuance of any vacation rental license until there is an active in force but i've been told that the council budget did not fund the planning department requests this year for an additional two to enforcement personnel  free that freeze may go on for a long time if it's in implemented the community has suffered with the consequences of a little enforcement since inception of this ordinance it's time to put the shoe on the other foot since some of these illegal operators are claiming homeowners exemption so the tax office should move to change tax classifications a b t o atlee it's a very clean and direct process and that's part of what i've provided to you and it is a very clean and direct process in the taxes has been division i've made a chart that shows you how that takes place the best kept secret regarding citizen complaints about vacation rentals is that residents can file a request for service complaint asli however the disclaimer on the website is silent on that point it doesn't it says you must file on the site it says you must file and  put your name and address in as close as as close as i've been to this following this issue i was not aware of that until yesterday one final point with the exception of the finance department property tax to be seen which provided excellent prompt information i've had a hard time getting information out of the planning department though the one exception is gina flamer who has been the sole responsible source and i am so grateful that she is there she does a really good job so now quickly to the chart i'm kind of a process person you know i like to start in the very beginning so i went and i finally caught up with mr repast and i said what happens how does this process work and what i found out was you don't need inspectors to do this process and i don't know why they're saying we need inspectors to do this process if someone files a complaint says an b and b ora are short term rental is operating a legally understands the advertising which is very easy to capture well it's not easy to capture you can capture the link but the county has the ability to capture the page it has the calendar you can tell pass gas you can tell how long they've been operating and it's a very simple thing then it's just a matter of going to the tax information they get a notice of warning letter form letter which i asked mr repast to bring but i don't think he said here is he sound file is closed advertising still up they get a notice of violation letter which says fine started a thousand dollars a day for an arts thirty days to appeal advertising still not up find not page file sent to co council you're at four minutes think are you know are you going to be around for the rest of the meeting yes ok we may call on you a little bit later if you're available ok i hope that you all will look at how what happens with that in the tax department it's a very simple process thank you thank you members any questions of the testifier seeing actually i did have a question for ma i didn't send you away i just said stop talking oh that's different when you said that you can do in our affairs without putting your name in can you actually not put your name in or does it require a name and they'll say it's an anonymous i'm not sure how that works well i'm not either i was just told yesterday otherwise i would have tried i did but but it may require your name but i think they're saying it's it's anonymous but i'm not sure how well then that ought to be on the disclaimer on the website ok well we'll look into that i just wanted to know if you'd tried it i haven't tried it ok thank you members any other questions that testify thank you michel for evergreen followed by beverly livingston  good morning chair coach committee members staff members of the community my name is deborah green and i serve as president of the mountain meadows neighborhood association and i'm testifying on behalf of our association and its constituency and i'm testifying on both items but i only need three more short and sweet the association recently sent out a survey on the short term mental issue and results indicate that members are split on the issue of increasing the s t r cap for many meadows since we had been told of a potential proposal to increase the cap from five to ten to fifteen our survey utilized of that range the results show that approximately forty eight percent agree with increasing the cap to ten to fifteen and approximately fifty two percent want no increase or fewer than ten people were allowed to include comments in the survey and some examples of typical responses were increasing the cap will increase noise parking congestion and compromise the quality of life for residents in miami meadows not increasing the cap will force people to go underground and cause problem with illegal and unregulated units increasing the cap will drive up prices for long term rentals and make it difficult for long term renters to afford to live in miami meadows not increasing the cap hurts people who need the income of a short term rental or they may lose their homes there's no consensus on the issue with people evenly divided we do however support enforcement of the ordinance without enforcement the ordinance has no consequence enforcement was expected when the bill became an ordinance and we'd like to see the county follow through on that thank you and since i have my still green light i'll say that my experience of the website that you know we were just talking about in terms of filing is that you have to include your name when you submit that form but it may not get included in the final notice it's ok thank you members any questions to the testifier mr goodman thank you for coming today and testify and just a few questions regards to the structure of the association itself ok and that yes and then in your membership is it her lot and one vote per lot or is it per member per person members and the other questions i have i have one thank you for that survey and now you know that the issue is not as easy as black and white so did you say how many people i responded to the survey we had a really high response rate there was like fifty two percent of our membership responded to it and how many members do you know well we're in a membership drive right now so i'm not exactly sure how many there there were when the survey was sent out ok thank you thank you mr goodman sorry can i just follow up on your question chair two and a half weeks ago and we are in a membership drive right now so we're getting new members all the time but we have over one hundred members at this point it's ok thank you that you brought up those with mr green oh yeah what is the total start screwing themselves when you start going from here to here sure and we all know we all know the issues of representation right you know i mean you hold an election only half of the people vote in an election and of those half only half of them end up voting for you and of those half and you know the numbers just keep diminishing and diminishing and we as an association do our best to keep our channels of communication open and to communicate with all residents of my meadows through you know our neighborhood chat which has actually let me just get that number for you it has five hundred ten members so we communicate through you know through that channel as well thank you very much and we do our best on the pulse of what's happening in the navy now is my next question how do you communicate and you just answered that thank you very much thank you thank you members any further questions of the testifier seeing them thank you thank you beverly ling livingston followed by barbara barbara climb good morning on a roll chair and committee members my name is beverly livingston testifying on p c twenty six i am a cohen are of a small permitted b and b in haiku and previously served as a founding member founding board member of the maui vacation rental association our business is suffering from a downward trend do the proliferation of illegal s d r holmes thank you for granting me the opportunity to speak in favor of adopting the enforcement amendments which are proposed in b c twenty six if the issue were confined to our self interest i would not feel justified in asking for your precious time to can intervene however this is a case where our own interests happen to coincide with the interests of the larger community and because of that i do feel it is appropriate to ask for your attention according to a march thirty one let thirty first letter to mayor are a call from maui planning commission chair ivan leg quote the planning department has estimated that there are twenty five hundred to three thousand illegal s d r homes operating in maui county and the letter goes on to assert that these businesses are quote eroding the character of residential neighborhoods driving up property values thus putting homes even further out of reach of working families and quote the letter concludes by lamenting the absence of effective enforcement quote only a handful of notices of violation have been issued last year the council referred county communication fourteen dash to fifty to the planning committee pertaining to the impact of illegal visitor randall's this committee subsequently held a meeting on that item p c fifty nine on october sixteenth during that meeting is only good mistreat or john repast reported that hundreds of complaints had been filed with this office regarding illegal visitor and also but that no notices a violation had been issued during the same meeting planning director will spend signal lodged that the proliferation of unpermitted s t r homes is depleting the inventory of long term rental housing for maui residen this is because landlords find it more profitable to rent rooms to visitors than entire homes to families and there are no consequences for their violations i also have a self interest in bringing this issue to the attention of this body at a time when the hawaii tourism authority boasts of robust visitor arrivals our b and b occupancy is now at a record low many of our colleagues report similar challenges with a generally downward trend in bookings over the past few years this is a result of increasing competition from illegal visitor battles which have saturated the marketplace and seventy five percent of them do not have licenses so they offer tax free discounts which permitted operators cannot match this is unfair to owners who comply with all the permit requirements established by the council floundering for want of protection on an uneven playing field mr chairman the secretary has received and distributed copies of my prepared statement to your committee thank you for your kind of kind attention thank you mr livingston members any questions to the testifier seeing none thank you thank you next up as barber quien followed by mark good morning mr chair members i'm barbara kline and i am testifying on p c twenty six my husband and i own a permitted b and b in haiku which is also challenged by the decrease occupancy i appreciate this opportunity to continue explaining this livingston's message the enforcement issue which p t twenty six and to address is a community wide of community wide relevance a group of permitted b in b operators conducted an audit of around one hundred illegal visitor rentals finding that only twenty five percent had t deprives the state of millions of tax revenues annually in many cases these properties were classified homeowner or residential by our finance department which robs the county of the much needed real property tax revenue the refusal of illegal operators to can attribute taxes unfairly burdens taxpaying residents with a disproportionate share of the cost of government services neighborhood impacts from the uncontrolled activities of inconsiderate estie our home guests may be reported to the