Kalani Oceanside Retreat asks for help

[JerryCarr]

Glen is a lawyer.

[Bullwinkle]

I wish them well - circumventing fire code - my guess that being the core issue here may be tough. have had some limited experience trying to convert a meeting space

I remember codes being very specific on issues like how long the doors would (resist) burn and the number, location and size of exits - We proposed to convert a large boat to a assembly place affixed to a dock (and supported underneath)... then it became a building and subject to fire codes.

Long story... the conversion never done ... the owner now on trial for insurance fraud ... the boat having an "accident" in 1200 feet of water glub,glub,glub

when speaking to fire folks they all point to this fire as their reasoning for the and never departing from the rules

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois_Theater_Fire

[Rob Tucker]

Bullwinkle makes some good points about fire exits. Knowing that the Fire Department is a rather practical and pragmatic group perhaps Kalani should work with the F.D. to obtain F.D. standards for exits.

I was there when one of our charter schools had a Haunted House in an old greenhouse structure and the F.D. allowed it to proceed with some improvements in emergency access. Those improvements were not difficult.

Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator

[Blend]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Tucker

Thats good.

---

Not trying to derail from the current fire code talk.

But I have to comment...damn err darn-it Glen way to paraphrase. Your natural ability to condense a rather rambling account...rather awesome your way with words.

OK sorry to interrupt, back to code issues...


Black And White

[Bullwinkle]

Agreed:
I always thought (think) that to be a hallmark of a wise man (person)... the ability to listen to all the bs ... using his/her insight to sort fact from fiction when distilling the info. Then to commit the issue to paper in a paragraph or two for the rest of us to digest, being the toughest part in my opinion

kudos

[Bob Orts]

Rob, here's the best compilation of information.

The property where the green house resides is Agricultural zoned and has to meet county code for zoning. What is and isn't permitted is in the code. No variance or other legal change has been filed for converting an agricultural green house structure into a meeting hall.

Although there were complaints over noise and vehicles that was not part of the process since it does not pertain to how a structure usage was altered.

Whenever a government entity uses a private location for official purposes, they will sooner or later, verify the usage, zoning and permitted use. They will also check to ensure that there are no building code violations that make the place unsuitable for continued use.

The "retreat" is made up of several parcels. For whatever reason, the operators did not seek a "V" zoning for all the properties. They were able to still operate in other zoning designations because the use of that parcel was for purposes other than the resort, consistent with that zoning. The greenhouse was permitted on AG land because it was said to be a green house for "growing" plants. Nothing was ever said about holding meetings inside.

The "retreat's' marketing material list the greenhouse as an activity center. They do not themselves classify it as an agricultural building. They do not even discuss any agricultural purpose for the building. They do not grow, cultivate or propagate any vegetation in the building. Nothing about the building would ever make anyone assume it was an active greenhouse.

There are similar building on the property but because they are on a "V" zoned parcel, all that is required when the use changes is to ensure that codes related to the use are met.

Finally, the county had a legal mandate to act on the violation. The same legal mandate that you could use if you find someone operating a rendering plant on residential zoned property, or a waste transfer station on AG zoned land.

People have to put aside the issue of whom and what the retreat is all about. The issue is a zoning violation by a commercial enterprise. If people are asking government to ignore the regulations for handling a violation at the retreat, don't expect them to follow the rules for something you want. You are giving them the green light that you really don't care if they do or don't follow the proper procedures. This is not stupidity on the part of government, they are following the rules that the people wanted in place to stop these types of violations. Now everyone is upset because it happens to be their friends who got caught.

(Rob the above is not aimed at you)

[Kelena]

Agreed. And that is where Rob L's comment comes in: "Their justification is legally weak, but if they can show that the use is politically very popular, then county government, which is political may back off.".

No one is saying that what they are doing is legal (although in attempting to drum up support, we can certainly point out the County's acquiescence -again ,not to suggest that it is legal, but to drum up support). Instead, what some are saying is that is popular. And I agree with Rob L that the popularity may lead Kalani to an acceptable, perhaps mediated, solution. And it may not. But popular support may be Kalani's only way to maintain this.

As for me, I completely support Kalani's quieter activities. They are good for Puna. They may just have to get a permit though and/or relocate the activity center.

[Bob Orts]

And I agree with your comment. I guess I'm confused why they are introducing an element in the appeals process that is not a factor the appeals board can consider under the law. They have five options with the Director to end this and public opinion and support is a favorable factor. There are three different options with the Appeals Board, and they are not making a case based on any of them. Funny, three of the options with the Director are easy and almost a given. And four will result in a stay of the violation. I just don't know where they are going with this.

[Wao nahele kane]

Is this occuring on private property?
Is there a fee to enter the events?


E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.

[Rob L]

Hi Bob, I did not take your comments as aimed at me in any way. As I said, they are on legally questionable ground. But, I have been a lawyer for over a quarter of a century and I know that there is a lot of flexibility in the actual implementation of the law. One only has to look at all the un-permitted houses in Puna to get a sense of this. The old saying 'The Supreme Court Reads the Election Returns" (maybe it should be changed to "The Supreme Court writes the Election Returns" after Gore v. Bush) holds all the more true for enforcement agencies of the political branch. They have to enforce the fire code to safeguard the community, but they have a million things to enforce and they can prioritize what they enforce by community sentiment. It is a valid consideration. If they go to far, the courts are supposed to rein them in.

Aloha,
Rob L