Zoning committee strips screening requirement from bill defining automobile sales and service

At a July meeting of the Zoning Committee of the Commonwealth Legislature in Saipan, members voted to amend House Local Bill 24-5 to remove a proposed screening requirement for automobile sales and service businesses and to pass the bill in its amended form.

The bill, as amended, will add a definition of “automobile sales and service” to the Saipan zoning law but no longer includes the provision that businesses adjacent to residential, village commercial, rural mixed commercial or beach road zoning districts must be screened by vegetation or fencing.

The change followed public comment from local dealerships and the Saipan Chamber of Commerce. Jose Mafnes Jr., corporate counsel for Triple J Saipan Inc., representing both Triple J and Jotun Motors Company, said the dealers “support the intent of the local bill to include a definition to automobile sales and service to the Saipan zoning law” but opposed the screening provision as impractical and disruptive to long‑standing operations. Mafnes noted the two dealerships “have never received a zoning related complaint with respect to its motors operations” during decades of operation and concluded, “we both find the screening requirement to be unnecessary.”

Alex Sablan of the Saipan Chamber of Commerce told the committee he shared concerns about the screening provision and recommended that the screening language be stricken while the definition itself be adopted.

Committee discussion referenced prior outreach to zoning and other agencies. Committee leadership said staff had solicited comments from the zoning office, Department of Commerce, the attorney general’s office and others; written comments were received from every agency contacted except the Chamber, which instead provided in‑person comment. Committee members also discussed that zoning had requested additional time to refine parts of the definition—specifically the terms related to “body repair and paint”—and that the zoning office had indicated it might need until October or November to prepare more detailed language. The bill’s sponsor and the chair said they considered that timeline too long given the bill’s prior introduction and the committee’s view that industry terms were already understood.

Representative Joel C. Camacho moved to amend the bill to the draft‑1 version that deletes every provision establishing an adjacent‑property screening requirement; the motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote. The committee then voted to furnish a committee report recommending passage of House Local Bill 24‑5 as amended (draft 1).

The vote on the amendment and the subsequent motion to pass were taken by voice; no roll‑call tally was recorded in the meeting transcript.

The committee moved next to House Local Bill 24‑11.