county by following a request for service however the lack of effective zoning and force meant permits those disruptions to continue unchecked and neighborhoods the council wisely established a county wide quota of four hundred s t r each permits in order to preserve housing for residents and then in my eyes neighborhood impacts to date around one hundred and thirty seven s t r h permits have been issued if we rely on the low end of the planning departments estimate of twenty five hundred illegal s t r homes the ratio of illegal to permitted s t r homes is almost twenty to one to in ministration has not effectively exercised its authority to penalize violations and the community wide impacts have reached unacceptable proportions thank you for your time and you have well good morning my name is mark hodges and testifying on p c twenty six our family owns and operates a small b and b with a permit and we also have had a ongoing decline in revenue service and we believe it's of the unlicensed competition we do have generic and force mint set up in my county code chapter nineteen and we're pleased that the council had the foresight to include additional unfortunate provisions and based upon these provisions as zoning inspector does not need to leave the office to inspect the property they can take action based on the advertisement that would be submitted within our if s unfortunately we haven't yet seen the full exercise of this authority and effective manner so a group of the permitted b and b owners has been meeting with the mayor and the planning director and zoning officials there were four meetings in each of the one in each of the last four years for total information has been increasing steadily some reports show from dozens in two thousand and twelve moving up to the hundreds and thirteen over thousand and twenty fourteen and other sources indicating that by twenty fifteen we've got two thousand illegal operators in the county there have been hundreds of our ephesus submitted and i have submitted some myself which is a very unpleasant uncomfortable process but it's got to the point where we have to and these are offenses do  include advertising and the address however of all the submissions is only going to thirty one notices a violation there are some pictures here on your handouts of some examples and this is a property that was reported three times and  still operating for the last eight months has been reported this is a spend one thousand dollars a night second i saw us second page we have a smaller unit that would normally be used as an affordable rental unit probably operating as an illegal vacation rental an example that the previous testifier was discussing this is also been submitted this particular property does not have a tax license as well and according to our record setting up seventy five percent of the operators don't have a tax license if so they're not paying that tax like we pay and we have another one at the end and in this case there was an office filed they did receive a notice they stopped operating but now they're operating again so we need to be some kind of reliable follow up mechanism to follow each of the requests for service and so we find that it's not uncommon that some whoppers will receive a notice and then they'll get back on the internet and advertise again so we're hoping that we can you know it may not always because to marry for the council to give such strong direction to the administrative part of the government we feel in this case it's an important priority given the community's desire to limit the number of short term rounds to that which was agreed on through all the planning process so we think in this case at least in the short term it would be good to give additional guidance to the ministration so that they can justify their further in foresman and that we can meet the expectations of the community in having a limited and balanced number of short term rentals and all of them paying the necessary taxes so we can support the infrastructure thank you thank you mr hodges mispricing thank you very much chair and thank you mr hudgens for being here this morning  i just wanted to ask you a question you mentioned there were a group of you that met with the mayor and you were at several times when was the last time you met i was not part of those groups and working so hard to pay the bills and i understand i have been able to speak but i know that i could get that information for you i'm just curious to know if it meant if it met recently because you know this thing seems to be picking up momentum so i'm just kind of curious as to how that's going aloha honorable chair and honorable members my name is david dante as testifying in support p c twenty six my wife and i operate a small permitted b and b and i previously served as a co founder and the president of the my vacation rental association our business is struggling to compete with hundreds of illegal visitor rentals in the paey haiku district i hope you've been persuaded that discretionary enforcement isn't working today were asking for consideration of amendments which would require the zoning enforcement division to respond to reports of illegal s t r home advertisements in a timely and effective way during its june fifth meeting the council transmitted an initial draft of these amendments to your committee as a general communication item fifteen five afterwards on june fifteenth  members of our group had the opportunity to meet and discuss our proposal with the mayor planning director zoning administrator and deputy corporation counsel based on their constructive feedback during that meeting we revised the language in an effort to address the administration's concerns we're asking that the committee consider this revised version which has been submitted as written testimony along with the original version now please permit me to offer a brief summary of how the amendments would work if the department receives a request for service related to an s t r home advertisement which fails to publish the required valid permit number a notice of warning must be issued within thirty days provided the requester supplies a valid physical address for the property i think the department's main concern about having a deadline for issuing a notice of warning is if they can't locate the property so we're saying if the address is provided that notice of warning must be issued within thirty days the notice of warning must specify a deadline for advertising to cease and inform the alleged violator that daily fines will commence of advertising for sis past that deadline then if advertising does continue past the deadline a notice a violation including an order to pay daily fines must be served within sixty days of that deadline when we most recently met with the administration they told us that their turnaround time for notice of violation is around thirty days so we thought that a sixty day timeline would be fair and consideration of their staffing constraints this doesn't mean the offender can continue advertising for sixty days after receiving a notice of violations fines would begin immediately upon service and continue until advertising ceases we believe this is a reasonable step in the right direction during our june fifteenth meeting the zoning administrator affirmed that adoption of this proposal by the council is likely to result in more notices a violation being issued and issued more expediently mr chairman i'm happy to make myself available as a resource for your committee if i can provide any helpful information during its deliberation that copies of my thank you chair and thank you dr done this for being here you heard the question i asked earlier do you have there been any subsequent meetings that administration the most recent one was on june fifteenth and that's what you reported and that's it well we met in two thousand and twelve thirteen fourteen and then june fifteenth of this year i think and what was the reaction to the proposals that you  it first of all i have to appreciate that we got a great deal of forthright participation and in particular from deputy corporation counsel my copper he went through the proposal in quite a bit of detail and gave us specific feedback about issues which the either from a legal standpoint or administrative standpoint might be troublesome to the department as an  example requiring the department to issue a notice within a specified time frame could open the door for an appeal if the department is delinquent in the issuance of that notice for that reason we added language saying that if the department fails to issue a notice by the deadline in this in this section that doesn't invalidate the notice i can provide you if you want with around eight potential objections and the responses to them which was which resulted in the revision of our proposal but essentially i thought all of the things they contributed were helpful in our refinement of the recommendation i thank you very i just figured you know we're going to discuss your amendments and i was curious to know some of the reaction it'll help us in our discussion thank you yes and i'm sure that the corporation counsel will also respond to your question in detail about that and then if i can be helpful in stating our group's perspective about any of that i'll remain here thank you very much appreciate that well thank you chair thank you members any further questions the testifier seeing none thank you m thank you to talk with you later next up madeline dembo followed by hank klein morning committee members my name is madeline denbeaux and i appreciate the chance to testify on p c twenty six i served as a deputy corporation counsel for the county of maui under previous administration in retirement i own a permitted b in b in my home and haiku this morning i would like to comment on the question of whether this body has the authority to remove the planning directors discretion regarding foresman and to mandate such an foresman as  proposed amendments to nineteen point sixty five you may be aware of the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion that is to say the discretion of an agency to select cases for enforcement based on criteria within it six expertise there are several factors that argue against that discretion in this case and in favor of the mandatory enforcement provisions proposed this county council worked very hard to develop a process for obtaining a short term rental home permit and to determine an appropriate quota for that use in each district based on the carrying capacity of that district as we has conducted a survey which found that the number of short term rentals on maui far exceeds the number of permitted units resulting in burdens on our infrastructure and demands on county services which the council had intended to avoid by setting quotas in addition conversion of housing units to short term rentals in excess of those quotas is driving an increasing shortage of long term rentals in other words the studies of already been done to determine the appropriate carved out exceptions to that doctrine mandatory enforcement language in legislation which is what we're proposing here is permissible when the legislative body has a clear intent to limit agency discussion discretion and to define how and when the agency is to enforce the proposed amendments meet that legal standard first municipalities may legislate mandatory enforcement when a community is facing unusually severe impacts from a particular code violation second the proposed mandatory enforcement applies only to circumstances which do not require some discretion namely advertisements for short term rental homes which must include a valid permit number either the ad has a required permit number or it doesn't if there is no valid permit number the amendments would mandate the department issued a notice