with the planning committee meeting of thursday september twenty fourth two thousand and fifteen please come to order my name is don coutts i'm the chair of the committee and i want to first before we start to ask everybody to turn their cell phones on to silent mode so that if that rings during the meeting we don't stop the meeting and ask who it was so our your phone's on silent yeah ok good right now i want to welcome the committee voting members we have the vice chair of the exact title is greater administrator of zoning john good morning and from corporation council deputy corporation counsel michael kopper morning and staff we have our legislative analyst's jordan  back over there morning legislative attorney greg our no good morning committee secretary probably in martin's good morning and in the hot district office we have don lono and district office denise fernando district office and members today on our agenda we have five items we have p c thirty two transit vacation rentals in planned developments p c sixteen amending the comprehensive zoning ordinance relating to w c twelve composting as a permitted use in the agricultural district p c thirteen park zoning district comprehensive update and p c for residential districts first of all we're going to start with  testify in the chamber please sign up at the desk outside the chamber door if you're testifying from a remote site please sign up with the district office staff testimony will be limited to the items i just listed pursuant to the rules of the counsel each testify will be allowed to testify for up to three minutes prior to him i will also be allowing an additional minute to conclude testimony in the lighting system we will be using green light will be on for three minutes then it will go to yellow which means you have one minute to complete your testimony and when it goes to read please end your testimony right then and there thank you when testifying please state your name and any organization you might be representing ok members without objection welcome public testimony it's very important that our small their family farms are able to pursue this activity bringing in outside sources of green waste to their compost piles and to kind of scale up their composting operations right now if you're on a two acre lot chances are you won't generate enough green waste to really make significant piles of compost another reason i strongly support this measure is that we're experiencing the spread of a little fire at one of the vectors for a little fire it is green waste the other day i was driving a honda and i saw a ten m truck load of greenways coming from on a landfill t central maui i would strongly encourage the county to stop that soon as possible because we all know that now he has a little fire ants i personally have heard of farmers taking greenways to the landfill with little fire ants on meaning they're going to get to the central my landfill and spread around the island in depth conversation with our agricultural chairman to the board of ag the other day and basically the big island it's past the point of no return there's no way they're going to contain the little fire on the big island anymore on maui we have the opportunity to contain little fire i do believe that composting regionally is one of the solutions to containing little fire and would encourage you guys to pass this measure that's about it really very important i think regional composting is a solution also to lower the costs of agricultural production i personally  pend about ten grand last year on compost for my farms i run thirty acres on the north shore and it's not really the compost is expensive it's the trucking so if we can have regional composting systems like say h spread recently and so the fact that misc is unable to really contain the spreading of these invasive species means that we need to we need to do more yeah thank you mr russell members any questions to the testifier i have a couple yes or so you're ok with outside sources because typically composting is allowed as an accessory use for a specific  ag so you're ok with it coming out from outside sources because you say your contention is is that it it helps either another person get rid of their green waste or you as a farmer on a two acre lot to get more calm or actually you have a thirty acre lot but to get more green way so you can get compost on your site is that right because aggregating the green waste is a lot of work and so if i have a landscaping contractor in the neighborhood or say supply and you know when they're chipping trees come drop a huge pile that's a heck of a lot easier than me going around into gulches and so on and so forth collecting green wa e i think composting process reduces the volume of green waste by about seventy percent so you might have some huge pile of green waste and within three months it shrinks down to a pretty small pile and if you're doing large that's a nice size farm and you don't have enough green waste to produce enough compost for your theory so you need stuff to come in that you spent ten grand last year on importing mulch compost and all that came from other parts of maui like west maui central maui and if haiku had its own green waste operation i think that would be pretty good actually  negotiations right now also with because i went to the solid waste of vision my car my concern about the spread of fire it was pretty high and i went to the solid waste division to talk about the movement of greenway start of heart a and c it was i think he's the director of solid wast e said that he doesn't want to move it out of town it's very expensive and so i've been in negotiation with the honda ranch and they've expressed interest in depositing the green waste and composting it on their property because they've got plenty but it's illegal until you pass this bill so ok i think that would be good and they've got forty five hundred acres i think they're only doing about thirteen acres of paying it needs compost right now but i think they're going to scale up here on behalf of holy law which is a planned unit development on the west side and i'm here to respectfully request that you approve the proposed resolution p c thirty two as you may know p c thirty two allows you to plan unit developments in certain areas that have partial residential zoning at least that are for for plan new developments which have certain criteria there's only at this point to plan your developments that i'm aware of that meet the criteria in the ordinance as it now stands and that's a poly plantation both of those meet the requirements of the law is exactly the same as both of those two projects with one exception and the exception is that it has a number of duplexes which meets the criteria but it also has some single family structures if you look at the ordinance three quite serious for meeting the ordinance or that the plan development received a final approval pursuant to this chapter and at least one unit in the plan development was engaged in as a vacation rental prior to one nine hundred twenty one thousand nine hundred eighty one meets that criteria the second criteria is that the plan development must be located and parcel with at least some residential district so any all of that meets that criteria as well the third criteria is the plan development consists of only two places or multifamily while in units plan all the law has forty three units one is one is occupied as an off office and by the manager so there's really forty two units that are owned by members of those seventeen are two places and i'm sorry sixteen are duplex and the rest are single family  now though small single family dwellings have less density then duplexes for multi family units so from from our perspective there are less of a concern in terms of economic standpoint and from the fact that in every respect all the complies with the ordinance except for the fact that it has some single family homes instead occupied i don't have the exact number but i can tell you that a majority of the units are owned by people who live on the mainland who come in user units on occasion and have their friends and guest stay at the units ok so i don't have an exact number  there's not a high degree of a cation rental activity in the project from my understanding currently talking to the president of the board and i was hired by the board of directors who wants this to be passed because of their c s there is as many as five or six who engage out of the forty two may be actively two or three at this time so would you say there are  likely no owner occupants or no you know there are some owner occupants i'm just not aware of the might say the vast majority over twenty or twenty of the forty two units are owned by people who live on the mainland income to use it as a as a vacation or  friends to stay there thank you thank you thank you mr white members any further questions i have a couple are there any long term rentals going on over there you know i believe there is six or so long term rentals ok and these units that are being rented long term do you have an idea of what the rental rate is when speaking to the president his his  his understanding was that the rental rates were thirty five hundred four thousand in that neighborhood for the single family homes but i could i could check on that fact and get back to you with an exact number and then there's duplex and i don't know what the rental rates on the duplex is are ok i do know that these units sell in the market one of the do a duplex that doesn't have the best view might sell for those five fifty or six hundred the the other  nader next up is tom thomas crawley and he was the last person to sign up to testify anybody else wants to testify please sign up in the back and come on down when we call your name particular measure really is as already explained applies only to a law i think it's the only planned unit development that would be affected by this i was disappointed to see this  thrown away at your last council meeting and i didn't quite grasp why whether there was something defective in the in the bill that was going forward or whether there was a lack of understanding as to what what it applied to but it's one of just hundreds of things that are in our county code that needs to be cleaned up it's more a housekeeping measure than it is a policy change in any great way our our our county code is full of a lot of exceptions and a lot of you know unique situations and so forth and i applaud this council when it makes an effort to try to clarify these and make it make it simple so that our and foresman people you know aren't wasting their time and that kind of thing this particular measure as we talked about just applies to ali low a planned unit development it's a trysting because there's parallels to three other properties in very similar situations s just got a change in zoning also or three zoning but not a planned unit development so you get to these these finite you know little differences between them and there are short term rental is i guess based on what the deputy director said the last time grandfathered in based on their their use from fifty years ago then we have international colony club but also our three zoning but not multifamily so there are short term rental uses not grandfathered in and we have to go get permits for those guys or we have to figure out some other solution for those guys and then we have molokai beach cottages another are three zoning actually i think they're in terms owning but a similar development or have these single family units built and condominium ice then each of these presents a different problem but i can say all of them have been short term running and running for more than thirty years but we now need to figure out a way to continue that without making it too difficult so i support this unit this this measure to try to correct it for this one place chair asked about the number of units and i'm not familiar with ali little ed at all i've never even been there other than looking at the tax record and looking at it on on the map and yes there's forty three units ten of the units are paying hotel resort taxation whether or not they're renting hotel resort you know using the short term and i couldn't say but they're paying hotel resort four of the units are claiming a homeowner exemption and twenty nine of the units are shown as residential so they could simply be second homes or they could be rented out you have some testimony so it's a mix and the assessed value sort of between seven hundred thousand and two million so you know you have you have a a pretty high range there as far as what they they sell for but again i  take this i don't think this is a policy change in any way shape or form i don't think this is going to change the availability of housing in any way it's just going to essentially legalize a use that's been taking place for what forty five years or more in this particular place shifting gears now to the the second issue which is the definition of  i think we have the wrong tool here for what we're trying to accomplish i thought a lot about this and i'm very familiar with what kind of started this and i do believe that it's bad policy to set a policy based on some outlier here's someone who you know abused the the law and worked his way around it so now we're going to set up a policy because