2014-09-18 Leeward Exh B (SSV 14-09)

Home

UNGER: Well, I am the freshman commissioner here, so I would like to say that this is a gray area, and I appreciate where Duane is coming from and the Planning Department. And my first motion is going to be to approve this SMA permit (sic). So with that being said, I move that the application for SMA Area Use Permit (sic), SSV 14-09, be approved for the following reasons – and I think we all went back and forth with a lot of the reasons, pro and con. I appreciate the shoreline erosion setback issue. I appreciate the discussion on liability. I keep going back to what does this do to the public, what does this do to the environment, and who does it affect; for the most part it looks like the party that it mostly affects is the applicant. The applicant realizes that he is building, that they are building in an area that is susceptible to flooding, that is susceptible to erosion, etc. etc. What does this do to the public access in front of the property? Nothing, it is unchanged. What does this do to the erosion? Probably nothing, according to the Environmental Impact Statement, erosion is going to happen regardless if this pool is built or not. The applicant’s statement that it may actually help erosion, I don’t know, I’m not an engineer, that’s the first time I heard that, it makes sense. Back to the liability and to the issues of liability, this is on the applicant, this is on the applicant and affects the applicant most directly as far as the negative. So that being said, and I think there is enough gray area here. We are not supposed to consider the fact that there are 20 other pools there. The fact is there are 20 other pools there; adding one more pool in this area to me seems like a reasonable use of the property. Does it create a hardship on the property? Hardship is definable. It’s not a matter of life and death, no, but does it create a hardship? I think so, at the point where adding a pool would increase value, other properties have the pool in the area, to a certain extent. Are there circumstantial evidences? Probably yes, the shoreline did change. Nobody anticipated it. It did happen. So for going down the checklist of hardships, I would say yes. Again, though, it’s a gray area. That’s my mana‘o. And that is the reason for my motion, with all due respect to the Planning Department. BEAUDET: I’d like to ask for a second. Can I get a second on the motion? KAHOLO: Second. BEAUDET: It has been moved by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Kaholo for the approval of SSV 14-009. As part of the discussion before we vote, for the record, I need to state that Commissioner Nobriga has left, and in order for this motion to go forward, we would need a unanimous vote, or four, yeah. JACKSON: Mr. Chair, I’d also like to request, since the Commission is considering approving this, the Department would like to recommend some conditions. So perhaps, the Commission could recommend continuing this so that the Department has time to draft conditions of approval with the reasons stated for approval by Mr. Unger. BEAUDET: I would agree with that. Do we need a motion for continuance? JACKSON: I think you have to take the first motion first, but we’d like to be able to come back, and -. BEAUDET: Okay, so we vote now and then -. JACKSON: Present the findings and conditions and then have the Commission vote. 10 EXHIBIT B