of warning than a notice of violation within a specific time of the minutes thereby establishing meaningful standards for the department's actions i'm also available over him in the chambers as a resource to answer further questions if if you have them the secretary has distributed a copy of my statements my statement to the committee thank you very much  questions to the testifier seeing none thank you mr bill hank quine followed by thomas aloha council members and chair my name is hank klein i own a licensed vacation rental in haiku with my wife i'm going to be speaking to you on both of these issues because they're kind of tied together the most important vacation rental issue now obviously isn't foresman making the license seeing process easier will not make a dent in the two thousand five hundred illegal vacation rentals only enforcement will the melia planning commission does not want any more short term rentals because they are hurting the local community by eliminating affordable housing or are you in favor of making it easier for more vacation rentals by not no neighbors about their neighbor about their neighborhoods or are you in favor of local families having affordable housing the most important thing you can accomplish today is to vote for enforcement enforcement is the only answer now i want to talk about taxes i want all six hundred square foot cottage i pay over nine thousand dollars a year to be legal g e taxes trans in accommodation taxes increased property taxes and other fees the important point is in force men will drive unlicensed vacation rentals to become a license to vacation rentals and pay that and most vacation rentals make more money than i do i mean look at these fancy houses they're making three or four times as much as i do b and b s have two or three or four or five bedrooms they're making a lot more than i am and if you multiply that out i think the budget committee might be interested to know that you'll get a the chair look committee i'm thomas crowing today i'm testifying on my own behalf i want to thank chair couch for agendas in these two issues separate items because permitting and in force meant while we've had a lot of discussions about them together they really are two separate issues it's been difficult to have a productive discussion about improving the permitting process when we keep going back to well we got it we dress this in foresman thing so today we can have two different discussions about that i'd like to address each of those those topics chair and the first item i'd like to address is p c ten the planning department is proposing a host of changes that i believe will help improve the  permit in process before the short term and ordinance was adopted we didn't know exactly what was going to come in now we do and there's a lot of folks who are outside the gate there trying to get through the process and they're not able to until we make some of the changes that that are being proposed today over the past three years i've assisted sixty four people in preparing permit applications i'm very pleased to report the thirty seven of those have been granted their permits am disappointed to report that some of those have been tonight and several have been withdrawn because they recognize they weren't going to be able to get through the process and then there's about twenty that are stalled in the process without some action from this council they're not going to get through the process these are people who are trying to comply some of them from day one of the ordinance and they need your help to do that i'm not here to discuss individual situations but i want to talk about those the key things that will help the most people comply the first is the trigger that sends a application to planning commission because there's another one within five hundred feet this is probably the number one issue that's preventing people from complying why you say because the planning commission has made it very clear in their letters in their actions that they don't want to grant any more of these so when someone says ok i'd like to make application but it's going to take me six months to put together an application to jump through all the hoops to then get before planning commission and have a very high possibility that they're going to say no to me is not a productive permeating system this is the second issue is how we treat the condominium eyes properties something that we were not in tune to was there are a fair amount of properties that residential condominiums where we someone has separated the property there's one house and a cottage on different condo units and right now the way we treat them both of them have to come in as one application and with different owners on each it really doesn't lend itself to that and it's held up some of the applications in process and made it impossible for many operators to even come in and make application for example there's a condominium complex or a a residential condo complex with forty five units and only one person would be able to get a permit out of those forty five and they would have to get signatures of all forty five other owners unless you allow them to consider their one condo separately i also believe that someone who has never operated should not be subject to not being able to get a permit just because a neighbor says i don't like the idea of this coming into my neighborhood what we have proven with this ordinance to this point is the people who have gotten permits have been good neighbors they have not created problems and that's the real success of this so we really want to bring more of the people into this process rather than excluding them chair if i can move on to certainly twenty six at this point shifting my testimony now to p c twenty six in the issues surrounding enforcement i guess today both the opponents of short term rentals and the  though it's a difficult task that the administration has to do in foresman and i think the only way that we're going to make improvements to that is for this committee to have an open dialogue with exactly what the current process and change the laws to facilitate a better process i'm disappointed today to not see the zoning administrator here because i think that you guys have to understand how they're doing it today before we can figure out what needs to change to to to make it work better however today you do have a proposed amendment from the planning department concerning a five year ban and i have submitted written testimony that you have with some suggestions for improving how that would be administrated in the big picture i don't think that it does the industry or the goal for a permit it industry any good to start excluding a subset of people and saying these people over here can't get permits under any circumstances and and then expecting that you that those people will truly stop operating i think we're creating our own problem if we if we start excluding people that way the goal here is compliance i'm very pleased that we have one hundred thirty seven people who have gotten permits to this to date but i am disappointed that we don't have four hundred i would have hoped that we would have actually filled this entire capital point  council has to make a choice today does it really want to permit it industry where everyone making this use understands the rules in a regulated or do they want to have an industry where some people are permitted over here and then we have these other people who are going to continue to create a and important problem just on a couple items that came up before i live in maui meadows meadows has six hundred and twenty five lots in maui meadows and most people obviously are not members of the mountain meadows neighborhood association i was a former board member of the mountain meadows neighborhood association but i am no longer a member of the association and i was not surveyed at that time also you heard over and over again that there is two thousand to twenty five hundred illegal ones i track every r f s i track every ad that's out there on v r b o and air b n b and such and i can tell with authority there is no basis no basis at all to say that there are two thousand to twenty five hundred i'm not making excuses for anyone out there but let's not overstate the problem it's nowhere close to two thousand and twenty five hundred the numbers that are out there that are advertising that don't have current numbers has been dropping dramatically in the past few months and that is because the department has started taking action on many of these are fesses that have been filed than the number of ads that are out there without permit numbers it's dropped by three times in the past few months so there is there they are going in the right direction thank you and you have thirty seconds i'm through if you haven't quite ok remembers any questions because it's hard to say when someone takes an ad down from the r b o have they stopped operating or they have they just stopped advertising mr crawley's just yeah my best guess would be in the eight hundred range that would be my personal thank you members of the the question is the testifier i have one you mentioned that you know you're trying to get people in which is understandable but at some time if we get to the cap if there are even the eight hundred nine hundred that you may or may not be able to account for what happens when we get to the cap very you're going to have somebody that wanting to do it but we're out of right very good point and i think you already heard the solution that what's going to happen from some of the folks who have testified to this point anything is a matter of supply and demand ok and if we have eight hundred people who are out there doing this today and those presumably could actually all be legal when when when the time comes then the supply and demand is there if we have two thousand that are out there doing this there's going to be a greater supply and the value is going to drop and people are going to find oh there may be better ways for me to market my property or to manage my property i think you heard one testifier say that someone who has a permit today in malibu meadows is now advertising their property for a long term rent so that that person may have determined it's it's more profitable for him to put the property into a long term rental so i think that that number of four hundred b and b s and four hundred short term rentals it probably will fill the you know the demand that's out there and all of us who are currently permitted operators will probably feel that will notice that our occupancies will drop and we may have to drop our prices accordingly i know that the folks that you that you just heard from all have experienced occupancies far in excess that the average is that the h g a puts out there when he says there are seventy two percent occupancy and these folks are averaging eighty or eighty five percent and they're nervous that it's coming down eventually it's going to come down to seventy two percent you're going to hit the you know we're going to we're going to average out there ok members any further questions of the testifier so yeah one more  are you looking when you look at all these that you were looking on do you look in to see if they are paying the price appropriate at least home or not homeowners but property tax you know property tax  most of the people who are making this use they either are homeowners ok and they're using rooms in their home so therefore they likely are claiming a homeowner or their non homeowners in which case they're renting the whole house while they're not here and they're usually in the residential or or agricultural classification but nobody who's making this use is raising their hand and saying put me in commercialized residential even though i don't have a permit or put me me when we were