the results of this policy are going to affect everyone on the island and a lot of the folks on the island that this is going to affect are people who have long term rentals that are making their homes in single family homes that boy if we use the letter of the law here that  ready to pass we could be having people lose their homes i also don't like it as a matter of policy because i don't think that our in foresman resources should be used tracing down how big refrigerator is or whether a microwave oven exists on a countertop or you know that's just not good a good use of our resources there the only thing that i like about this particular measure is that it says we don't want to have a two twenty outlet sitting here next to the sink that makes sense from a building standpoint and i think we need to educate the plans examiners so that when someone comes in and says this is a kill him wink wink wink and this is a sink next to it we kind of know what they're trying to do and we and we put a higher level of scrutiny at that level if the concern here is with the bed and breakfast rooms then let's address that in the bed and breakfast ordinance let's let's you know come up with what the criteria for what would and wouldn't be available allowed in a room or a studio that's allowed for bed and breakfast on a side note i noticed in san francisco they currently have an amnesty going on for what they're calling in law units what these in law units are are exactly what we're trying to address here there were some one has taken a single family home and they've turned it into multiple units and they have a housing crisis in san francisco even greater than ours apparently someone that i know just took a studio apartment san francisco for four thousand dollars a month so in idea but what they've decided to do there is say we're not going to make you take out these illegal kitchens and these in los just come in and tell them tell us about them so that we have them on record and so that you know we can do some safety inspections and make sure they're safe they are saying we're not going to enforce our zoning laws and some of our building laws because housing is more important and i kind of think that that's that's where this measure falls to some degree we might want to really but in this down but it's going to affect our housing in a much much much bigger way than any kind of short term rentals or transients vacation rentals have ever ok there's thousands of people making their homes in value county in using these quote bars as kitchens so i think it's a dangerous measure to push forward in its current form i recognize the problem i i think we should deal with it in other ways in the building plans right ok members seeing as there's nobody here rushing to testify here or and there's no one in the district offices without objection will close public testimony no objection ok great i think i pressed the right button all right members were going to start off with i see when the cat's away the mice will play c thirty two transit vacation rentals and plan developments this item was previously in this committee passed out seven to zero and unfortunately i was not able to attend the council meeting where this was brought up and for some reason it was denied two to five so i guess i have a question as to what the concerns are of the members and to see whether or not we want to continue with this as committee chair and as this committee i thought it was pretty unanimous that we're ok with passing that to coun was not present during the committee when this was discussed i was i had a surgery done on my my wisdom tooth so i think i wasn't here during that time but i wasn't sure was ther e this actually applied to more than i guess my question would have been are those that are those the only planned development areas that would be affected or are there more i could there be other and development areas in the future that could be affected by this ok and why in the why was the intent to exclude those planned developments that had single family units what was the rationale behind that ok when we had this i believe it was in twenty thirteen might have been twenty twelve twenty  we had contacted somebody had contacted all four of the people for the unit's plan development affected and did not we did not get anything back from a lawyer so miss cochran had a concern because that's in her district and had a concern about the folks at all i love saying wait a minute we're not i'm not sure what's going on so her comment was can we make sure all i lol lol is not included in the original bill that were affected so we said well we'll throw that in there that they're only multifamily and that will eliminate exclude all i love from them now if we take this out this will allow a lawyer to do it now the question is prior at the prior committee meeting that we had for the previous bill there was a an acreage size that was in there it was one of the items and we pulled that out for some reason  can't remember why that was a while back we can add that acreage size back in or we can tweak it a little bit more so that there are other planned unit developments that aren't doing and have never done short term mentos we don't want to allow them to fall into that category and that's that's the rationale so i want to bring it to the department to say ok he has some questions on what else will be brought in and if this language was taken out have some concerns about the way that it is the this bill is written that will have possibly more units than just this one development there would be allowed to have vacation rentals but  now your item three and the bill essentially would be deleted items each three which says that the plan development plan development would have to consist of only duplex or multi family that change  in order to accommodate accommodate or include a lie low you would have to allow it in plan developments that have a single family plus either duplex or multi family and i'm looking to mr nader just to sort of get his nod that if it were to allow single family will require single family plus either duplex or multifamily then a lie low would still qualify that's my understanding the concern is when you delete this limitation this qualifier on duplex or multifamily that opens it up to all plan developments  eage limitation my recollection is it was removed to allow car on a poly plantation to qualify that acreage limitation and had also eliminated some single family plan developments  that comes to mind is i believe it's called kalani fairways that is a exclusively single family plan development and i believe it was built before eighty one i don't know if anyone was renting short term before eighty one but there may also be others out there that are just single family and would meet the other two criteria and then would be allowed to do short term rentals at those single family plan developments so to accommodate a lie low and that type of development i think that you could keep the existing language that says consists of only duplexes or multi family and add the language or consists of single family and duplex or multifamily so pure single family plan development would not qualify it would only be planned developments that have single family that also have duplex or multifamily in them i think that would accomplish what it's intended to and not open the door to pure single family plan developments does this ordinates affect you know the other plan developments so would it include more with the with the i guess that the class or the the have there or a single family or multiple or duplex what you would see a single family lots on slacks or multifamily so if it were a single family it would also have to have some duplex or some not mr spencer mr a pod is mr crawley brought up one that we were trying to figure out how to deal with now is international call a club which was built at all single family homes it was built for i mean they have an so it's got twenty some units sort of i can't remember how many single family homes all in one t m k it's been a condominium eyes so right now they're only allowed one if they get a short term rental home permit right nd you were to leave your proposed changes as it is you know were built before eighty one and rented before anyone that it would qualify if you were to adopt the language that  suggested then it would not qualify because it would be pure single family it would not be single family plus right some duplex or multifamily ok and i believe in my research as well i believe international call me club at least was not a planned development it was a different type we had a lot of things going on pre one nine hundred eighty s so and does the department have any idea how many i mean homeowners there are in international colony club versus second homes in the prior when this first the first version of this bill came out and i don't believe it was on that matrix like the department and and mr guzman i'm not excited about opening and opening the doors to write the loss of a significant number of rentals long term rentals and i think what happened at the council level is you know sometimes mr ho sees things in bills that the rest of us don't necessarily see the same way and he brought up a concern that all of us are very sensitive to and to be honest i i had  misplaced where which i lay low i was as i was envisioning another development and that's why i felt compelled to support mr calm was a concern so that i would say that you brought it back to committee and that we're having this discussion because i don't think any of us want to see the loss of significant numbers of long term rentals right and i know personally when we send this of the planning commission there similarly concerned about exactness of long term rentals yet so and that's the other portion of this we're just sending this right now to the planning commission just you get the public input there to then it will come back to us again for thank you very much i'm real comfortable with so sending this to the planning commission is to take a look at what i'm kind of stuck on something i heard earlier in this meeting and i wanted to take at least bring it up you asked a question or somebody asked the question about what the rental were going for and i heard an answer between thirty five hundred and four thousand dollars a month you know i'm most concerned as everyone else is about the lack of long term housing but how much of this kind of housing would help us with the folks there we're concerned about providing housing for i don't see the connection the people who are concerned about cannot afford to kind of a higher tax rate as well as opposed to long term at the high end long term so you know i'm sure this will be part of the discussion and planning commission but for me i don't see it solving our housing problem ok the the ordinance prior to going to the planning commission yeah whatever whatever the committee decides i'm fine with mr a pass additional language just a couple  things that staff has been working on as the questions came up one is international calling club is not on that matrix so they wouldn't be affected one way or the other the fairways were not developed before  is mr a pause you come up with some actual language jefferson is to leave in members looking at exhibit a on the  resolution to leave and each three and then add the words or consists of some single family and some either if if you would like we can prepare the proposed language to circulate to the members so that they are able to read the proposal before the committee ok members if you're ok with about a ten minute recess  might as well do our morning mid morning recess and then come back with the language for you ok with that all right so we'll be in recess until ten o'clock this meeting is in recess vacation rental shall be permitted in plan developments except for developments that have been publicly funded and accept that all of the following shall apply to the plan development and we know we talked about one and two number three the plan development consists of only duplexes a duplexes or multifamily dwelling units be a combination of single family and duplexes or multi family units so mister and or mr hopper that handle the language that everybody has concerns about here thinks mr chair again i don't have the background of the particular location so i mean it would probably be a good idea when it's presented to the planning commission for that information to be looked at provided but i mean the language right now does seem to deal with the intent of what was discussed earlier ok right mr replies you're ok with that too and remember members this is just to send it down to planning commission where we can have more public input and more discussion and we may come back different or maybe come back as denial so i will see any questions the members have having seen the language and heard mr guzman e ok with that you are the one that had some of the no no no i know this is us the senate down right right right so when it went to the council floor it never went through planning commission so on the council floor was to send it send it to ok planning commission thank you mr hopper keeping in mind the version of this bill without that additional language at the end did go through the planning commissions when it was passed the first time you know in