2010-08-27 Leeward Planning Commission Minutes

Home

the site visitation. Those in attendance joined hands in circle and bowed their heads in prayer led by Commissioner Nelson. Ms. Cottle then led the attendees along the northern perimeter t oqnodqsx-HmqdronmrdsnsgdBg`hqlrhmpthqx+the applicant indicated the certified shoreline, pointing to the makai rock walls and blue flags on vegetation. site map the location of the shoreline in relation to the makai property line. Mr. Olson made an objection as to the location of the property line as described by Mr. Yeh, saying that the information was based on the old map and was not an accurate depiction of the current property line. The Chair allowed the objection. Mr. Ghalamfarsa objected to the location of the shoreline, noting that the shoreline followed along the exisng rock wall only to the eastern corner of the lanai and then followed the vegetation rather than the rock wall. The group proceeded to the north edge of the existing pool and then reversed their track due to the unsafe ground condition. Commissioner Bowman asked if there were any features along the shoreline that the Commission should be aware of. Ms. Cottle responded that there were some archaeological features including a konane an`qc+`mcLq-Nkrnmv`kjdcsnsgdv`sdqlr edge to indicate the location of the konane an`qc-HmqdronmrdsnBnllhrrhnmdqFheehmlr question, Mr. Olson said that it was located on the State property, adding that it was indicative of many people having gathered in the area. @sBnllhrrhnmdqFheehmlrqdptdrs+sgd`ookhb`ms v`kjdcsnsgdknb`shnmrnesvnb`udrinmdsnward the ocean and the other by the northwest corner of the rock wall. Mr. Olson pointed out that there were also some known lava blisters in the area, adding that it was not known what else was on property. Once back in the driveway area in front, Ms. Cottle led the attendees along the southeast wall of the existing main dwelling back to the pool area. The Chair inquired of the location of property line to the south. Because there was some confusion between the shoreline and the property line and about the pins the applicant pointed to, Mr. G adjacent property to the south, suggested that they enter his property from mauka, which would provide a different perspective of the property line. On their way back mauka in the area between the southeast wall and Mr. Ghal`le`qr`lroqnodqsx+Lq-Nkrnml`cd`m observation that there were holes in the ground, saying he could not tell whether it was a punctured lava tube that had been backfilled or something else. The group then entered Mr. Fg`k`le`qr`lroqnodqsxsgqntfg`m opening of vegetation along the southeast perimeter, and walked makai to see the boundary area between the two properties. Back on the subject property, Mr. Olson pointed to an area that appeared to be a cave or a lava blister between the existing dwelling and the eastern rock wall. Sgdfqntooqnbddcdcsn@khkhCqhudsgqntfgLq-Fg`k`le`qr`lroqnodqsxsnv`kj`knmfsgd mauka perimeter of the subject property. Ms. Cottle noted that the applicant was proposing to qdlnudsgdqnbjv`kk`knmf@khkhCqhud-Lq-Yeh suggested that the Commission take note of sgddwhrshmfuhdvok`mdreqnl@khkhCqhud+qdhsdq`shmfLr-Bnsskdlrbnlldmssg`ssgdqnbjv`kk would be taken down. Mr. Yeh also pointed to a lava ridge on the mauka side of the road, which he said appeared to be cut as a resuksnesgd@khkhCqhudhloqnudldmsratssgdqhcfd continued onto the subject property, and asked the Commission to take note of that location as 2