working on this i remember correctly no homeowners exemption right correct so if they're claiming it was taking well what i'm saying what i'm saying is someone who doesn't have a permit ok and is renting out rooms in their house and they are a homeowner they are continuing to get their homeowner exemption those of us who have gotten my permits obviously none of us get a homeowner exemption thank you for repeating that i think it's some quite yeah yeah i don't want streamline the permit process you know we could actually generate more revenue for our community my family owned business is all my friends own businesses you know so these renters support our business support our economy support our families so i'm deaf in support of streamlining the short term mental process you know it's great it's better for business you know it's better competitions better for business for all you that have your permits you know that's that's all i really had to say i just want to make it short and sweet and say you know  be no oh so you're speaking on the perspective of the businesses and so larry services today provide to be absolutely i mean hotels like to keep their guests there right if you know if visitors are coming in staying at private homes they are more likely to go out and support local business and you know shove the money into these big hotels that they're going to be there anyway so might as well support our families ok thank you very much appreciate thank you thank you members any for the questions that test fire i have one too do you have a business that is is servicing these vacation rentals or just your business i don't own a business so oh ok ok thank you thank you thank you all right let's go to the molokai district office public testimony ok public testimony is closed all right members you've heard public testimony and it is about time for a morning break so we'll take a ten minute break and will the planning committee meeting july second please come back to order ok members thank you public for the testimony it's very informative  members we're going to pick up start with p c ten and pick up where we left off we had gone through if you take a look at the december fifth two thousand and fourteen document from  operation counsel we've gone through this matrix at the back of that document and we need to revisit a couple of things we had consensus on quite a bit and i'm going to hopefully our member will be coming in here pretty soon because we have some things that we need to talk with with her so i want to start with  just a brief review very brief of what we done so far if you start from page two of the matrix we had consensus on everything except for the second row and the third row so we will come back to that  shortly and then on the next page page three we've had consensus on everything page four again the first item we're going to revisit it has to do with e we want to revisit renewals and compliance we had consensus on the next row row three we're going to revisit renewals and compliance again and then the rest we have consensus and on the last page we only have consensus on the third row and we're going to talk quite a bit about the last one which is the current proposal to him in the enforcement sections five year ban all right and then we have a couple other items that have been brought up by previous testimony and then again today that we would like to talk about so the first thing is on page two of the matrix talking about limited liability partnerships as qualifying ownership in a d and i believe that is on the new language that the department wants to suggest is on the deputy planning directors hand out for today it looks like this ok department do you want to actually let me see let me talk about this we're going to talk about p c ten first whittle that down as best as we can though i do want to take this in the context that we are going to deal with enforcement but i would like to get the department's response to some of the enforcement issues that they've had that they've heard about let's talk a little bit about enforcement first and then we'll get into this so the department go ahead thank you chair i think one of the issues that was brought up today was the number of the the assumed number of illegal short term runnels and when the number twenty five hundred to three thousand has been put out there my understanding is many places were advertising knowing that we only had a few hundred permits issued however that number does also include condominiums  that they were constructed and initially occupied were lawfully allowed to conduct short term rental and those properties under the recently adopted minatory a bill can continue to do short term rental operations they don't need permits that was permitted use long ago in the apartment districts so if you had an apartment you could do long term rental you could do owner occupancy you could do short term rental in the late eighty's or early ninety's the apartment district was amended to eliminate short terminal as a permitted use but those properties that were already conducting it are allowed to continue there was a legal opinion that was policy for the county to allow that used to be grandfathered in council recently adopted a law to put that into the code so there are hundreds probably thousands of those units that were included in that count of twenty five hundred to three thousand that don't have permits but that are lawful because they fall under the minatory a bill they have grandfathered status to do short term reynolds we are currently researching those properties we know that there are roughly one hundred properties that potentially fall under that status i can't say how many units in there in those properties total but we are confirming the properties that fall under the minute bill we need to confer with public works because it relates to the the date when the when the buildings were built so that will help us to narrow down  the zoning inspector positions that we have the last of our six zoning inspector positions was filled at the beginning of may it has taken an incredibly long amount of time to fill the zoning inspector position and these are actually zoning inspector trainees so these are there are there are high level background and experience requirements for these positions but nonetheless it has been very difficult to fill  them we finally have our six position filled and so we have started proactive enforcement issue to hundreds of notices of morning we've issued thirty notices of violation which is when your daily and  initial finds start accumulating and we have just starting have just started issuing the the bands and one last comment in terms of now  planning commission action on applications that that meet one of the triggers to get referred to the planning commission they've approved one hundred twenty one that have come to them and have denied only six  despite their umbrella concern about the impact on communities and affordable housing they really haven't denied many applications at all thank you we were going along i had been making comments but i'm not sure ok when we got to as far as the submitted proposed changes i mean there's submissions today to the bed and breakfast law which i don't think you can really take up today until the actual bed and six members any questions to the department missed by so yes thank you very much and thank you for your report i have a question i'm excited to hear about the new enforcement efforts and the fact that you're finally staffed i know it's been a challenge but i'm curious you know i am of the mind that i think that this is my idea i'm trying to find an idea i'm so tired of hearing about this and really discouraged because you know that was never the intent of us trying to address this it was to get it illegal things under control and have people apply and be legal and make this all work and not ruin our community so i'm just really desperately wanting to solve this problem and i appreciate the whole hard that is but i have an idea you know i have not picked up the newspaper any day yet that i can remember in near you know recent times that i read the most news in on the front page it says john breaux has been penalize for his illegal vacation rental and he's going to pay back one hundred thousand penalties dollars in do them fight i think that's what it's going to take i really do i think we have to find somebody big time and i think it'll scare a lot of people because the attitude oh there is who's paying attention nobody's going to catch me so i can do this until they get caught but i think we could just catch one is any thing like that in the works anywhere know these that we have just issued we will follow up on those i mean we will we will pursue those to the degree allowed by law and depending on those operators if they choose to continue operating those fines will accumulate and those are put there is public information so if somebody were you know really given the it would be public it could be public yes i think that's what it's going to take you know it's really funny this island as you know operates on word of mouth and i think if somebody gets whacked it's going to scare a lot of other people because up until now people  laugh at us they say well you know nobody's paying attention so we're just going to do this until we get caught so i really like i said i'm really happy to hear about the fourth staffing happy to hear about the new push but we're going to make an example out of somebody and i think  it together and then we're still at the point of lack of enforcement lack of enforcement and i believe part of it is also progressive not many fines but also progressive  punitive measures that can be put into this law that we need to look at the chair you know where if you got a notice and somebody mentioned earlier today they got a notice right so they took it off the beach and a few months later the back on so when you come back on the penalty must be media it's not a warning anymore if you want this time you lose you can't get a license for whatever it might be and here's your fines according to me for that because it's the right thing to do you have inertia nobody's going to move so i mean i agree and i was more in tune to having these changes if we're going to change the chair make  impactful and make sure they know it's going to be impactful and then get out there with you new people and yes let's hear them and let's you know where it hurts the most in the pocketbook so i for some very skeptical but tired is  required to give notice when we eliminate giving notice of warning missed thank you mr chair this does have some legal implications on notices of warning are actually required by departmental administrative rules and that's generally based on state law because state law says that municipalities basically the county of maui can issue fines after requests to correct the violation so there has to be a request to correct the violation before fines can be administered under the you needed to have and they were the rules for public works and planning used to say you had to have two notices of warning those administrative rules along with other changes to the law were changed to say there had to be one notice of warning provided before a notice of violation and that's the only current requirement is one notice of warning and then a violation can be can be issued so would you recommend in or pools who they would put language that coney ordinance trumps the ministry to rule fines to give requests to correct the violation so that's why the admin rules there you would still need to give a warning because that's a state law requirement so that's something that the ordinance couldn't couldn't trump if the ordinance wants to go into hundred thirty could have those types of changes but in this is not for vacation at all violations