My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007-11-16 TKILGORE
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2007
>
2007-11-16 TKILGORE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2011 1:29:26 PM
Creation date
6/14/2011 1:29:23 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
DARROW: As a case-by-case basis, when these applications come in, if we have, <br />what we do is we apply the setbacks to the buildable area. See, at this time because this <br />property, the shoreline certification moved inland, this applicant had lost property. And so what <br />they do is they apply the 40-foot shoreline to the makai portion of the boundary, and then the <br />setbacks for the sides and the front; and if you take that buildable area and if that buildable area <br />is reduced to less than 50 percent, through Planning Commission Rule 11.5, then it allows the <br />Planning Director to determine that the shoreline setback is moved from 40 to 20 feet. <br />WATANABE: Clarification. Actually you mean more than 50 percent, right? Not less, <br />huh? <br />DARROW: If the property falls less than 50 percent of buildable area -. <br />WATANABE: Oh, yeah, that the buildable is less than -. <br />DARROW: Right. <br />WATANABE: Okay, okay. <br />DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? You know, as you indicated that the shoreline area was <br />moved back and in fact the whole shoreline changed, then there have been some occurrences <br />which probably high waves or high seas which may have damaged the shoreline and moved it <br />further in, and that may have caused that red line to be moved further back. You know, and now <br />we are looking at only 20-foot setback whereas it should be 40-foot setback. <br />DARROW: Even – if I could interject – even the previous application in 1982, the <br />same principle was applied and the setback was determined to be 20 feet even back then. <br />DOMINGO: Yeah, I can understand, but my concern is that, and not only specifically to <br />this property, because as we look at the whole Alii Drive, buildings have been put up; and I don’t <br />know if there are any other further developments contemplated along the shoreline. So what <br />we’re seeing is that, you know, the threat of eventually those shoreline would be moved farther <br />in, and then would cause some kind of damage to the existing properties that exist there. That’s <br />my only concern. <br />HAYASHI: Yeah, I just wanted to clarify one thing that Jeff said, that the shoreline <br />setback rules originally adopted had a flat 20-foot shoreline setback requirement. It was changed <br />back in the early 1990s, I believe, to say that 40-foot shoreline setback unless it meets certain <br />criteria; and one of the criteria was that buildable area be less than 50 percent. And that’s in this <br />particular case. But before many of the buildings were built with 20-foot shoreline setback <br />because the law allowed 20 feet, even if the lots were larger at that time. <br />DOMINGO: Okay, thank you. <br />WATANABE: Any -. <br />EXHIBIT B <br />4 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.