Laserfiche WebLink
couple of years; and therefore the question whether it is a permanent structure at all falling under <br />the building code is a big question in my mind. I know that the building code is undergoing <br />revision at this point. I don€t know if the question of hales is included in that as far as the <br />discussion goes. It seems to me that people have been living in them permanently all around the <br />Pacific for a long, long time and doing so quite successfully. And so I really have trouble you <br />know understanding why this should not be allowed especially since we€re looking at overnight <br />camping as opposed to someone residing there on a permanent basis, which they would not be <br />able to do anyway because they would have to be redone every couple of years in any event. So <br />I was wondering if the Director would care to comment on that? <br />SPRINGER:Director Yuen do you have- <br />YUEN:Currently under the building code thatched roofs are permitted only in <br />resort zones. And we haven€t permitted any for human occupancy. There are some thatched <br />roofbuildingsinresortareasthatareguardshacktypebuildingsorcanoeshedsorthatsortof <br />thing. The safety aspect from a fire standpoint of people staying in a thatched building is the <br />same whether it€s a person- a different person every night or one person who lives there <br />continually. It€s probably less safe for a person who just comes once in a while. So, rather than <br />pass a special permit that leads somebody to a dead end on the building code side, we were <br />recommending against that. It will not meet building or fire code for human occupancy. As far <br />as the temporary building- a temporary building. You can get a temporary building permit but <br />it€s only a 30-day, it€s only good for 30 days. So that€s the limit on a temporary building. And <br />this would be as something that is designed to be there permanently even if the roof has to be <br />replaced every couple of years it would still count as a full building. So given and putting aside <br />the question of simply having a camping area where people bring their own tents for example an <br />camp. We would not recommend approving a special permit for people staying in structures that <br />can€t pass fire code. <br />SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa any follow-up? <br />SIRACUSA:But you€re also saying that even if they were to put up little wooden <br />cabins say little one room wooden cabins like they have up at Pohakuloa and places like that you <br />still wouldn€t want to do that because you don€t want to encourage overnight camping at that <br />location is that correct? <br />YUEN:No, we approved the application for a hostel. We didn€t have an <br />application for people- for some kind of minimal cottage. I don€t think we would have a <br />problem with that subject to an overall limit. We€ve been holding a 40-unit limit on special <br />permits for overnight accommodation. We have an application for- we€re dealing with an <br />application for a hostel which was in a building and an application for essentially camping but <br />people staying in these lean to type thatched roof structures that was the application and we <br />denied that part of the application. If we had had an application for- if the hostel had been a <br />bunch of cottages we probably would have approved the cottages subject to an overall limit. <br />SIRACUSA:Thank you. <br />EXHIBIT B <br />6 <br /> <br />