only it's for for any type of civil fines that the county wants to issue against someone for the violation of an ordinance there has to a type of warning given and i appreciate your opinion i don't agree with it because i think under local governance  because all of the me is doing enough they can make the appropriate adjustment and all that illegal to be forgiven well it doesn't even say there has to be adequate time given it just says there has to be a request to comply to correct  violation so that back could be i mean that could be a day after the request is made i think it's important to note mr mr victoria's example of advertising where warnings already gone out the advertisements taken down and then advertisement put back up again it doesn't have to be a new notice of warning if it's that same property they can go straight to a notice violation if they find that advertisement again because they've already been warned that that property can you know that that advertising is illegal so there's not an issue of i have to keep giving a warning again after that and right now would be only judgement leans which would require that the county issue the violation and basically if there's any appeal would have to win on appeal or if there's no appeal then the county can go directly into court for enforcement of its order which would and again one thousand nine hundred thirty talks about judicial enforcement of these orders and the first step is to allow any due process rights to expire which would be either an appeal with  o in appeal where the department prevails or there's no appeal at all the next step is to go into court and once the court recognizes you have to get a court order at that point imposing that those fines and once that happens you can lean that person's property based on that court order those are it's basically a court order of a judicial fine and so that's how the lean would could comment you know there may be options it would require some ordinance changes and some review of doing non  types of liens but again you could only really start leaning properties after all the due process rights are expired so that would be for people that either ignore notice is a violation and never appeal or if i'm going to and i would hope the committee wouldn't recognize that i think this is a critical part of the plan review approval process for i think the program needs to go to our and they need to find out what is the current property designation and tax category are they receiving any benefits they should not receive the yes i think we should do that letter i also think in the discussion is not only a permit the go start beauty which i think it already does i think any r f mr camas approach to this because one of the things that's bothered me is that at this point any penalties or just fines which are prospect of i think for this to have the threat that missed by so alluded to which i agree with is if we can managed to if we know how long they've been operated or if we just set a time i know there's maybe a problem with this but if we can charge them taxes at the hotel resort rate which is essentially what they're there unpermitted i'm comfortable  them back taxes and and following mr commas be this and make that a lean if they don't pay it but i think you know this is a serious issue  to a much greater extent than than anything else but at the same time we all have to be concerned about using up the you know the rental housing inventory to the degree that may or may not be happening at this point as a hotel guy i'm ok with these additional units but i'm not ok with anyone operating illegally because as do the permit people i've got to pay all the taxes and my t t bill is in the neighborhood of two million dollars a year so i don't mind having other people share in that and and make things competitive on the above board basis so i appreciate your bringing this forward and i i do think we've got a lot of work to do immediately on the on the enforcement issue and look forward to further discussions and others perspectives on this thank you thank you and the chair agrees with you chair white and mr okama it's we've got it we've got to put a handle on this for the people who have the permits as well as for the people who want to get permits and want to follow the law and as well as for the long term rental issue as well for those that that could do it either way consideration maybe some small exemption for them who've done a foot five years old three years and have followed the law and have been constantly bombarded by the eagles which then if you want to become a legal being b or whatever  that you have to stay in for five years and then you qualify because i think too many times we give exemptions right away exemptions should be earned earned and that's the key word i'm using earned and i think going to damages one site what did i said the other site is rewards for doing what is right dave done about it right so we should somehow help them and we'd make it up by getting those who have been done doing it legally so it's all i think we can make the money to provide the service and like mister white you saying you know there is an ambience there's people that would rather not state a hotel that instead of being be i know people that do it and i mean i've done it and it's that it's a nice change it is a very nice grandfather properties i think would pool mana fall into that no the caps are just for the permits issued under the b and b law or under the us to reach law so it's only ones that have those actual permits ok so current uses of this sort currently that are you know you say there's no permit number they're legally doing what they're doing because they're grandfathered wouldn't factor into this amount because i think it's important they an impact also just as any new ones that will come up will so it will be added into that inventory or the existing and i don't think we really took that into consideration when we looked into the amount i mean there's pages in here everything that people have chimed in from the hina in particular are not for it i mean they've already feeling the impacts because it's such a tight you know quarter at the it's really a compact little town and the stretch from banyan down to poole mana the little mini no two lane road and what have you is just congested as it is so people are taking issue with it and i and i agree and i see it so i also not sure if department had a chance to see him as shaffer's testimony and i have to say that i just love all her testimony and in regards to thank you for finally filling the shoes of all the zoning seats there are enforcement seats and i guess her breakdown is you don't really need boots on the ground type or work in order to get the illegals to chase down illegals so wondering if you see this is something doable and can work and concerted i don't know of take the place of but it seems like it could not sure if the department had a chance to look at her handouts that she gave us well but the proactive enforcement that we're doing is from the office is going on the web site and verifying we try to find two different advertising locations and confirm the location of the property so we don't go out to every location to inspect and wait there and see if we see people arriving with suitcases or anything like that it's purely on the advertising and yes we do that from the office ok very good chair following up on that there was i can't i don't have the e mail in front of me but there was a communication from a constituent saying that i guess within two days of a complaint there was a physical person to go to the address and they said they currently don't see any signs of short term rental occurring or what have you but they will periodically come back and check so there i do have depending on the nature of the of the complete proving short term rental activity on the site is difficult if people aren't there you know we  actually have to see people coming in going in ask them so that on occasion we're able to do that but for the most part because the law allows for advertising to be proof of operation then that's very easy to pursue and that's the low hanging fruit that we've been following up on excellent ok well thank you very much and i'm definitely want to follow up on mr holcombe as ideas and others thank you  members any further questions to the department on enforcement ok then we'll move right into p c turn and with keeping in mind all the enforcement issues that we hope we we'd like to have her come in when she gets a chance because that's going to be coming right up but first we have the language regarding limited liability use look at  that well as long as he's here let's let's do the next item on page two on the third row of the matrix one of the things that the department wants to do consideration for are you know i was just having this conversation with my staff that so often our our county is very unique we have we have military this being said i would like to request instead of us making this decision today based on the department's recommendation because one of k s going through their community plan right now i am because our i value and appreciate that community process i would like this opportunity as far as assignment of rooms for our island as far as the the short term rental units to be decided at that time when you're in you know you you're doing a framework with our community and perhaps that can be part of the discussion at the time county and also because our community plans are not all the same i would like that opportunity chair to have the department consider the time of  process that's happening right now the department any comment that note the bill did go through the planning commission who did ask that it remain at three formal upright and we wanted to put the issue forward letting the council know what the department's perspective is  that's that's a clear policy call for the council to let us know and so if we want to leave it as is for now and then once the community plan passes if a change is desired if that time and we can revisit here because you know it will still go through the planning commission comes back to council and we have that full circle that at least will allowing the members if there's no objection we will look at not changing the molokai issues until after the community plan and because so they can discuss it amongst the community and if they come back and say we're fine with six then that's good if they have another number that's good as well is there any objections there objectives ok and then so members if you go to page four the first that is languish two that we would like to wait until after the community plan ok so without objection we'll strike those two items and then when the what he would like to consider one size and those that fit correctly i think we need to be mindful of that and we'll we'll take that into consideration when we get back to that section thank you thank you mr okama partnerships members of the planning deputy planning directors come up with proposed language and i'll just read it the copy was available out there for folks in the gallery  hopefully there's some right currently the the language says that anybody anybody who's in a limited liability partnership needs to be twenty five percent partner and what that happen what happens is when we have families i think mr white's family is included in that if you have families of more than five members of the family more than four members of the family you day can be a member of the limited liability partnerships so the department heard our concerns and came up with this language and basically it says the permit holders one to hold a minimum of a twenty percent interest in the lot on which the short term rental home is located and then talks about further on the short term in a home