My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012-05-17 Leeward Exh B - Mooers
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2012
>
2012-05-17 Leeward Exh B - Mooers
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/21/2012 3:00:14 PM
Creation date
6/21/2012 3:00:09 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
<br />VITOUSEK: Good morning. Randy Vitousek, and I’m an attorney for Doris Scharpf. And my <br />address is 75-170 Hualālai Road, Kailua-Kona. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: Thank you. Greg? <br /> <br />MOOERS: Yeah, the first thing I would like to do is answer Commissioner Whittemore’s question. <br />This won’t lead to other applications because most of the walls, particularly the walls both on north <br />and south of this wall, are considered nonconforming walls; they were built prior to that. So if they <br />were built prior to a certain date, they are considered acceptable; they are nonconforming, but they <br />are legal walls. So that’s why most of the walls in Puakō will remain is because they were built <br />prior to that date. <br /> <br />VITOUSEK: June ’97. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: Ninety-seven? <br /> <br />MOOERS: Yeah. So since most of those properties, shoreline properties, were built prior to that, <br />the walls would be considered nonconforming. In fact, the wall on this property, there was a wall <br />that preceded this wall, there was a rock wall. If that rock wall had been unaltered, it would be legal <br />and it would be nonconforming and we wouldn’t be here today. But the fact that they took the rock <br />wall down and built this new wall, then the nonconforming goes away because it was modified. I <br />think one of the things I would like to emphasize is that Ms. Scharpf did not construct this wall; the <br />wall was constructed prior to her ownership of the property. And I think Mr. Vitousek will <br />probably give a little background about the history of the wall and the violation, because there is a <br />settlement agreement with the County that I think is important as we consider this permit. So I ask <br />Mr. Vitousek if he could review that. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: Good. Thank you. <br /> <br />VITOUSEK: Is this mike on? Cause -. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: Yes. <br /> <br />VITOUSEK: It is. Okay. Can I ask you -. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: Wait, I’m sorry, it is, right, Noriko? <br /> <br />SAUER: Yes, it is. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: Uh huh, I thought so. <br /> <br />VITOUSEK: Can I ask you to put the aerial photo up, please? Okay. Yeah. Good morning, and <br />thank you. I first got involved in this several years ago, back into the previous Planning Director’s <br />tenure. And if you see the – can I just point out here? <br /> <br />MOOERS: Take the microphone -. <br /> <br />6 <br />EXHIBIT B <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.