2007-04-05 TAOAO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

DARROW: Right. WATANABE: Follow-up? GRAHAM: Go ahead, Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: Seeing that this, you know, if it goes through it’s going to change to a Commercial and you are going to consolidate the lot, I’m thinking that maybe we should put that condition in, the setback in. Cause we don’t know what the future holds and it saves the County money in the event that some day, well, I hate to say this but if some day you don’t have residents. You’ve got five now and some day if you don’t have residents, then you might want to widen the road. Without having to go in and condemn it, at least one lot is done. GRAHAM: All right, thank you, Commissioner Watanabe. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes, I’m looking at the letter from the Planning Department to AOAO Punahele Professional Building c/o Ms. Nancy Cabral and this is dated December 22, 2006. On the second page there there’s a, well there’s a list of items, “Our zoning inspector conducted a site inspection,” and then there’s a list of items. Item No. 5 says that “According to our files, the property owner of the subject property was previously cited for ‘operating a vehicle parking lot in a single family residential district’ in our letter dated March 10, 2006. After filing an appeal on April 10, 2006 an agreement was made between your client and the County’s Corporation Counsel. The agreement stated that the subject property would be closed within 30 days (or no later than November 13, 2006) and the property owner would plant a full planting screen along the border with neighboring properties.” You know, the photographs that were passed around nd today I assume are considerably more recent than December 22 and I didn’t see any signs of a planting screen. So it would appear that that has not been done. And the very next paragraph says “Subsequently, the gate to the subject property was closed on November 13, 2006 as agreed. Corporation Counsel considered that they complied with the agreement.” But obviously that compliance had nothing to do with the planting screen because as we see that still has not been done. I would like to have that addressed, please. SONG: Okay, the planting screen, in fact we thought the planting screen would have been along the Gushiken and Reis properties; but Corporation Counsel didn’t want it there. They wanted it along the boundary between Parcel 18 and Parcel 42. And what I’ll call Parcel 18, this is Parcel 18. Parcel 42 is where the Punahele Professional Building is right now. And I didn’t think it made sense but that’s what they wanted, and there was never an agreement reached because of that. But the parking lot was closed. That citation letter that you talked about that you’re referring to, the DLNR had to cut trees down on Halai Hill and the trees would have fallen on cars in the parking lot for the Surgical Center, not the Surgical Center, it’s the Rehab, the upper parking lot. And Mrs. Cabral determined that for safety purposes she would have the employees that normally park in that upper parking lot for two days park in this other parking lot. And she made the decision and took the risk, and did that for the two-day period because she didn’t want to see cars being damaged if trees fell because DLNR couldn’t control the trees. Although they said they could she was still worried. And so that’s what prompted that letter and the violation. EXHIBIT C 18