order to get what it was it was passed and then it was found out afterwards that it doesn't it didn't include the  just to send it to cannon commission thank you and it didn't make it that far right is everybody have any more questions mr white just something for the planning commission to consider for the department to consider i was right mr crawley did have the numbers for international colony and there are twenty five units there that are paying the resort level of tax so that are twenty five that are doing transit vacation rentals there may be more than that that so many are actually reporting and only i believe five or claiming homeowners so  but that's on the short term mental side they're not a plan development it's not a it wasn't done an airplane development so would i buy we we or the planning commission should at least take a look at correct but i don't know that it could happen in this bill or not but it might be if it can but that is something to take a look at as well ok any other comments ok if i haven't seen any common some folks had some concerns about where this matter lies procedurally is it still that council is that back here having done some research i know mr holcombe i had some real concerns that this is done and we have to reintroduce it and i kind of agreed with him until i did some research and i did some research and robert's rules of order does allow for us to pretty much  keep it here and resubmit it staff actually did in july a affects of the last motion and essentially  it says that because we haven't done anything at the council level we didn't file it and we didn't really committed it's just still here with us and we can push it back at council so if there's any that at the council meeting i asked the question whether we need to recommit and the comment i got from staff at that time was no because we didn't file it so it's still in committee so i would agree with your your summary ok right that being said is the chair is a recommendation that we adopt i'll entertain a motion to recommend adoption of a proposed resolution entitled referring to the planning commission's a proposed bill relating to transit vacation rentals and plan developments incorporating any non substantive revisions and incorporating will probably be pleased because we've we've tightened it up and i think his concern was likely that we were opening a door that we had left a little bit too far open so  receipt of county communication fifteen dash sixty six from playing director transmitting a proposed bill relating to what bars into and units and a correspondence dated september sixteenth two thousand and fifteen to the department of corporation counsel transmitting revised propose dated september sixteenth two thousand and fifteen for me it's a request for legal services it was dated and signed by stamped by mr harper and nine hundred fifteen and approved so we're going to work off of that language so everybody have that in their possession and open to that page right members we basically reword it so everybody is happy with the language the department and our staff it basically says amended by defining the adding a new definition to be appropriately answered and read as follows what bar means an area within a dwelling unit other than a kitchen used for the preparation and serving of beverages that can paint a sink and that is one and one half cubic feet or smaller and at least one of the following we fridge ration seven and one half cubic feet or smaller an ice maker a small mixing or blending appliance or a small appliance for the preparation of hot beverages such as a coffee maker for the purposes of this title the area shall be considered a kitchen if any of the following are also present a sink larger than one and one ha cubic feet refrigeration larger than seven and one half cubic feet a two hundred twenty volt electric electrical outlet a gas or propane service line a dish washing machine a garbage disposal a range could exhaust fans or similar equipment a stove ranger oven or any other appliance for the heating or cooking of food no more than two wet bar shall be permitted in a dwelling unit that is less than five thousand square feet in total floor area number than three up are shall be permitted in a dual in unit that is five thousand square feet or more in total floor area no wet bar shall be permitted in a bedroom or a bathroom that is pretty much all i know it was  quite different from the original bill but i think this fits everybody's concerns department you want to be fair up on this you we're looking at this i think for the first time it appears that it has all the components that we wanted mr a pause might have some comments i would say for that for the record this is much more then about bed and breakfasts and abuses and that has very little i mean it has to do with it but it has that's not the primary considerations the primary consideration is that we have right now the a single family residen has a single kitchen and when we get building plans and people label things as what bars lacking a definition of a wet bar to us at the kitchen and so we will get multiple kitchens within the set of plans and we turn those plans around and say no or we can and we really we struggle with it because we want people to be allowed to have their to have what cars we want those things to be able to take place liking it this definition will go a long ways towards aiding the plans checkers and being able to just sign off without delay instead of sitting around in our office waiting for an answer waiting for the supervisor or the planning director to make a call on of is this a wet bar or is this a kitchen it's a huge waste of time and we do this it dozens of times every year when we when we look at  having a a definition that we can look at is going to make a huge difference in the expediency of granting single family residential building permits so i really think the committee for taking this up and taking such time with it i know there's a lot of other questions about you know multiple units and single family dwellings and all those to me those are different issues and i'm entirely happy to take those up with the county council and with the rest of the administration i know what's out there and there is there is a big need for additional units and etc with i'm happy to work together to make those considerations as a separate matter but in the meantime this goes a long ways towards helping is from the viewpoint of the general public i think that when the government is going to regulate what someone can or cannot do inside their own home or cannot build inside their own home we need to be very very clear about it so that the public know exactly what is allowed and what is not allowed that's true as the director said when when they are proposing to build something and we're reviewing plans but it's also true in general when they simply want to add something inside their home and we happen to be there on inspection for another reason whether that reason might be related to short term rental homes or complaint from a neighbor or were you know in looking inspecting the property for a different reason altogether and we run across something and we can't tell whether it's a kitchen or a wet bar as the director said right now the definition of kitchen is very broad and so all of these things that are being proposed as wet bars they fit the definition of a kitchen and we could call them a kitchen and say you can't have that second one you're only allowed one kitchen this will allow the public to have these items and to know exactly what they can have and that we won't be having a problem with it so i think it will bear be very helpful in that regard i don't know if you want to get into any particulars of the language right now mr chair or save that for later discussion on the topic we'll let's see if the members have any comments for just thank you members seeing this new language it was again the september sixteenth request for legal services any concerns with this language i think  when it has the language the following is also present does that mean any of the items that are listed in addition to paragraph one or does that mean if you have a single two hundred twenty four electrical outlet that's considered a kitchen without paragraph one items so it's saying if any of the following are also present so does that mean that the but i dems listening paragraph one if those are found and in addition to that  allows right but you have one of them in paragraph two it disqualify it it's considered if any of those are also present disk it makes it a kitchen that is that how you would interpret that would first have to have the components of a wet bar so you'd have to have a sink and then one of those following which are items then you would also have to add one of these paragraph two items in order for it to be a kitchen i think that if you have a sink larger and i'm looking in paragraph two a sink larger than one and a half cubic feet and you have a refrigerator and a two twenty volt outlet that should be enough to call it a kitchen right in there you shouldn't have to also have the components of a wet bar so i saw you at charlotte's not sure why they all start very clearly written as you've described or explained so let's say for example you had all of the items in paragraph two that would clearly be a kitchen right but it says that an area sh be considered a kitchen if the following are also present meaning also meaning in addition to the wet bar components in the preceding paragraph right but those those components are a refrigerator a sink and some or at least a small mixer blending appliance so all of those would include this i guess this is for you to be able to say no that's a kitchen and not a wet because you still have the definition of kitchen further out in one thousand know for right doesn't change the definition of kitchen this adds to the definition of his chin if somebody says this is a weapon r and it says i've got this you know everything it one of the things in paragraph one but it also has two twenty volt or something like that you say no that's not what by that's a kitchen this isn't in my mind this isn't defining in the in the first paragraph the wet bar definition is it has to have the minimum requirement is want to have cubic feet or smaller sink if you have a sink larger than that and a refrigerator let's say then you do not have the components of a wet bar yet it is a kitchen area right that's why the also is a problem because you don't have to first have the wet bar components before something can be considered a kitchen oh i see that in the language also you see that it's the all so that's the issue these items you've described i agree in paragraph two are things that would make an area constitute a kitchen but i don't think that area would first have to qualify as a wet bar to be a kitchen i guess  my take on this is this precludes you from i mean this allows you guys to say they've got a sink in a refrigerator in the utility room but say i don't know we want to make it so you guys can and for you guys can look at the plans and say it's ok so i want to make sure you guys are ok with the language mr white when i read it i i was comfortable with after the lawyers get involved they tend to get a little bit a little bit further into the weeds than we do but maybe we can just wouldn't fix it if we just took out the word also in the second paragraph second line in the second paragraph then that that may make the sink in the the utility sink and refrigerator in a laundry room if you will make it into a or or a kitchen story would make it into a kitchen and then it would be more appropriate to place that in the definition of a kitchen rather than playing it to the wet bar definition thank you yeah yeah intent converse lee is to just say this is not a wet bar then i think the planning department kind of had that in their original language and you could change that to say instead of for purposes of this title it could be changed for purposes of this this considered a wet bar if any of the following are also present and already limited to the definition so it depends on kind of with that with the council with the council once and i think we discussed that as as as being a potential problem of you know whether or not it's considered a wet bar well if it's not a wet bar but if it's not a kitchen is it still prohibited or something you know that could still be if that's it was an issue with the plant playing apartments last  definition then i suppose that could be looked at but if the intent here is to just say here's what a weapon is and if you conclude this other stuff you're not a wet bar so you can't do it then i suppose you can tweak that by changing title to this definition and the area shall not be can not be considered a wet bar but i'm not really sure what the intent of this was if in fact the intent was to explain with more specificity would a kitchen is then that wouldn't do  is just a limited to the definition in clarify what a wet bar is maybe you could narrow that scope a bit or any concerns from the members mr apos any comments on that i think that would accomplish what we want i do like the idea i'm not sure if it's appropriate here based on councils comments i do like the idea of saying this is a wet bar and if you include any of these things then it's not a wet are