My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2004-06-04 TBRITTAIN
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2004
>
2004-06-04 TBRITTAIN
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 3:25:12 PM
Creation date
6/13/2011 3:25:09 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
Again, we’re here today for a compliance hearing for Use Permit No. 193. Use Permit <br />193 was approved on October 17, 2002 for a two-bedroom bed and breakfast. They were <br />required by Condition M to return back to the Commission one year later to be able to <br />follow up on compliance with the conditions. <br />The Applicant or the Applicant’s representative has submitted a detailed written status <br />report which has been submitted to all of you, in compliance with Condition M. I <br />conducted a site inspection on May 3, 2004 and was able to verify that the physical <br />conditions that are described in the permit have been complied with. There is an issue <br />that has been raised regarding Condition H, the roof structure over the hot tub. And the <br />issue was whether or not that roof structure should still be required to be built, even <br />though the hot tub has been removed. We verified that the hot tub has been removed. <br />But it may be an interpretation as to whether or not that still requires the need for the <br />permanent roof structure or not. Are there any questions? <br />FUJIKAWA:No, I believe, well, I was on that case. Hannah, were you on this <br />case, too? <br />SPRINGER:I was. <br />FUJIKAWA:Yeah, I guess the biggest concern at the time was the hot tub <br />making a lot of noise, right, the people there? And now the hot tub has been removed. <br />Okay, any questions, Commissioners, with staff? McCall? <br />MCCALL:Not a question but I just want to state for the record that I did, <br />when we had the Contested Case, I recused myself because my mother-in-law is a owner, <br />a part owner of the Hale Moana. And while I don’t think we have any decision-making, I <br />wanted to put myself on the record on that. I don’t know, if counsel says I should recuse <br />myself on this, I will, again, but -. <br />FUJIKAWA:Counsel, at this time, to refresh you, Mr. McCall’s family member <br />lived in the apartment next door, the condominium next door, so he had excused himself <br />from that just so he won’t, there won’t be any interruptions or appearance of some sort. <br />And now that it had gone through the Hearing Officer’s hands, can he participate? <br />KAMELAMELA:Actually, that would be up to you whether -. <br />FUJIKAWA:I guess you may. <br />KAMELAMELA:Whether - . <br />MCCALL:Yeah, I don’t know that we’re really going to do any decision <br />making anyway. <br />2 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.