My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2010-02-05 TTUTTLE HALE OHIA
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2010
>
2010-02-05 TTUTTLE HALE OHIA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 10:54:14 AM
Creation date
6/13/2011 10:54:06 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
GONZALEZ: And then, I mean, you guys have got to clear it in your head. Cause I don’t want <br />you guys voting on something unless you’ve got it clear in your head. So I guess you can follow <br />up to address your concerns. So you didn’t build -? <br />WOODWARD: It would seem to me that since this is all his property including the road that, <br />you know, I don’t see a problem here, but maybe it’s just me. <br />DARROW: If I could also make a clarification that when this application had gone through <br />subdivision as well as a variance application they also had to take into consideration all these <br />structures. And it had to be, each structure had to be clarified as to its nonconforming status. <br />For it to be able to, they would not necessarily approve a subdivision if everything was illegal. It <br />had to be nonconforming or grandfathered in for them -. <br />WOODWARD: So this made it by Public Works and whoever? <br />DARROW: Yeah, and the Planning Department. <br />WOODWARD: Okay. Well, I’d say it, you know, that’s out of our league then. That’d be my <br />approach to it. Okay, do we have any other questions, comments? All right, I guess we will take <br />the vote as it is. Correct? Commissioner Iwashita. <br />IWASHITA: Mr. Chair, I guess this is more a procedural question. For applying, looking at the <br />bed and breakfast Section 25-4-7 of the Code, it talks about the requirement in B-2, talks about <br />the requirement of the operator of the bed and breakfast establishment shall reside in the same <br />building; and there was some discussion about that earlier. Seems to me that operator needed to <br />reside or is required to reside, that means that it has to be a human being. And in this case we, I <br />know Mr. Tuttle owns all of this, right, and I guess you’re purporting to be the operator for both. <br />But the applicant on this particular matter is an LLC. I’m assuming it is a sole member LLC? <br />TUTTLE: Yes, sir, it is. <br />IWASHITA: Okay. And you’re the sole member? <br />TUTTLE: Yes. <br />IWASHITA: So, I guess now in my head I’m having a difficult time wrapping around the <br />concept that Mr. Tuttle as the operator of both B&B’s can live in both B&Bs. <br />TUTTLE: It would be hard -. <br />GONZALEZ: That’s not what it says. <br />WOODWARD: That’s not the plan, I don’t believe. Mr. Tuttle? <br />26 <br /> EXHIBIT D <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.