permit shall be issued in the name of the applicant who shall be a natural person or persons holding a minimum of a twenty percent interest in the lot except that a permit may be issued for a lot owned by a family trust a corporation a limited liability partnership or an l l c if the following criteria are met one that the applicant shall be a natural person who is the trustee of a family trust a manager and twenty percent partner of a limited liability partnership twenty percent corporate shareholder or manager and a twenty five percent member of an l l c to the corporation a limited liability partnership or l l c s not be a public e to be publicly traded and three all of the trustees partners corporation shareholders or all of the seas members shall be natural persons and if there are more than one trustee partner shareholder or member they shall be related by blood adoption marriage or civil union so basically that allows for family trusts to be as big as they need to be but if  planning department can you just confirm what you what you've done there ok thank you for the summary so we did hear you we did hear you loud and clear at the last meeting so we went back and looked at our language  and we were presenting it to you to discuss the twenty percent it would allow families of five it wouldn't help families of six but it would allow us to go to five at the same time we did align the ownership for not only if you own it in some type of  limited liability limited partnership or corporation to if you just own it fees simple things so we made it twenty percent for any way that you own it and then we also added in if it happens to be a manager based l l c it should be the manager  disclosing another loophole for people that we do recommend we do understand court counsels concerned about the ownership of making a complicated but again it's information for you to make decisions on members any questions on this any concerns about this mr guzman and then mr holcombe i probably would lean more towards what corporation counsel is saying what what actually what i'm seeing to or limited liability partnerships you've got to have them as the cigna tour or the primary sponsible because if you go with the natural person and you can you're only going if if we're going to go penalize and then later on go after a judgment on the fine fines or fees and then place a lien using that judgment and filing it with the bureau of conveyances you're only going to get twenty percent of what  maybe we can ask or count sure just to just to that's an interesting tape because the way this was presented was to allow for people to have family trust to actually form a partnership and get a permit but i see i see you're looking at it from the other direction is to go who you're going to go after so i appreciate that perspective so mr hopper the concern i had raised to the department wasn't n ecessarily the legality of doing this because i think the council can say what types of entities can own the property just tracking them in and verifying all of this will take a substantial amount of effort on the part of the department in an understanding of the  you know the entity structure that was not required in the past i mean originally these were just issued to natural persons so be an individual and then there were some changes and as the changes continue the caution was simply that that's going to be a substantial amount of resources going into monitoring this these types of transactions and you know clarifying issues that it appears that the fight for i'm not mistaken that the l l c need only own twenty percent of the property so follow up with mr hopper is that that's a good point because the structures are different and then l l p versus it l l c as well as just a general partnership so when you're doing with managing members they may not necessarily have twenty percent of interests but they are within in the membership membership documents they are designated as the managing member even though they may not have a higher percentage of the general membership in an l l c so you're dealing with different structures for different entities here so unless the department is willing to go through that whole legal analysis of breaking down each entity and figure out who has twenty percent and who and specifically designating the managing member in  up to you if the law as it stands now already has that provision at twenty five percent so it is something that we already do and we don't do the research we put the or pundit you just go whoever the be and what why can't you just go with the entity itself instead of the percentage of interests as a whole so that way if it is a l an l l c then it's their their vote within their their entity to go into a permit then all of the entity and its assets are held liable to it why are you just singling out managing member a person who who is the trustee with the percent of interest why don't you just say if it's a family trust and it has think i'm going to give a little bit of background first of all these the permit holder has to be a natural person unlike an s m a the permit holder can't be an entity because the entity members can change over time the council is the one who put the natural person requirement on they wanted from what i can recall it started with the bed and breakfast they wanted a person to be responsible and not an entire corporation but if you're dealing with c that doesn't because the natural person would die and then it would have to go into you know probate and then you don't know who's next owner what that point will you just makes more sense to put on the line the entity because the entity could last longer and almost like a corporation if you're a natural person in a corporation you may die but the couple the corporation lives on and if the corporation is under an agreement with the county then we have a longer long chevy of liability and relationship with the corporation as opposed to a natural person so i don't see the rationale by singling out a natural person  hang on a second we had this discussion several terms back i think the issue is we don't want this property to be short term rent in this case short term mental home for ever we wanted to go when the person who owns it goes now yes a lot of ifs are but if it stays in the family that's fine but we don't want to be able to say you know cochran wants to buy mn l l c now it changes completely it's no longer in the guzman family we want we want to prevent that and that's i think how they came up with the prevention of that and we discussed that it was a while back ok so if they change why don't you just put languages if if it changes title to another entity then that's the time that that is one way that's the easy way but the other issue is you have singling out a natural person well why not allow the family trust to go in and apply as an application for the permit the slip is usually sold with it so that was one thing we talked about was limiting the ability for these permits to be transferred the second thing was taking a look at the value of the property and once it's able to be transferred the assessment has to reflect that into it so value goes up and the council is very concerned about these types of houses suddenly being worth more just because they have a permit when the permit ends with the person and the permit is not transferable you cannot t you into the cost of the house for tax purposes so those are the two reasons i recall but this came from the council on the public these provisions to reflect the more common types of ownership that we see it used to be you had to hold your house fee simple in your own name to come in for a permit you know if you if you her it kind of resembles you know if you're going into a leave you know business lisa and  the l l c is contracting with the landlord then they put indemnification provision in that and that where the natural person signs off because if the elysee goes bankrupt then they can go after the natural person figure out how to prevent that from happening as well because that's you know case history at this point my thought is and it's more along if you have the c in the lp make them the applicant and every member of the see is now the applicant so if somebody tried to do this by multiple you know be members of multiple  cs since we're only allowing one person to have one permit maybe that will will help so you know mr hopper if we change this to basically doesn't matter what the percentage is you just have an l l c and you know or an lp member all of the members are applicants and it would prevent somebody from by you know becoming members of a bunch of different l l c and just a follow up what is the rationale by putting him percentage and there i i think that was to prevent somebody from coming in and i think we had a situation in one of the very early ones where somebody said i'm going to take one percent i'll give you one percent of this and you're the manager and then you know not really having an interest in the property other than maybe a small percentage i think that happened in one of the earlier applications yeah and then that lies into the problem of designated the app that corrects the natural person because a natural person could have only one percent and that's all that worth as the county is going to get if we're going to go for a lean later on if we get a judgment you know is that one percent sold right yeah no i don't know  is if you can think of a better way that's why we're here and so maybe let's put that on your go on your if you can come up with know if you could no no no not your committee your if you can come up with some language for us to look at that would be really because you're you know you're used to this kind of thing sure sure i can stuff work with you ok if you wouldn't mind working with that part with coming up with some language so we could all be we're trying to prevent somebody from getting a cooperation of them but we're also want to allow a family to be able to have that correct yeah ok thank you any other comments mr white i think the main point is that we did not want to be transferable correct and so that's that's the critical issue ok so maybe by the july twenty third meeting which is the next meeting you might be able to come up with something that would allow your fierce thank you mr holcombe i always in my own clan of percentages of ownership and what you can and cannot do with multiple ownership property right so i guess i know what his intent was to have families maintain their properties was if i was to make business to make business off residential property it's nothing right so for me if you guys want to talk about l p s or  seeds somebody needs to give the apartment one document this is we have over fifty percent ownership agreeing to this use or whatever it be and i agree we don't have to be in court for family the family correct disputes and we're talking about this is if there are any notice of violations not overturned on appeal or noncompliance with the permit or other government requirements than the director may refuse to remove renew real reference to amendment number three you know and i know so what the department did and it refers to a number of these items that are on here is we clarified after speaking with corp council we clarified the criteria looking at amendment number three on the other sheet says renewals and compliance and there's a significant changes here that should help let's go through it f nonrenewable procedures one the short term mental home permit may not be renewed if the director finds a the permit holder provided false or misleading information during the application process b the permit holder is in violation of state department of health regulations see the permit holder is delinquent in payment of state and or county taxes fines or penalties assessed in