My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2009-01-15 THAWAIIAN RAINFOREST
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2009
>
2009-01-15 THAWAIIAN RAINFOREST
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 9:15:25 AM
Creation date
6/13/2011 9:15:16 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
protecting turf, that is we don’t want any competitors, more than it is a planning issue. How <br />would you respond to that? <br />MOORE: No, I think Shipman is trying to be a good steward of that, the Keaau area. <br />And the Shipman Business Park does provide ample lands for Limited Industrial uses. As far as <br />there being a selfish motive I could not speak to that. But I think that Shipman is actually <br />concerned about overall long-term planning and that this area is not appropriate for expansion of <br />Limited Industrial uses. <br />WATANABE: It doesn’t seem like -. Mr. Domingo, do you have a question to pose? <br />DOMINGO: Yeah, just one question here. I heard that in the conveyance of the <br />property to the present owners that you folks did not convey the legal easements to them. Is it <br />because you’re not actually the legal owners to the easements? <br />MOORE: No, I -. The chain of title went down to various owners to the applicant. <br />Shipman was the initial grantor but over the years it has been through several different owners. <br />And I agree with Mr. Sulla that the fact that the easement was not listed on the TCT in <br />subsequent conveyances is not legally a problem. I mean it can be remedied. But I did want to <br />point out to you the fact that those railroad rights-of-way are intersecting Milo Street. That is a <br />definite legal issue. <br />WATANABE: Okay. I have a follow-up to that because I guess you implied there are <br />maybe three sections of Milo Street where in your opinion technically Shipman never had the <br />ownership to that property to convey easement. <br />MOORE: They didn’t have the ownership at the time of the 1938 deed. They <br />subsequently, the road operated up till 1946 and then subsequently Shipman obtained title to <br />those rights-of-way. But there has never been any conveyance of an easement over those rights- <br />of-way. <br />WATANABE: So you’re testifying now that Shipman sold the land in 1938 with defected <br />easements and no access? That’s what you’re saying? <br />MOORE: No, there was -. <br />WATANABE: Somebody sold the land. <br />MOORE: Yes. <br />WATANABE: You testified that there are three portions of Railroad Avenue, I mean, <br />Milo Street -. <br />MOORE: Yes. <br />WATANABE: That you never had the rights to. <br />MOORE: Yes. <br /> EXHIBIT A <br />10 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.