COM 0314.001 2020-2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CARR SMITH: I think so. Christian, is the information that they've provided regarding those sites sufficient to you folks at this stage of the game? KAY: Thanks for your question, Commissioner Carr Smith. So, as I stated in my presentation, we had some concern over the proposed layout,just given that the 0.12-acre preserve area has not been surveyed yet, as Mr. Pipan stated. So, looking at that and adding another 10 feet for the temporary buffer that is per the preservation plan supposed to be kept in place through the duration of the development of not only the subdivision but the development of the parcels as well,we had some concerns that they might not be able to effectively develop the property. So based on that, I shared that information with the applicants, and then I called State Historic Preservation Division and asked if the previously accepted data recovery process would still be viable even though there is an approved preservation plan; according to SHPD staff, they said yes, either option would be okay. Further conversation with SHPD, staff also said that their preference would be preservation in place, and that they would be willing to work with the applicants in order to amend the preservation plan to lessen the temporary buffer in order to help facilitate the development of the subdivision while still maintaining the arch sites on site. So that's why we put in the recommendation kind of conditions that allow for either-or option. The applicants have been pretty consistent from the beginning that their preference is to maintain the sites on the property but appreciate the flexibility in case, when the survey is done, there are some problems with that. So that's kind of where we are at right now, that's the trail of the conversations we've had around the arch sites. CARR SMITH: Okay. And then a little more clarity,if you will-I'm not sure if that's for you, Christian, or for you, John-but there was testimony that the previous owner, Mr. Stewart, may have had obligations, and I, I'm sorry, I just wasn't clear who the obligations were with, and I wasn't clear whether they had been satisfied. KAY: So, in terms of the preservation plan, that was,approved. One of the conditions, one of the immediate conditions, was to conduct a metes and bounds survey to identify the location of the 0.12-acre preservation area on the property, and that it will be recorded against the deed of the property with the intention of it carried through during the subdivision process. So that's, that has not been done to date,hence the kind of the general location, that Mr. Pipan talked about, of the preserve area on the proposed site plan. CARR. SMITH: Okay, so even though that was supposedly something that was supposed be done before the property was sold, that wasn't done, and the buyers bought the property,maybe willingly or knowingly or not knowingly. But it's now their kuleana, I assume— KAY: That's correct. CARR SMITH: to complete that. Okay. KAY: The preservation plan says original owner or any subsequent owners are responsible. CARR SMITH: Okay. My last item that needs some clarity,please, is the settlement and release agreement, I was a little confused, that's between Mr. Stewart and the Ikedas? And that 10 DRAFT