relation to the short term rental home and then d evidence of non responsive management the police report noise and other disturbances on the property f warnings or violations resulting from recent requests for services and g neighbor complaints of noise and other disturbances relating to the short term mental operations provided that the department has received at least three complaints about a short term home within a twelve month period complaints must be from property owners or at least lessees of record located on two or more different lives within a five hundred foot radius of the proposed short term rental home h noncompliance with the permit conditions or by noncompliance with other government requirements and then it goes to two and we'll get we'll go through each one of these when we get done i'm just reading what they're suggesting now number two if the director denies request for a permit renewal the department shall not accept the new application for short term mental home permit from the permit holder for two years after the date of the permits previous expiration date so department can you kind of go through those a little bit at a time just to say why and thank you so what we did is we took the current revocation criteria which was already in the law and we cleaned it up a little bit and we made it relevant to non renewal procedures we didn't realize for a non renewal that it would be very useful to actually have criteria that you base that decision upon so that the criteria for the non renewal versus the revocation are the same and we've put them in two different places just for ease and there is i don't believe anything new that we are adding yes mr hopper to some mit language maybe to clarify this the original subsection b said the permit one of the criteria for it was actually revocation but now going to non renewal the full sentence was the permanent orders in violation of state department of health regulations this chapter the permit conditions or any other of laws or regulations that last part is very important at the bottom there's different wording that says noncompliance with other government requirements and i'd recommend a couple things one is i don't see a  reason maybe there is to state department of health regulations specifically i think those would be covered by any other of laws or regulations but i think rather than noncompliance with other government requirements we should have h which is no regulations something like that that's a bit broader i know the intent is to not change it but i think that that language may be just just a bit clearer and if there's a reason to specify department of health regulations because those are very common then that's fine too but i would think they'd be covered in any other you know laws so if there are noncompliance for another law the department wouldn't be forced into renewing the short term in a home permanent they're violating another law or or this chapter and that makes that very clear that's what the existing law was but i think that little change may help to clarify that so remove the permit holder is in violation of state department of health regulations because that fits into i noncompliance with other government requirements i think the department delete and kind of tried to space it out to make it a bit clearer and i think that's a good idea but i just think the wording noncompliance with other government requirements it would be better with a separate section for noncompliance with this chapter because you see other government requirements you just want to be clear this chapter if you violate something in this chapter which would be the most relevant reason obviously for not renewing a permit that that stated and then have another sub sub letter regulations it really shouldn't change this substantively except that noncompliance with other government requirements i would want to reference to this chapter as well just to make sure that it's i mean it should be obvious but if you don't share i with the chapter you may not have your permit renewed or regulations to spend that much time on it it doesn't say much different substantively but i think it's a little clearer a little bit clearer ok steph did you catch that got it ok good just wanted to make a couple of comments as gina mentioned we were trying to mirror the non renewal with the revocation so the that change would also be made to issue we wanted to clarify and then one requests we wanted to make on item f warnings or violations resulting from requests for service we just wanted to confirm or asked for the council s consent that that would apply to requests for service filed by the public as well as requests for service that the department might file proactively so we just wanted to establish on the record that down the road if it's something that we initiate proactively that it would also fall under the revocation and then the request that we wanted to make on the item to where it says if the director denies a request for a permit renewal the department shall not accept a new application for a short term rental home permit from the permit holder we'd also want to add in this is included in another amendment that you'll see  not only from the permit holder but also for the property and that's in the when we talk about the ban we also be making that same recommendation that it's not just the owners but the property as well would be would be prohibited grossman i'm going to follow up with what this mclean said but i wanted to ask my my initial question for sure of the the renewal of this section disses applicable also to the grandfathered properties that are out there for renewal i mean like for instance when we and i can't recall that ordinance but when we ground father because then he wants to clear how do you apply i know this would not apply to those properties they don't have they don't have to comply with any of the restrictions in standards in the b and b or in the short term rental home permit there's not a limit on ownership or transfer ability or number of rooms or any of those things none of those things apply to them because at one time those properties were allowed to do short terminals outright restrictions and so they're allowed to continue doing that mr hopper if we're talking about the apartment district the reason that those were considered there was an ordinance passed in and about it there was one in that said you can only do them in the hotel area or hartman districts and in about one thousand nine hundred a law came in that said you can't do them in the apartment districts anymore with that law said was that it was in a political to certain people and those certain people were considered opinion was really based on the wording of the ordinance which says this does not apply to certain to certain things and it didn't create really nonconforming uses it created uses that were allowed to that they were basically exempted from the prohibition there's other types of grandfathering potentially like there may be people that had conditional permits under under the law and are not a bit different that's something that the council permitted but in general those grandfathered ones would not have to and would have never had to get a permit under this section so this non renewal would apply to those that had to get permits under this section no no i guess what my point is like ok like you mentioned mr hopper yeah there are some that are out there with special use permits and those have conditions on them so there is somewhat of regulations going on on those permitted though those who have special use permits now for those who are grandfathered in what is the re regulations that we monitor them on or we just don't there is basically they can convey their property to a new owner and it just goes on and on without any real regulations at all on those that's that's is that my understanding of the apartment district was a very special case because not ordinance the council actually used language that says this shall not apply to this new group in general how a non conforming use works and this is generally it was not the those apartment district people because they were exempted from that ordinance in general for an ordinance passes and says you're not exempted and this applies to all immediately there is something in the code that deals with non conforming uses and that says that the u s can't you yeah and that's the interesting thing with you know when the law was changed the people that in the law itself it says anybody who is already permitted you know had a building permit it cetera from this day back is exempt from the law period and the story of so but most most of those were apartments the condominiums and their t v are use short term mental homes i don't know that we have many if any actual short term rental homes and that's what we're dealing with here so their apartment rate it if there happened to be a single family short term rental home in the apartment district correct then that the minatory a bill could apply to that but by and large apartment properties would be developed with multi family structures  so there might be a few cases where that would happen but i think the majority of of what everyone thinks of a short term mental home is a single family home in a residential subdivision and and so it wouldn't be  understand it so just getting back to mr mclean said prior to my first initial question on that number two gee i guess it's right after i number two says if the director denies or requests for a permit renewal the department shall not accept a new application for short term rental home permit from the permit holder for two years after the data per yeah so i agree that it should be clarified to the property but as well as when we're looking at the permit holder when you had that natural person before it's probably best to you know change  that when we're talking about the permit holder because in the natural person can be prevented from doing it but that i'll see can go out and get a new permit so it's better to capture  health and she said that was a carry over from b and b where there was a concern about septic and so in a case like that let's say someone does end up having a vial a deal wage  violation that they cure or as soon as they find out about it that might not be something where the director would want to not renew their permit so may rather than shell gives the director discretion in that regard does that answer your question yes mr hopper maybe to clarify i don't know if this is something apartment would want but if you could state that the director may decline to review a short term mental home permit if the director finds i don't know if that's what you have because i think your confusion may be short term don't permit may not be renewed if the director finds that sounds like i mean i guess potentially could sound like you're not allowed to renew a permit if you find any of those i think what you're saying is the director may decline to renew the permit if if the director finds that may clarify it because i understand why the chair reference that as confusion it's going to be at the discretion of the director if if maybe one thing the big thing is going to be the neighbor neighbor complaints of noise but essentially if any one of these things are violated then the directors i guess it's up to the directors discretion as to whether or not to but i don't see anything in here that would be  would would cause the director to maybe not or to allow them to renew anyway him or her well the example i gave of  we now have that language noncompliance with other political government requirements if they have as i mentioned a department of health violation with with an old cesspool that needs to be replaced or wasn't properly maintained and as soon as they're made aware of it they correct it but technically