ok but it would be nice to say and that and it makes it a kitchen but leave that to councils whether that's appropriate because then you're getting into the definition of kitchen and i understand that ri right but mr hopper's approach i think is fine ok members so the change would be for the first sentence of the second paragraph for the purposes of this change title to definition area not be considered a wet bar and then everything else falls for mr cherry even if you delete for purposes of this title you could just say the area shall not be of any of the following are also present because it's obviously part of the definition ok so you can even delete that first part but again i don't and life is actually sure in this rewrite with the intent was and if it was to be broader than to just say it's not a wet bar then maybe there's additional things we need to look at i'm fine with how the department thinks it able to interpret this if the department since this is their intent is to be able to find a weapon basically permits and say that's a wet bar that's not a weapon or so when they're when they want to go to the kitchen they can look at the definition of kitchen in a separate place so can i get on the microphone on the record ok for that that sounds good to us mr chairman ok members so now the change is taking out for the purposes of this title and just starting with the area shall not be considered a wet bar if any of the following are also present any concerns with that  satisfied with that language mr hopper again if the purpose of this is just to say here's what a weapon is what it is not and two to three what words are allowed which is in the basically strike out that entire first and second paragraph and just leave in no more than two wet bars shall be permitted that last paragraph i feel comfortable with the last paragraph but the first and second but you have to define what part i know it's difficult from a personal and a family side cultural side this is a very you know it's probably one of the more difficult bill sebas out now keep in mind too that we're talking about inside the house you're talking about when we had the discussion further about dirty kitchens and that usually in the garage no i mean not to community or  you know specific whatever right yeah yeah just getting back to it it's difficult to sit down and say ok we're going to limit what you can build in your private home you know  that to me just goes to that level of getting to put the government intruding too much into someone's life and so that's where i kind of have that struggle is like ok i i worked hard for my house people worked hard to get that mortgage pay for that and now they have that freedom to do what they want to do and build whatever they want to do inside their house and we've come up with a law that says no you can't you can't build an extra you know a sink you can't build an extra area where you know your kids can go on eat and you know put a fry up some some pork you know that right i know and you see that front of the football game while you're drinking your beer that comes from your weapon our i don't know it's very difficult and we had a little bit of this discussion it might have been the day you were with the tooth but the discussion was from the department's point of view is that they haven't seen a lot of multiple you know people wanting to come through plans coming through with multiple kitchens and whatnot but we've been trying to describe you know you want type of formula i like saying over per square footage and you can have more than you have right so i like talking and i like that i have in their home but i just don't like you know singling out specific appliances and specific things that really say that's not a wet bar i would rather just say you know what it's a you're only allowed whatever you think it is a kitchen or a weapon or you're only two per square footage you know three part but i can appreciate where the planning the barman is coming from and and they're detailed review of the plans so i can appreciate that but i'm just looking on the other side where it's shorts and that's why we're here in this comm have multigenerational housing you know i mean just out of necessity there's a whole lot of things going on where within the department we're trying to look at  perhaps different neighborhoods things like that where perhaps we should and we should be able to have duplexes try plexus those kinds of things which would  which would just by definition have more than one kitchen and then of course you're what bars but there's also places where you don't want to have it if you just allow a couple of kitchens you know it's you're losing the concept of a single family dwelling and there's going to be places in the county there's only a single family that you don't want to allow you know duplex plexus and just so you know that's going to take some study where if and where we want to do that because it would provide you know that kind of thing would provide more housing  just for the purposes of you know the size you know where you have five thousand square feet whatever i did take a good look around in the real property tax records and started looking at ok you know what actually being thank you mr pos thank you mr chairman i would just add to that i know that the council is going to be looking at a separate track of discussion on how many kitchen should be allowed and what constitutes a dwelling unit and that type of thing but even if you go through that route and you say three kitchens are allowed we'll still need to have clear definitions of kitchens and w bars in that context as well so i think it makes sense to clear it up now and then i think that may help in the discussion of how many kitchens that type of discussion later  live in this world of people that are making do and trying to to do whatever it is so that they have a place to live but i understand it we need a clear definition is very difficult for us to ask the planning department to enforce without something that they can say ok this is what council wanted this is the policy they created what i'm thinking about is if we were to pass this oh that i'm taking it to the next step we all know that a lot of this exists i mean i think we'd be fooling ourselves if we tried to say it doesn't so what is the intent about what exists are we going to go and make people take it out we're going to see if it's in it's in and but we don't want any new or what are we going to do i'm not sure i entirely understand the question if i have more whitmore's then i'm supposed to getting my weight by is the kitchen and you come there for some other reason or and you know we know what happens when you come to approve a permit or something and you find stuff what do we going to do about it we're going to say ok take it out or are we going to say well it's there and we passed the law now so going forward you can't do this but if it was done before well well grandfather it be non conforming or whatever we fancy names we come up to all of these things somebody is operating a auto body repair shop within a residential district we pretty much go out and look for that auto body repair shop and see if that's the violation if we come across something else we pretty much taken on a case by case basis we don't i don't think we go looking for issues if something stares us in the face like you know that third house we can't find a building permit for then we might pursue something like that but we don't don't we looking for an auto body repair shop we don't do an inspection of the whole house to see if there's a few extreme example to talk about in out of repair shop but what i want to sell my house and so now somebody is taking a look and they find this great heard it doesn't income from what happens the well the seller should disclose that and the buyer takes responsibility because the seller could also require  the seller to either get a permit if it's possible to get a permit or remove it that we don't go on inspections we don't go look into transactions like that so unless somebody complains nobody will be taking a look at this pretty much ok then they would get to keep it if they had not shown it in a building permit application they did it on their own afterwards and we were there for some reason we would tell them this looks like a kitchen according to our definition here's what you would need to do to reduce it to being a wet bar so it would be allowed y ou still have a look of concern on your face this is not my favorite subject write i guess the challenge i have as well is that we know there are lots and lots of very creative people and lots and lots of neighborhoods like the others i'm a little concerned that if if you have a disgruntled neighbor who files a complaint on you knowing that this is here then what happens if somebody has had their house and creative configuration for ten years and their neighbor blows the whistle and they are required to eliminate whatever creativity they  o i support the intent of the bill i'm not sure i like the ramifications or are mean of neighbors to do something if they don't like what's going on next door so the problem is a lot of that creativity has been driven by this kind of law ok i see what you're saying so you know you people get creative when they run up against  brick wall and i'm not saying that what's on the books now is wrong nor do i have any sense of what the hell we can do to change i'm just i'm just relating that you know we it was said earlier in the in the meeting we respond to their particular situations with the change in the law  we sometimes don't understand the ramifications that are going to be brought to bear on the community once we make those changes so that there is a side of me that says my house is my house my property is my property and if i want to do something that suits my family then i should have at least some flexibility with which to do so understood very very well understood and that's that's where we get the line government you can do whatever you want your house until you start selling renting out rooms that were planned for capacity issues i mean we have we have planning on one side that we're trying to plan a community or wherever and then add a certain capacity and we went  through for three or four years of the maui island plan dealing with where we're going to put more dense locations and then all of a sudden places where we were going to have less dance become more dance for whatever reason how does that throw our planning off that and that's what this committee is all about i know that the department wants to respond to that but chair with all due respect you can have a reduction in density when your kids move out of the house right right there and then the density increases if you're able to rent out rooms so you know either th the planned level even with a difference of configuration and by the way members this is not a an overall issue that's affecting my county alone or the state of why i just got back from santa clara it's worse over there than it is here as far as needing rentals and whatnot so this isn't something that we're only tacked tackling we may be the leaders complaints from disgruntled when renters when people move out of the landlord i'm going to give them their deposit back all kinds for whatever reason they file a complaint  they're already know the renters already know that the unit they were living in is was not permitted if it happens probably i don't know i'm guessing john was saying it was probably more than a dozen times a year but the so in other words the neighbors are already armed with the information and it is the way it is now you're only allowed one kitchen there is no definition as of this moment there is no definition of a wet bar so we can't we go in and we go ok you have five kitchens in your house you've got to get rid of these you know this well at least give  landlord the ability to reduce what we would refer to as a kitchen down to something that would be within what's permissible under the law so it's i see this as you know well and i mean i'm going to put them on the bottom line is we're not we're not be very effective in creating more housing and you know and if we are walking into a situation where there's five kitchens and five different units of living and reducing it effectively back to one then we're affecting four people or fo family units or whatever are affecting their specific housing situation right which for better or for worse is what you know what they have available to them at the time so i you know i don't i'm not comfortable i mean i know that this is is not changing in the existing concern just sharing that it's it's a broad concern and something that we're not dealing with very very well right and i'm i'm really happy to have that discussion i know i've said that before and i agree there there's right now this is a tool for us we're mostly for building permits on the building permits come across our desk  it will have an effect on enforcement but the truth is we're not going to go i want to serve the complaint we're not going hunting for what are us or extra kitchens you know not i understand th that it's just that when somebody is pointed out there you've got a roof you've got a responsibility to enforce and you know when you have a stated goal of generating something like thirty thousand more