2006-07-06_Memorandum_re_Puu_Lani_Ranch

Home

101 and 108-109. PLRC's archaeologist recommended that this site be preserved, and SHPD agreed in a letter dated May 15, 2001. ROA at 100-101. The SHPD letter specifically stated that"the next step in the review process would be submittal of a preservation plan for 18,483." ROA at 100-101. The preservation plan would have had the specific requirements (like proper marking) for the site,but it was already determined that it was supposed to be preserved. ROA at 100-101. However, PLRC never did submit a preservation plan to SHPD. ROA at 112-113. Instead, PLRC tried to claim that this was the responsibility of the individual lot owners. ROA at 104-105. The Planning Director wrote the developer on Sept. 10, 2003 saying that a preservation plan must be prepared for site 18483 for the review and approval of DLNR-SHPD. ROA at 96-97. In response, Mr. Bohnett wrote a letter dated September 18, 2003, saying that all lot owners were being reminded that it was "mandatory"that they receive approval from DLNR-SHPD before they start construction. ROA at 104 105. Mr. Bohnett said"[w]e will continue to do all that we can to help enforce this policy of obtaining approval before construction." ROA at 104-105. Mr. Bohnett's lawyer, Philip Leas,wrote a letter dated September 6, 2003 stating that where lots containing known or suspected burials have been sold to third parties, it was the buyer's responsibility to fulfill the requirements for a preservation plan. ROA at 106-107. They did not disclaim responsibility,however, for lots they still owned, like Lot 54. ROA at 106-107. On November 23, 2006, PLRC's attorney filed an appeal based on a letter from the Planning Director dated October 24, 2005. ROA at 114-115. The appeal was heard by the Board on February 10, 2006,but the Board voted to continue the hearing on the 5