Laserfiche WebLink
YUEN:Okay. <br />VITOUSEK:And we should be relatively straightforward. And so whether or not the <br />Applicant will, you know, accept it and be able to perform that type of condition, thatÓs <br />another issue. But, at this point, what IÓm trying to do is get at the legal foundation for <br />your, for your belief that youÓre authorized to impose this type of condition to preserve <br />historic sites. Fair enough? <br />YUEN:And preserve the experience that people have and the integrity of historic <br />sites on adjoining property. You could impose conditions and restrictions such as a 100- <br />foot setback, such as donÓt build over one story. When there is an SMA permit involved <br />that limit what they can do. The need for it is allowed by the <br />VITOUSEK:Okay. Fair enough. I think the other, one of the issues that was discussed <br />was the view from the units towards the cultural site, isnÓt that correct? <br />YUEN:Yes. <br />VITOUSEK:And how would that impact on members of the public if people who lived <br />in nearby houses saw members of the public or tourists enjoying a cultural site? Do you <br />think that would be an adverse impact? <br />YUEN:Probably not significant. <br />VITOUSEK:But thatÓs one of the -. IÓm sorry. Go ahead. <br />YUEN:ThatÓs, the impact that was expressed on people wanting to conduct <br />ceremonies and practice, and have cultural practices, I would think of that as significant. <br />Whether, and I do think that the experience, itÓs hard to separate. I think that the, that the <br />impact on the experience that a person has if they go to the site and they see these <br />buildings is significant. ItÓs hard to separate if, as to whether that was, would be much <br />more if they thought that somebody was looking at them through the window or not, I <br />donÓt think that that part of it greatly increases the impact. No. <br />VITOUSEK:That was an issue that was mentioned with respect to cu <br />on the site, that they -? <br />YUEN:Right. <br />VITOUSEK:And so any limitation on the ownerÓs ability to have a view mauka from <br />their property would be imposed as a means of protecting the exercise of native Hawaiian <br />customary and traditional rights on the adjoining property, isnÓt that correct? <br />YUEN:That is a cost to the landowner by having a condition like this, yes, and to <br />the future occupants of the property, yes. <br />25 <br /> <br />