housing units by twenty thirty and we're right now at a pace of three hundred where we need to be at two thousand the creativity is what's creating additional units and so if we're not able to created with with making the process smooth enough and the creativity is the only  really saving us yeah and i don't know that this would take away that creativity it may shift a little bit but miss my says been patiently waiting for us to discuss the end of that part of this i think you know to what is saying exactly what i'm trying to say is you know a lot of this has and i think how we're feeling is a lot to do with timing you know we're in crisis epidemic whatever we want to call it a worrying about housing and where people live and how they creatively figure out how to survive wherever they are even if they've stuffed enough you know home with twenty people that was intended for four or five into everybody's trying to figure out how do we just do it and so this becomes in another affordable housing measure and i want to be really careful just really really careful that we don't cause any harm because we don't want to cause any harm i think every single one of us is very dedicated to trying to move things along here and find we put a place to live you know every morning when i drive to work and i drive past going to help on my heart that can campaign is getting bigger and bigger every day it's spilling out into the into the road now and you know  it's uppermost in my mind the people who are trying to find a place to live and i still want to make things any harder but i do understand that the issue before us today is a different issue no and you know i i'm kind of excited when we get to the definition of the kitchen which i think is a partner that we've got to do it because it's amazing what you can do in a kitchen we don't have to twenty vote line  have a lot of equipment that operates on one ten that has absolutely nothing to do with two twenty three and i could live very comfortably without a stove so i don't know to this is not an easy one pause you want to say something thank you mr chair you know two things first just in general i think this will allow people to do more than they're allowed to do now that's ok because many things that would qualify as a wet bar under this new definition right now if we were presented with that we call it a kitchen and we'd say it wasn't allowed so i think this is going to open things up more than narrow it down second point i wanted to make is that i've been back working with the county for two years and spent fifteen years in the private sector before that representing homeowners or land owners one of the thing yes that's most difficult from that perspective is the idea that things can change from administration to administration so this the definition of kitchen over the last twenty five years has meant different things at different times so people did not have the security of knowing exactly what they could do or could not do and i think this is a tremendous move forward in that respect to be able to define things this way so that the public can understand what they can do and cannot do and it's not going to change with another administration because it's not just a policy or an interpretation it's actually in the code and they can count on it and i think that is going to bring security to the homeowners as well in terms of knowing what three in something beyond that like two and three why not three and four two and five what is the very rational nexus for these now are those numbers  ok i believe those are not the planning department's numbers actually the planning department said one and only one that i guess that kind of came from our staff and our discussions right now i'm wide open as to what the number we had to come up with something so other than just one because i don't agree that just one is is enough just curious so if there was a basis or just don't think so as a result of our discussion and staff said ok you know let's do two and three years in those standard and in discussions with the plain apartment there was concern of getting too far out there even in the four to five range and saw two to three was sort of the middle ground that was reached thank you came now if the department's ok with another number maybe maybe i can ask a question what is the average for a single family fourteen fourteen hundred square feet average but then i mean if you're going to have some huge homes that skew that i understand i'd say most homes are two or three bedroom probably about fourteen fifteen hundred square feet i'm thinking you know these divisions that we see being built the kind of houses are all the same size and so what is that i just to be honest i've never run that kind of average and it is going to vary from neighborhood to neighborhood to yes so you know as we've pointed out different you know call always different going to be different  not that many i mean the five or i came up with that number is i i really did go into real property tax records and i looked around because the discussion within the committee was in particularly  neighborhoods where there are large multifamily her multigenerational homes being constructed and so i went around i looked and went ok a good portion of those large homes are about five thousand square feet everything else around is less than that i would say that the vast majority of homes on maui are less than five thousand square feet so we thought two out of the discussion as mr molina was saying but out of the discussion we're going ok so your typical fifteen or a square foot or you know if they want to go through four thousand square feet those are all really decent sized homes those you know couple what powers that seems like plenty you know over that you're going to zero or zero or five most of those kinds of homes are going to be luxury homes i would think so yeah so most of your homes are going to be you know relatively small i'm not sure that they're going to want to have to what ours because it takes up other room but given the option know help answer your question no i don't so that's mr spence if this committee chooses a number of another number from this committee chooses another number and we're going to live with that if you say three and four instead of two and three you know we would rather get that passed and have a clear direction on where we can go than go on and you know delay this much further so if that's that's up to the members calm and hearing the conversation keeping in mind that this doesn't alter the number of kitchens that are allowed in any dwellings you can still only have one kitchen in the dwellings under the law if that's a concern of the council then you could change that or it could go for a it essentially a resigning of those properties to a family if you like those are a couple of suggestions if the real issue is that you would like you wouldn't have a problem if a drawing have multiple kitchens thing that can be changed in the definition this is going to deal with what bars and what will not change the fact that only one kitchen would be allowed so if that's a problem that the council has with the wine general then  would need to be addressed as kind of a creator issue so just as a no this won't make legal anybody who wants to have five kitchens in their house particularly if they're actually using it as a multifamily dwelling and that's in fact the express the reason why a kitchen is the limiting factor in determining whether it's a dwelling because the need would need some measure to determine how many dwelling units there are in a home so if the issue is we're fine with multifamily dwellings in those areas then a reasoning could happen or a change in the definition could happen but but if that's the problem then we would still have in the code something that says you can only have one kitchen in your home otherwise it's considered a multifamily dwelling so i didn't want any misconception that that would be being changed here you are allowing additional wet bars but you can still only have one kitchen in your home otherwise it would be considered a multifamily right whether it's existing now or would be built in the future spence i know i've i've alluded to this but and i'm just i'm just trying to think of where our department would find time to undertake another project but perhaps we should really take a look at which neighborhood should be and that would involve community plan amendment from say well to multifamily and allowed duplex but that's that's another study that and that would that would not only legitimize a lot of the homes that are already there but it would allow additional density and you that that's going to be a pretty tall order i mean we can it's not so difficult identifying where i don't think it's going to be a matter of identifying as the infrastructure and plays  you know sewage capacity those kinds of things because you would expect a number of people to redevelop their properties from actually more family to the family but that's something that we've been thinking about not only i mean certainly in the planning department but also within the administration and i see council members heads shaking positively shaking their heads positively to bring we would really like to work together on finding something for this thank you so help a little bit better i'm it's difficult for me to deal with that is my problem is i have a lot of pictures in my head of what i see when i drive through our neighborhoods i have pictures of my own neighborhood of what's going on there and but keep in mind as mr repast said that this will actually allow for a little bit more than what is currently allowed right yeah what are we going to do with all this stuff i think what i'm hearing from the planning department is we really need to look at more it in which bars you know we have evolved this community has evolved into changed so maybe we do need to look at what we have and look at other old to new because somehow someway we have to get this housing situation under control and it's not just as you said it's the right higher country right that is dealing with this and you know every day we read the paper about honolulu and it's just frightening it's really frightening and it's not going to go away because people keep coming people keep being born people keep graduating from scott looking for a place to live i mean it's just getting worse and worse so i think we have reached a point where we really need to look at what we doing any valu and see is this still viable and that's not easy but you know i do understand what the planning department is looking for and it's good that you know these laws if we amend them the way they are would be more liberal than what we have but i don't think it's enough i don't feel comfortable i don't like i'm sorry five thousand square feet i think i could do with two to where it was maybe in three thousand square feet but five thousand  to five thousand people so your three thousand square foot house could have two what bars and about it what about three if i have five thousand if if this committee wants to change it to three will go recommendation if there's no further discussion the chairs recommendation is to entertain a motion to recommend passage on first reading of the revised proposed bill entitled a bill for an ordinance amending the comprehensive zoning ordinance relating to what bars and t units incorporating any non substantial revisions in the filing of county communication fifteen days sixty six include those yes the revised bill includes the the changing of the paragraph number two to say the area shall not be considered a wet bar if any of the following so are present that was implied but good to get it on the record ok not that we've had enough discussion but now the matters before us for discussion before we get i'm going to take a little bit of chairs privilege here and mention that there is a bigger issue this will allow for a little bit more legality and some of the creative homes as opposed to right now potentially saying no sorry you've got to take everything out except for your kitchen so this is kind of as big as all politics are this is kind of a compromise to allow for a little bit we want to change the number from two to three that's fine line between emotion for that or by the time it comes to the fore if everybody decides ok i want to make change those numbers and that's fine i think it allows for quicker processing of permits which is what we're trying to do i think it allows for a little bit more of these creative places to be a little bit more legal so i think it's a step forward also i'm very willing to put an item either out to council or back to this committee for kitchens and also for the whole philosophy of what are we going to do with the situation we're in and so the whole policy question so i'm willing to do that as well if we pass it today mr bison and then mr wright i just want to your that if you're making that commitment then i will support this with a lot of reservations thank you mr white did obus bice's comments  again that would be the discussion we get when we go into the kitchen we will i will bring up kitchens make that an item a separate item staff and but you're right that we could we could do something we can be yes i will go along with the majority and this was ok with with reservations up