that they would be in noncompliance with that requirement that might not be something that would rise to the level of the director saying i'm not permit for a b and b we site that it's a maximum of six people because of the size of the structure or do we just see three bedrooms department we get really specific and our approvals it's the bedrooms that's the bedrooms that were noted on the application so if you change around that's got a lot of snow and because that's where they have been the procedure comes and then in their approval letter we actually list not only the maximum occupancy which we spell out which is two times the number of bedrooms and we put in what those bedrooms are we list where the owner lives if it's a bed and breakfast which is health department has minimum square footage r we rely on either the d s a miscellaneous inspection or their home inspectors report that the structure is built to code so i assume maybe i shouldn't per room period even if it's a allow that i don't believe a six by six bedroom would be approved by the idea say or by the home inspector if someone has a understood government requirement if you're going to occupancy understood ok so you have those changes down that  we talked about we're going to now the rep of revocation and enforcement and some of this is going to be probably revisit it is certainly revisited in p c twenty six or so but i just want to get the foundation down and see if we can get some agreement on that at this point revocation procedures short term mental home permit may be revoked if the director finds a permit holder provided false or misleading information during the application process be the permit holder is in violation of state department of health regulations again we made a switch that around see the the permit holders and delinquent in payment of state or county taxes fines or penalties assessed in relation to the short term mental home d evidence of non responsive management police reports of noise or other disturbances in the property f warnings or violations resulting from requests for services g neighbor complaints of noise and other disturbances relating to short term mental operations provided that the department has received at least three complaints about its short term in a home within a twelve month period complaints must be from property owners or lessees of record located on two or more different lots within a five hundred foot radius of the proposed short term mental home agent again noncompliance with permit conditions or i noncompliance with other government regulations and f s from anybody and i think that language there is is good enough because i know our office does in your office some and other members office some so i think we're fine with language there you know i don't think an amendment is needed we wanted to put on the record in case someone years from now gotcha who wants to make sure that they're not just are if this is from the public ok at this point as this stands in the members you're ok with this language and then we'll go and when p c twenty cut six comes in will make adjustments potentially make adjustments there and just to clarify again that the department one of the things our department does for all applications is when it's routed to us our clerical staff is already gone through a note and we are a fashion of the property whether they're closed or not it's just if they're in the computers in our facets on our job is the planner to go look next latest revision revisit is get the committee's thoughts on a couple of things one we talked about operating within five hundred feet of the of another it turns out that that is causing a lot of triggers now through to send things to the planning commission can you talk about that a little bit department and this will be the last thing we'll deal with today ok but ok what we're noticing is that the like are resort areas that the short term models are kind of grouped in certain areas and we're seeing that and it is causing a tremendous amount of the planning commission stime and the planning department staff to take these through our thought is that the protest provisions also protect neighbors as well so if there are problems that should come up through that way but we are looking at streamlining the process we're under heavy pressure in which to do that i put in my initial report what the percentage of time it's taking at the planning commission i think being be short term  homes and the ag permits that go with that the state special use permits were taking up a majority well over a majority of the planning commission stime so when we bent back and kind of looked at what kind of streamlining can we do that was one of the us i mean you know with our communities yeah it's basically one mile wide half a mile right we're proposing to take that requirement out so for me i would recommend any commission have the ability to either recommend or make those decisions so if it's you're saying if they're still within five hundred feet of another then five hundred feet circles so for me a lot of the planning commission to make those type of community calls i think you can do a fine job ok so if you want me to tell you what i plan to commit sure they voted on it ok they voted to get rid of the five hundred foot i took great yeah to agree with the department on that one as well as they made a couple other recommendations ok all right see without seeing no objections we're going to remove that provision right members thank you so much we got through pretty much everything that we needed to revisit on this  the big part is going to be the enforcement on the twenty third of july is our next meeting and i'll bring that up both this and p c twenty six again and we're going to combine them we really want to get some good in for but i think with the amendments that the department has brought up a lot of that is doable members of the public you know this is a painstaking process yes it just it's the nature of the beast so we're moving right along as best we can and we will get we will get this nailed down so this cochran real quick that five hundred it only appl very close quarter little town but no i don't that's not a consensus here ok so department can you explain a little bit more about what's the issue there ok so the proposal is part of our streamlining we were under heavy and i understand there's always compromise this when you're asked to do that well with any public policy bell so we were asked to take a look at ways to reduce the demands upon the planning commission and the department so we looked at what the triggers were for them and we one of the discussions was to remove the five hundred foot trigger to go to planning commission so what it does is it puts it back in the department discretion when reviewing the per match if there are neighbor complaints that trigger it it still goes on to the planning commission for that and part of the reason behind that is we're finding that certain areas you get like right now we're having our multiple ones come in within a certain area parts of south key hey so we're taking a look at that and seeing a kind they do kind of naturally group themselves that there are pros and cons on both sides it is ultimately your decision but what the pressure that we're getting to make the process easier for people it's one idea that we came up with and are you finding that when they are grouped together the commission is pretty much saying yeah they're fine often it's the character of the neighborhood we've only had one that was denied because the trigger was five hundred feet all the other ones were approved by the commission and that's members why that yes mr white  could the department provide us with the number of the number of ones that were sent to the commission that were approved within five hundred feet ok we had up until i did these numbers for our planning commission orientation which was i believe in april up until then we had had five that had been referred to the planning commission for being within five hundred feet of each other of those four were approved in one with tonight and seem to be a much of a problem it's it's right now we had a waiver in the beginning for the first year for that provision for the five hundred feet so they've been slowly trickling in but as you get more permits coming in we're starting to see more than five hundred feet of each other mr goodman but that being said that that causes red flags for me because i would assume that the only me you're saying that there's there's triggers that would then place the application to go through the planning commissions and one of them is a complaint and the other one is five hundred feet radius rate a lot of the complaints that i would assume are probably not valid because it's not even the operations so how can they complain they're only complaining about you know irrelevant things that i would assume don't really apply to the operation because it's not even operating at that point so what is the real determination or the you know  examination of the of the property or it would be just basically the five hundred feet so that would be you know a reason for looking at it at the permit or the property in detail so we don't want to have you know high density of all these i mean i clearly don't want to see high density of short term rentals and b in one area i think there needs to be something in place to examine the area or the radius and i think maybe at most i'd be willing to go to two hundred feet short term rentals along the beaches there and to have every one of those come in for planning commission that's what's backing up stuff in the planning commission so  this standard for the planning department to do to determine that there isn't high density in that area for you know too many in one area because then you're going to have a whole district full of these short term rentals and b s and go ahead and be well the other the other triggers for going to the planning commission is if it relates to receiving protest there's several different scenarios and different percentages if you're across the street or adjacent and also depending on how many lots are within the five hundred feet so there's a small percentage if there are a few lots a larger percentage if there are more lots  so if there's already an existing end and the applicant still has to do their initial notification to everyone within five hundred feet to let them know they're applying for the permit if there's already an operation within that five hundred feet that might be the basis that people submit protests they may say oh we already have one i don't want another one in my neighborhood or it may be that oh there was you know there used to be an illegal operation here and now they're applying for a legal one down the street i didn't like the one that was here before i don't want one so the just the existence of a permitted operation within five hundred feet may or may not be problematic for the community they would still have the opportunity to file protest and hit one of the triggers if that one provision were deleted so there's still notification the still the opportunity to submit protests and they could comment on the density question if that was a concern chair a guy that's a difficult one i still don't well we can we can certainly discuss this further obviously it and we can bring that up the very first at the next the next meeting obviously there are still concerns and i'd like the department to come up with their numbers and maybe we can hear from the testifiers into that we're going to discuss the potential of removing or lowering the five hundred foot much sorry will went a little bit longer than expected and public thank you very much hopefully will have we we got your testimony we understand it we can get done next time so thank you very much this meeting is a