My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2003-04-04 tdusel3
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003
>
2003-04-04 tdusel3
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 12:33:03 PM
Creation date
6/13/2011 12:32:58 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
not by the County in the future if some lot owner objected to it. So that's the reason for <br />putting that clause in that it can be removed. And the reason for the language that <br />restrictive covenants shall give notice that the rezoning ordinance prohibits the <br />construction of a second dwelling is to, so that there is clear notice to purchasers of the <br />property that they can't build a second dwelling. We don't expect people who buy, take a <br />subdivision, take this subdivision and somebody buys it in the future, there may be a <br />buyer down the road. We don't expect people to dig out the rezoning ordinance that <br />allowed the creation of a subdivision and review that and find out that they're not allowed <br />to have a second dwelling. Most people will look at the County Code and say, oh, you <br />have a possibility of an additional farm dwelling because that's <br />reason for saying that there should be a covenant in the deed is so that this is something <br />that will then be printed in a deed down into the future, and then every deed has to have <br />this. So then an owner will have notice that they can only put <br />property. So that's the reason behind all of this being worded the way it's worded. <br />KUBOTA:Then the second, then -. Mr. Chair? <br />GALDONES:Chair recognizes Commissioner Kubota. <br />KUBOTA:Then the sentence that follows it is totally not necessary because <br />you have a restrictive covenant already specifying that. So why would the owner of the <br />property, in addition, impose private covenants restricting the number of dwellings? I <br />mean that's duplication, isn't it? <br />YUEN:No, because -. <br />KUBOTA:No? <br />YUEN:Because if the -, this is the scenario, all right. Now the private <br />subdivider can put in, regardless of what the County wants, put in covenants restricting <br />the lots to one home on a lot. <br />KUBOTA:Okay. <br />YUEN:All right. This is to make it clear that they retain the power to do <br />that. The ordinance can change, can be amended to allow more th <br />KUBOTA:Oh, I see. <br />YUEN:But the private subdivider, if they want to give assurance to the <br />buyers in the future that forever there will only be -. <br />KUBOTA:One. <br />YUEN:One home on the lot, they can do that as a private matter. <br />this works -. <br />7 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.