and i think we all have reservations on this but i do see it's a way of expediting the partment getting the permits out and also allowing for a little bit more flexibility so any further discussion all those in favor please say i oppose let the record show the measure passes five eyes in zero nos thank you members and we'll get that staff has already assured me that they are going to get that going for kitchens thank you man all right thank you members let's bring up the proposed bill is to allow for composting using materials sourced from off site as a permitted use in the county agriculture district ok if we can get staffers passing out while so i apologize for bringing this up without her being here but we wanted to get this going and move forward on this if at all possible so i would like  to have the department give us their comments on why we would need a bill like this at this point chairman we need a bill on for this because we right now we have no place in the district where composting would be outrightly permitted right now i don't even know if we could do it with a special use permit well let me stop you right there i would think that composting itself i mean one would think that that's a definite  something that should be able to be done in ag i think this bill is saying taking outside sources of green waste to do composting sure so  composting would be considered a normal activity of an active farm i do it on my farm and it's an act of taking it in and make processing it from other properties in which you then commercial we have  permits and or conditional permits for such activities in the past this would make it as an all right permitted use within the agricultural district i think the testifier earlier today brought up some really good points about you know areas i was just seen my neighbor the other day and he was hauling the whole truckload of green waste from his property all the way to the county green waste i mean to the landfill and i thought it was kind of  a waste of gas you know to do that i mean but that because but that was his only alternative i don't mean to just dump it on my property and i'll deal with it but you know it's one of those things that it would be good for other farmers small farmers again the don't have a lot of land do not generate a lot of green waste on a regular basis and do need to have some type of ongoing composting facility  think we went over this bill with it in our department and i think we had some proposed changes that we'd like to see to it prior to it being transmitted down to the planning commission the idea is to get it is solid as we'd like it and then send it to the planning commission this discussion came up in our staffing when we were discussing the staff it used to be that would say oh here's a bill send it down the planning commission let them work on it and bring it back if you read the charter they're to advise us on stuff that we propose so if we send something down to them i would like it to be as clean as we feel necessary and then send it down so that's why we're having this discussion today on composting in  agricultural area allowing outside compost to come in and one of my concerns that stuff brought up and i will ask corporation council does a terrorist tool five or allow for us to do a five i don't see anything out right the talks about composting as a permitted use and i think as i spoke with staff and they did say that there was a bill and i haven't read it but a proposed state bill that did not pass that would make composting a permitted use in the state district so it at this point does not appear that it isn't allowed to use in the state district so i think something to add to this would be that a state special use permit would have to be required as well unless the department sees things differently that question could be asked of the state as well i think if this goes to the commissions it would have to be circulated to them but similar to short term mental homes and bed and breakfasts which are also not permitted uses in the state agricultural district they would have to obtain a state special permit for those operations if they're not listed and it would be beneficial to have that language in the in this section that explained basically that it's maybe a permitted used in the county zoning district but you're going to need to get a special use permit from the from the state or from the planning commission if the property is under fifteen acres or the operation is under fifteen acres in order to do the this but again that hasn't been  fully explored because at this point it's just sending to the commissions but it appears that those are a couple of relevant issues that will need to be determined before the bill can be signed even if it's not allowed in the state district it is possible for the county to list it but make clear you still need a state special use permit the county could not allow it as a right permitted use on the state district without a change to the state law ok that's what i wanted to get out because we can we can put it there but we would have to say until otherwise change at the state level it's a special use state special use permit mr spence mr chairman i just i don't think i clearly stated for the record that we support adding a definition and adding this as a activity with with all the you know within the confines of tool five but adding this as a permitted use within the county agricultural district in color we have to deal with the special use you know we'll all deal with that but i think this is important to do and i i i'm not sure where else you should put composting except in the i guess i suppose it could be industrial heavy industrial but since it's related to farming it seems like it would be more closely related to agriculture to that district ok all right members let me i know this is an agricultural thing but mr carroll has been chomping at the bit to talk and then we'll go can get something that would address these concerns zero to the planet commissions it would be can get some food put on it yeah good point mr so i wanted to kind of talk about some of the issues raised by the testifier specifically the fire ants and the transportation of they greenways from one area of the island to the next and he spoke about regionalizing it could there be a possibility of putting language in there that regionalize is composting areas where you can't you can't  deliver or you can't bring that there green ways from like one and the next it's got to stay in a certain region to try to avoid the spread of certain species like the fire ants just as a precaution i just don't i don't know they've got the biology behind it all but i would assume by just trying to keep it more condensed in a certain area the green ways that transportation of the greenways all for this title including the use of material sourced from off site including the use of material sources from off site ok kenyon we have a little bit clearer wording page two number nine i don't know how could i guess how it could i guess another third question or issue would be how large teenagers worth or an acre worth i mean that's a lot of cars i mean granted it's needed but the health issues or i don't like that's one thing that raises in my mind what is the if there are health issues as to the size of composting and do they are there are certain regulations out there federally or state that they have to that are required for certain sizes of composting  productions i don't know these are just other questions that i have but i'm for i definitely for this this bill is just said there are certain aspects of it that i have questions about in the response from the district it just makes it in a permitted use and i'm not sure of where we're allowing for the commercialization of compost seen as far as being sold from the site and i share that i guess that would be m clarifying i would need to have clarification as to what then mention is right now of issues that we've had where we had to issue permits for these specific things or clarification or what they can do has been say if it's a normal function of the of the agricultural activity on site then either they're composting it for use in the site bringing in material off site to compost on site that's all considered to be normal activities of an  part of an agricultural act activity so i mean that's pretty basic we would not necessarily say that if somebody wanted to operate a composting facility where they brought green stuff over and then selling it  permit after what the department has said it's almost like why do we need to order it because you can't right now you can't bring stuff from off site right right right and i see that clearly on page two that you' problem that we have and then the third question was are we going to have a size restriction what is this kale of allowed billeted of these i wouldn't say fields of compost planning commissions we want you to ferret out a lot of those questions i'm not too concerned about races species because i think that's a totally separate issue from what's going on in this for this item and i'm not sure you want to put trying to muddy t that's a normal activity is if you bring in other is if you bring in fertilizer that's the way i look at it as far as the processing do you want to allow so the way it's written now composting would be allowed so you have a two acre lot you have no farming activity or very minimal farming activity and you're bringing in and you're processing compost seen for what purpose to be right now would be composted and use it on your site it could be there or bring it down to the site and process off site material and then take it out to there another facility that they already own such as eighteen s use it or some other agriculture large agricultural land owner we would see that is being  further define it or further clarify what your intentions are i guess there's different levels of of activity that we would be we would want to have clarified the act of composting yeah that's what it is but are you saying retailing what you compost the green waste down what are you doing with it they're just using it on their property then that's that's that's in there that you don't need to say anything else if you are saying that they can then retail it then you want we want to be more clear on what's going on if you're concerned about the scale relative to the size of the lot then  need to say that would make sense now or you can rely on the state especially use permit processing which that would still be required getting into the more specifics of the bill i guess what we want to you've given us now we have some we have some questions and maybe some recommendations to clarify it but again you still need to decide what what your how far you want this composting and the region ality we didn't quite any concerns i know you yes that base species is a separate issue but it is also kind  fits in if we're going to discuss the regionally should we have a regionally component mr chairman people are going to take their green ways to the closest available yeah that's right that's kind of what i figured if if there's nothing available on honda it's going to end up in gulches or they're going to take it you know to central maui and that's a long drive and that adds a lot of expense  but by and large i mean if we put in a requirement for regionality what if there is nothing going on a what if there's nothing i don't know what if there's nothing in south maui  you know where they're going to take it  separate issue but it's all it's all mixed yaks and so if we can do one step to try to prevent the spread of the fire and then it's one step closer to not becoming a big island crisis you know i just don't know how to handle it right at the at the fire at issue here i get every little bit of piece of legislation that we can put out there to prevent it from happening or checks and balances to make somebody told me that you needed to get clearance to do composting on your own property even bringing things in from the outside as you know to augment your composting i would i would never have in doing composting for resale but to me that's the only thing that really should have a special use permit one of the written testimony is that we received also brought up a concern about biosolids and at some of the testimony but the biosolids it's allowed right now at the the special use permit our landfill i believe that's maybe why this is in here as well if they want to be able to do it our guess our question is if we're going to allow it in different places maybe we should restrict the biosolids just to word already exists or maybe it's a special use permit or something like that i don't think we have a choice that if we start talking about egg because we've got to be really careful what we put in egg well the original you know if you start talking about bringing my newer and those kinds of things and you run into trouble i mean i recently ran into all of these questions about using greywater because of that to me is the same kind of issue that ok i know that for a long time the newer was the main source of fertilizer so i don't see you know i don't see it is there but it has become an issue right you know any waste onto your property to augment her own composting currently yes and you know if you're using it on sight if you're if this is a part of you