LIHU‘E — Transient-vacation-rental owners seldom show up in person at county Planning Commission meetings to request non-conforming use permits needed to legally operate TVRs outside Visitor Destination Areas, county Planning Department staff said. Usually, owner representatives do the talking. But
LIHU‘E — Transient-vacation-rental owners seldom show up in person at county Planning Commission meetings to request non-conforming use permits needed to legally operate TVRs outside Visitor Destination Areas, county Planning Department staff said.
Usually, owner representatives do the talking.
But faced with four TVR non-conforming permit requests Tuesday, commissioners were clearly frustrated when no owners or representatives showed up for their hearings.
“In the past you haven’t had the applicants come up, right?” Chair Caven Raco asked the Planning Department representative at the meeting.
“Usually it’s an applicant’s representative, but yes,” said Planning Department Deputy Director Imai Aiu.
To make matters worse, commissioners found out the last applicant of the meeting also stood up TVR inspectors, causing the owner and California resident James Christiansen to miss the March 30, 2009 deadline to apply for the permit.
The inspectors had arranged to meet the applicant’s representative by the Princeville Shopping Center, Aiu said, but the applicants never showed.
“The Planning Dept. was unable to coordinate inspection prior to March 30th, and so the application TVNC-1078 was considered denied,” said the official report from TVR inspector Andres “Bambi” Emayo Jr.
On a subsequent attempt July 29 the TVR passed a 15-minute inspection by Emayo.
“If you look at the ordinance it actually allows for the application to be processed after the March 30 date if they can prove it complies with the conditions in the ordinance,” Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung said.
Jung’s explanation, however, wasn’t enough to cool off tempers.
“For them not showing up, when the inspectors were out there, to me that’s grounds for denial,” Commissioner Jan Kimura said.
Aiu said the applicant, despite having missed the deadline, still had the right to get approval.
“They have the right, but we have the final say to give them approval or not, right?” asked Raco.
“To me it seems that he’s taking this commission for granted,” Kimura said. “I feel this county had been taken advantage of.”
When Aiu said that by not showing up for the inspection the applicant created an inconvenience for the inspectors, Kimura seemed even more frustrated.
“Inconvenience to the inspectors? It’s costing the county money,” Kimura said.
Jung said commissioners should look at the issue with an objective standard, where applicants have to meet certain criteria.
If the department feels the applicant has met the criteria, the application still needs to go before the commission, because that is the way the ordinance is written, said Jung.
“Whether it’s an inconvenience to the department or not, it’s sort of tangential, because they did satisfy the requirements that are actually required,” Jung said.
By missing the deadline, Aiu said, it did not cut off the applicant’s right to seek approval from the commission.
“So why do you have a deadline? So you get one deadline and then some?” asked Kimura.
Aiu said the law does allow approval by the commission after the deadline, adding that he does know how Kimura feels about TVRs.
Commissioner Hartwell Blake questioned if it would be illegal to deny approval, but Jung said an executive session would have to be convened to discuss legal issues.
“If you want to go ahead, you’re entitled to request an executive session,” Jung told Blake.
“This is called frustration at its finest,” Kimura said.
“How far do we have to bend over to be quote ‘fair?’ They’re not being fair with us,” Blake said.
“If you’re applying, then you make it happen. If the inspectors are there, you better be there,” Blake said. “Don’t just not show.”
The commissioners deliberated whether to request the applicant’s presence at a future meeting, to defer any decision, or simply deny the permit. They kept looking at each other, asking if there was a motion, apparently waiting for someone to make the first move.
Kimura finally made a motion to defer the item, but not without first suggesting it be deferred until December.
Commissioners settled on Aug. 10 as the date for the item to be discussed again. But before the deferral could be voted on, commissioners found out the applicant, besides not meeting inspectors also had failed to provide plans.
Planning Department Director Ian Costa did clarify that the plans are not part of the ordinance, but something the department requires as a policy.
“We couldn’t technically say it was an incomplete application,” he said.
“A rose by any other name is still a rose,” said Blake, causing some laughter in an otherwise-tense meeting.
The motion carried with a unanimous vote. The permit is scheduled to resurface on the Aug. 10 agenda.
Until Christiansen’s TVR is granted a permit, its operation is considered illegal, according to county law.
On Thursday morning a rental car was parked inside the property, located right before the YMCA Camp Naue in Ha‘ena.
On March 7, 2008, the late Mayor Bryan Baptiste signed a bill into law allowing owners of TVRs that were operating outside VDAs, but not within agricultural zoned lands, to apply for permits as long as they had been paying general excise and hotel room taxes, plus had been keeping copies of receipts.
No TVRs that started operations outside VDAs after March 7, 2008 are allowed to apply for a permit.
Before walking out of the room, Kimura seemingly reflected the mood of most of the commissioners: “I’m just over it.”
Go to www.kauai.gov for more information.
