My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006-05-05 TSeascape
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2006
>
2006-05-05 TSeascape
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 2:20:20 PM
Creation date
6/13/2011 2:20:18 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
report would see an encumbrance running with that land, that will be kind of like a <br />mortgage sitting on that land. So this just states the general intention which I think is <br />quite clear. And the exact instrument and exact wording of that instrument is going to <br />have to be worked out by lawyers on both sides. But the intent I think is pretty clear. <br />GRAHAM:Is there any reason why we say it shall include an obligation to <br />authorize rather than just say shall authorize? <br />TORIGOE:Well, I think when it, I mean, I helped draft that language and I <br />think we said include an obligation to make it a little more imperative that there will be <br />like a legal obligation that is clearly stated, you know, on the part of the landowner that <br />makes it quite clear that the County is authorized to go ahead and do this thing. <br />GRAHAM:But by saying an obligation to authorize rather than just saying <br />authorize-? <br />TORIGOE:Well,ifyouwanttoremovethatlanguageandifthatwill,you <br />know, if that makes you more comfortable, I would have no problem with that. <br />GRAHAM:Is there any up or down as you see it from your perspective to <br />remove shall include an obligation to authorize? <br />TORIGOE:Well, I suggested that language myself to try and make it a little <br />stronger, that is to make it quite clear on the record that this is an imperative legal <br />obligation. Its not, you know, not something negotiable. <br />IWASHITA:I have something to add to this concern. <br />ALAMEDA:Go ahead, Commissioner Iwashita. <br />IWASHITA:I suggest that the last two sentences of the new proposed Condition <br />G say, The obligation to build the road and the Countys right to recover all costs and <br />expenses to enforce the obligation shall be secured by a covenant running with the land <br />recorded against at least one of the parcels created by Subdivision No. 02-000051, or the <br />applicant may build the road or bond its construction. Said covenant shall grant the <br />County the power to foreclose upon the encumbered property to satisfy costs of building <br />the road under public procurement procedures, which costs and procedures shall be as <br />determine by the Director of Public Works. <br />GRAHAM:That reads more straightforward and sounds better to me, but Im <br />certainly willing to hear if theres any problem with that. <br />ALAMEDA:Okay. <br />FUKE:Well, I think the intent is there so whichever way the three <br />attorneys that you are surrounded with decide, I mean, thats fine with us. <br />5EXHIBIT E <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.