know look i don't know if if i was an onion farmer a cabbage farmer i don't know i wanted to i don't have enough compost i could go get green waste from some other location compost it with my own and then use that on my own my own property what we're talking about here is like a freestanding composting facility where you're all you're doing your primary function is to waste bring it to your property compost it and turn around and truck it off for whatever use i mean with the composting itself as being the primary activity oh as they're allowed by law but that's what this would do would be allow what i just described would be able to do somebody could both go buy a piece of ag property and  with a special use permit at least for right now they could do like an eco compost on their property provided they got all the you know all the permit ok because obviously the test fires were of the same mind as a better coach and right because they said they they would like to be able to bring things to their own property yeah they can if so long as they're using it on their own property they're not this isn't a  they're not doing it as a you know as a business for i want to say export it's getting close to lunch then why do we need to insert the even including bringing in outside materials then then that's fine we also may want to clarify in this bill that did that's exactly what we're talking about but i think i see the idea is that if you're doing composting when your own property is really an accessory to your agricultural use whereas if your only use is the composting that's right permitted to use composting is not an outright permitted you this i think would with the department saying is that if you're using it for doing agricultural use on that facility you can bring in right so i guess then it's how we want to discuss the use do we want to allow composting only a first question then b if we do want to allow composting only how big of an area and then also are they allowed to then sell it i mean guessing that anybody who wanted to do composting only that that's the only reason they would do it is they would be able to sell it so i think those would have to go hand in hand if we're going to allow for a piece of ag property and keep in mind too we talk about ag property farms and what there's a lot of ag property out there that you know yeah not really ag so that potential area where they may be able to do that as well make good use of land that pretty much isn't good for a instance on a ranch is looking to wanting to do composting now i guess my question to them and maybe mr carroll would know do they want to do it as a as a service to ok staff did you have a comment oh it looked like you were wanting to make a comment all right so memory is that something that we may want to discuss the department we have to discuss i would like ms cochran to be here for this discussion as well but i just wanted to get get it out there what this bill really is looking for what we want to do as a  committee and i would like to you know maybe discuss it with mr grossman too because that's his committee i think everybody here is on his committee as well this is something that people are looking for so i'm fine with deferring this at the at the moment and then coming up with seeing if the department has said they had some concerns on language see if they come up with  do you members feel that it is something that we want to pursue to allow as a outright permitted primary use composting on ag land that's the first question wein thank you in in researching the matter in this questions with the proposer of the measure it partly generated out of interest from equal compost to look into establishing a green like so when we bring this up at the next meeting when miss cochran can make it we have some direction that we want to give to the departments if that's all right that being said unless there's any more discussion on this item i'd like to do for no objections ok so i will defer the site i'm in and you know wrap your heads around now what we're trying to get across here and we'll have miss carden come in and give her discussions as well with that members we have two more items that we're going to bring up after lunch and i planning on getting this meeting over way before three o'clock let you know because i have a meeting with the department at three o'clock so so let's break for lunch and recess this meeting until one thirty so please be back at one thirty i know mr white will be slightly late but if the three of four of us can get the meeting going well you want to start talking about park zoning district at least ok so members this meeting is in recess transmitting a proposed bill entitled a bill for amending chapter nineteen point two seven maui county code and repealing chapter nineteen point six one five relating to park districts the purpose of the proposed bill is to update the county zoning provisions relating to districts including the central park district and to consolidate the provisions into a single chapter within the comprehensive zoning ordinance members quite a bit of discussion last time this item came up and we still have some concerns and issues so what i'd like to do is remind the members that basically this bill is taking  there were some questions as to who owns what zoning i believe p k for how many golf courses or p k for zone land is private how much is public hopefully the department was able to come up with some of those answers sure if you'd like this transmetal dated can a communication through fourteen dash three one two there is the new bill that has that is listed it's way back in the back it's ordinance  it's an ordinance and into an ramsey or format and we're kind of working off of that at this point we did have some concerns staff and i were looking at some of these changes and there were talk about m c p maoi central park district and it's referenced in section one thousand point two seven zero one zero there isn't much in the ordinance that created that park district and there are no conditions but what it does say is basically refers to the maui central park master plan as pretty much where everything is permitted or prohibited the first thing i'd like to know as do we have a copy of that plan  we got a roundabout way got your your request on that yesterday late afternoon well no that's fine and then i also sent my i said when we drafted this kind of was and initiated by the parks department in the updating of this ordinance so that they could get clarity on their structures for some of their fields and then it kind of turned into all this this redo the whole and basically the committee consisted of him so i emailed the new director of parks and he said he can't find one either so i will again be looking for our requests in the file from our side to see whether or not there is anything that resembles a master plan for that area as i said the original estimate i guess you could say you recall that whole plan was a get included existing lots of create these primarily to create these separate lots out for people like the boys club them boys club y m c a i think there was a time plan for there was a very conceptual in that aspect i mean it had the soccer field your fields you see and incorporating overflow parking for the mac and all that but i don't know i'm not sure if it had any real specifics on it and i think that was a point it was supposed to be updated as they went along but again we will try to see if we can find whatever plan there is that qualify as a master plan but right now all we have is the uses t to simplify the code we but we've done this for several different districts today we're looking at parks and residential except for we just want to make sure that we are not i don't know granting a bunch of uses that would normally not be granted under the existing code or if we are going to grant new uses that we're aware of those uses  so the first thing that we did talk about we'll skip over the central part district right now because that is only kerplunk park right at this point yes that's what it's for right on the park because i know certainly for the boys and girls that they don't have their own separate lied it's it's a meat and bones thing was you know i know the why has it but but that's about the only two that i can recall from that are the lots i guess the question i would have is how do you guys issue permits or do you issue permits for different activities that may or may not be allowed there if you don't have the plan i'm sorry they don't have the what the central park plan well is it or does the parks department know they're the only ones that will issue permits no we can guess the last permit i pulled was not two thousand and seven which we issued a major estimate for the renovations in new construction at main issues i guess the concern was you wanted to limit some of the certain operations to be regulated or would be allowed only within county on park so i'm not sure i know there was specifically with regards to some open land recreation and maybe open and outdoor recreation as well as the skeet and trap shooting way in which you want to have a type of you want to those are kind of the where some of the focus was on there was also some discussion i think with regards to you know if you wanted to allow for some of the commercial commercial activities that would be allowed whether you wanted to limit that to only a county facilities and then see whether or not or you didn't want to expand it to save you had a private park were privately parked right a lot of those as i believe a lot of the private parks or for and then there are some smaller private parks that are going to eventually be turned over to the county right and that's why we tried to provide you with a list with some of them in so there is there is more land than just the p k for there are in private but may have some type of agreement with the county as far as the use is in the middle and so again that maybe some general statement that you put on those uses that you don't want to have occur in those private parks i notice in some of the lists that i have it looks like some of the for whatever reason the land was never turned over to the county it maintained within the party within the mckenna north beach those two big parks those are still owned by a privately held but there as you know they were done as part of the chain is owning as well as the special management area the park plans were  guess used as part of their dedication to the parks department i don't know how whether there is some type of restriction from within the parks department ok and just to touch on the but yes most of the park land is would most likely fall within either county of maui or state of hawaii and then the majority of the p k fours are private members some of our concerns was were that allowing for instance archery and gun ranges on golf courses for yeah that's going to be a little difficult because we do have some that we just bought that is pretty much actually still listed as ag so we haven't really defined it is  members let me ask mr guzman first since you're the chair that deals with parks as well have you been able to take a look at this list in and and see what if this might be something that we would discuss in your committee for a while and get the users down and then come back here and there we could we could if you want something here and then have parks calm down to the and just go through this  explain the what they're doing exactly and then maybe we can have planning there as well which are i'm not sure how much cord nation planning and parks did prior to drafting or it was why yeah i think i understand why they wanted to do it because they wanted to get the right the light heights taken care of but yeah it morphed into as all things tend to do is morphed into a big project  i don't see a big urgency from the planning departments just that you know we we hate to see you work stagnate somewhere and and right not going anywhere and it seems like a pretty far from our aspect he was in kind of a clean up bill to get some of the uses and consolidation of it but again mostly it was we wanted to make sure the parks department was satisfied with what they and we took a very conservative we thought we thought were taking a very conservative approach initially and then like i said the parks department felt it was better to have more of a liberal uses and as far as size is so i think  it's not a rush for us we still regulated there's no major project for us that's coming up but i think it's it's it's always better to get it done sooner than later sure or we could you know chair the kid asked parks to come to your committee and have them present as well as we kind of work as we can yeah we're actually absolutely you know the way the matter right terms of the referral i just want to know right per se it was primarily again look looking around archery ranges and gun ranges splitting those two items up and requiring a special use permit if it's on private  lands and then we highlighted legacy open land recreation outdoor recreation has some type of firearm involved you amended the sporting clays to be sporting clay ranges again on private facilities you want to specially use permits  and then under the special use permits we added firearm or gun ranges on private lands and we just checked them off for p k one and four  and i believe that we wanted to on the page ten of the bill was front setbacks and  they wanted that phrase to go down for the side in rear and in further down on page ten on that on the exceptions column so you wanted that the whole thing  to go to the other two table correct i think there was some discussion during and after the meeting about trying to resolve the thing it deals mostly with the poles yet i poles i think that by doing that it would make clear that you know the light poles non habitable structures that would be within would normally be within a setback area could be allowed within a setback area ok get a little bit more clarity if if we're ok with pretty much everything that mr i want to spur spoke on i know we talked about doing possibly allowing camp k for at least i have that written in my notes campground agriculture oh really yes ok that's good and those are the only two that are p k for that are not actual golf courses so i'm looking at this condo master down at the bottom of quarter key condo master at all one five hundred seven acre cash that's like i mean one hundred thirty square feet i'm not sure we ran the numbers what's in the database partial bases and so a lot of times you have a slivers and that's part of i said that's the as is how the how the thing lays out ok chances are in the after desert we've made those corrections so that we've even moved the zone into the appropriate partial line because i was probably the original intent however the legal line lays out on a zoning matter it may have a sliver of of some some other zoning that was never intended to be and so that's part of that whole desert correction where we're trying to correct some of the zone means where there may be some errors or unintended consequences that we try to clar consequences there aren't a lot there but there's potential ok so members if do you have any concerns or questions on the what we talked about last time other than the maoi central park i have a lot of questions on that but  ok with dealing with special archery and gun ranges as a special use and private part public parks and county on parks or state on parks were ok if the that that's what that's what the committee that's what we all do geist last meeting it's not i'm i can go either way on it maybe as an accessory use  you know some pretty pretty hefty i mean you take down deer and everything else was with archery so i would imagine that that you have kind of the archers see father son event golf and shoot shoot the ball down in the i just you know for me archery and a firing range are we two different there are two different animals  some of the ones i've hit in my earlier youth ok so then members i would like to turn your attention to the concerns we have with the  central park district mr a lot of we did send you a list of questions i know it was only yesterday but i think some by a lot of those were are pretty easily answered so let me find them i had them here just seconds ago good grief big pile of oh here it is yeah ok we have a couple uses that are currently permitted in the district are being revised in the proposed bill and  we just curious you know you have parts deleted as a principal use in the m c p maintenance areas deleted as a principal use restaurant and gift shop use uses for cultural and performing arts centers in zoos and biological gardens is revised by deleting arts centers in zoos are arts centers use in gardens you know did you want to move them in as a regular use or i'm not sure what your intent is there and that's that's where staff and i have some concerns i can see where the maintenance  after driving by there by their recently i noticed that the parks department does use one of the lots as their maintenance facility which has nothing to do with maintenance of the essential park i mean it's just it's used as a general park facility and so i can see where you'd probably want to put that back in there right for them as being a maintenance facility for parks i guess i have a little bit of concern with making a lot of changes in members there are a lot i can just read down the list of some of the things we noticed conversations were deleted as an excess for use i'm assuming you'd want to make them as a primary use but it's not allowed at this point time and mr spence you're going you may not be after so many years and a bunch of people are going to be moving on one way or the other so we want to be able to make sure that there aren't interpretations know and i agree with you and i would say just it could have been just an oversight but i would say you know standard comfort facilities bad disease would be considered to be an standard assessor use within the park facility i don't think you need i'm fine with that too so gymnasium deleted as in excess for use i would think you'd want that is their primary use or would you want that as a special use for the county depending on what park it is cetera and if that's the case we're going to not pass until the gymnasium he gets  bazaars in fairs that are special events and temporary in nature is revised by inserting food wine or film festivals director expanded from ten days to thirty days and then you also do the definition of temporaries ten no more than thirty days and i like that's very good is the curse this is that only a central  you have maintenance buildings but you took out maintenance and storage structures i guess maintenance building is good enough i mean as far if you're ok with interpretations  businesses or commercial enterprises or activities my concern again would be off street parking would you want to i guess that can fall under subordinate uses and structures which are determined by the director of planning to be clearly incidental and customary to the permitted uses listed here in yeah again we're trying to be you know we wanted to be specific so we don't we have no objections to it we just ok sure that we've this up to the members or do we have a concern on whether we want to leave a whole furniture was deleted as an accessory used but i understand that that could that could fit in that other list play and outdoor exercise equipment billions so that i guess the question to you guys is do we want to list those each individually as an access for use or do we want to just say subordinate uses in structures which are determined by the director of planning to be clearly incidental and customary to the permitted use listed here in i like the letter better the latter my question would be for a corporation counsel could there be some issues that you would have to at some time later down in the number of years say ok this this was interpreted mr spence one way and now another director is interpreted the other and then having to have it happens all the time ok mister kopper do you have any concerns on that about the fact that we just have a generic customary to the permitted use is listed here in kind of language i think we have done that in other ordinances before and i don't think that's necessarily uncommon to allow the planning director to determine what uses are accessory ok and if it gives the director more or more discretion  and with the commission the commission would make be making a discretionary decision as well so it's you know in either case there's a discretionary decision being made in those situations so you know having it be the director or the co it's still allowing additional additional usis ok i guess the does the planning department have administrative rules for understand but do you actually make the rules have been made have you gone through and made interpretive rule interpretations into rules not necessarily interpretation well yes that it would  interpretation we have for like short term models we have for you know the ag district and farm plans those kinds of things we do do it it's not with every chapter ok and then there's a there's a section of the beginning of title nineteen on how to interpret so ok we observe that it members we are at  i believe somebody needs to excuse themselves so we're going to take a short break probably ten minutes so this meeting is in recess i know but i got awa planning committee meeting of september twenty fourth please come back to order members it seems like when we discuss the central park plan master plan that the partment has  been using that at all which is understandable so i guess it's your chairs suggestion is to take out from title nineteen the reliance on that plan and just change it have the uses that we have here as what is permitted so if that's ok with the members i think that's what we'll do we already discussed everything else that we had concerns with so pretty much everything else is good so what i'd like to do is i would call on you in a little bit mr carroll give the direction to the department on our staff they'll come up with a revised bill that we can pass out on the october ninth meeting which is our next meeting i believe we have a clear direction  defer this will come up with the right language now that we have the direction we're going to deal with the the p k for stuff and then we'll come back and it will be pretty much just to review it and dash to ten from the planning director transmitting a proposed bill entitle a bill for an artist repealing chapter one thousand and nine maui county code and amending bank title one thousand mallee county code relating to residential districts the purpose of the proposed bill is to reach repeal chapter one thousand nine and a man title nineteen as it relates to residential district this is another one that the department has been working on to consolidate and make make friendly  the reason it was filed apparently county communication ten dash to ten was inadvertently filed i recall that now we were going to defer to the new term because a home based businesses were involved so we did the whole whole home business bill unfortunately the bill that is that is before us has home businesses in there so  staff you had to believe a recommendation of how we're going to do this we're going to get it written without home businesses yes this is great we would need to do a new proposed bill and  planning commissions but we need to know the portions of the bill that planning wants to keep in the new residential district all right so members what we're trying to do is work with the planning department as to how they want to reconsolidate now that we have home businesses in their planning do you have any questions or concerns before any direction you would like from us before we go and do the rewrite with you i guess it's kind of timely i mean we're disappointed because it has we had gone through all the planning commission is and spent a lot of time be timely for us to discuss at the planning commissions at the same time i believe that there is allowing for assessor the structure of the dwellings on smaller lots that it has been or recently been transmitted to the planning commissions from my aspect i think it's important to discuss the two together we do have there is a new concept within the title nineteen in the residential district talked about that at a break earlier so hopefully we can give a more holistic view to the planning commissions as well as the council when it gets back their members to we also discussed earlier item about the whole kitchen thing this would be a time to discuss that as well because it is all part of residential is it not or is that  driving i'm sorry yes dwellings so it's your chairs i wanted to get information from that apartment and let you know what happened with this bill i had no intention of passing anything out today because it's not a valid bill and it does have to go to planning commissions again in whatever form we decide to to deal with it so with your permission i'd like the committee staff and the planning department to get together consolidate all the stuff we're talking about and get something ready for us to come back and then we'll have a huge discussion on accessory dwellings number of kitchens the whole nine yards that welling definition and and what not so if if you're ok with that which i that's the intent mr white you have  a confused look on your face no more than usual no i was just wondering if if the if every issue needs to come to us then go to the planning commission and come back to us if it's something that the department is initiating is it possible for them just to take it take it to the planning commission yes that is one way to do that and i think  what we discussed was that we'd like to do as much as we can here before it goes to the commission so they just give us advice on this one however because so many different pieces parts of that are in planning commission you know in some sort of phases in the planning commission i'm fine with our staff working together because they've kind of got an idea where we're going to go with things and then just having the department submit it to the planning commission and then when it comes ok so without any objection will defer this item no objection and members thank you so much for allowing for this off day meeting and thank you for also being here on the night and those of you who will be here on the ni for the next scheduled meeting and we will bring up at least parks on that one and have that done so without any further ado thank you very much staff for muddling through this with us and this meeting is adjourn