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

Home

BEAUDET: Director. KANUHA: Yeah, I just might also want to follow up with a comment with regard to a variance request, you know, whether it’s a shoreline setback or other structural variances, which used to come before the Planning Commission, you know, for setbacks, encroachments, etc. But many years ago, those processes were determined to be more of an administrative process, so we process those administratively; it doesn’t come before your commission. However, because of the requirements of the State Statutes, HRS, I think it’s 205, a variance for shoreline setback comes before the Commission for their consideration. Now, again, the criteria for variances, whether it’s administrative or whether it comes before the Commission, is kind of unique, and it’s basically a case-by-case application, you know; it’s what special or unusual about the circumstances that are happening on a specific property at that time, you know, what kind of hardship are involved, what kind of alternatives are involved, rather than if you give one down the street, that sets precedents for giving another. So it’s a unique process from that standpoint, and it’s literally a case-by-case process. And I think the record, in terms of variances, shoreline setback variances, given within this particular project, is showing that in some cases variances were approved and in others they weren’t. So as far as using precedents, the variance criteria is again really unique and it’s based on the specific circumstances as it relates to that specific application. BEAUDET: Thank you, Director, for bringing some clarity to the situation. I appreciate that. Would the applicant like to comment to that? TANAKA: Yes, please, we would like, yeah, we would like to comment. ERENBERG: I have two items. One would be the hardship part of it. Addressing a hardship part, everyone in Kona Bay Estates that we built pools for, including Ali‘i Drive, suffers, without a swimming pool, a substantial loss in the property because of the value. The other thing is is there is a narrow limited use to the property because they can no longer use the backyard at all, because there is a limited amount of entertaining, limited amount of basically use at all, outdoor-wise, especially on this property because of the way it’s structured. Again, several of the residents in Kona Bay are renting out their homes, and there is probably a difference of a thousand dollars per night for the people that do have pools and the ones that don’t. As far as the way this property is set up and it’s being used currently, as I said, that it creates not only for resale value but for anybody wanting to use the house, it’s almost like being boxed in and not being able to go outside. There is a deck outside currently, outside of the raised deck, and my question would be is is denying the use of the 20-foot setback because of erosion that’s taking place, there is currently a concrete deck back there along with stone, so my question would be is is what kind of a problem would a swimming pool present to building it within the setback at this point, because the structure would now strengthen and also eliminate further erosion on their property by being there than would by not being there. So those are my two key issues. I’m curious as to what the erosion factor that’s happening now, what difference it makes whether there is concrete or stone that could potentially wash away as opposed to what we are planning on doing that would actually strengthen at the property and secure it a little bit more than what’s currently there. HOSMER: I also wanted to address the photographs, because that was an unusual circumstance that they happened to go there on a day when the waves were very heavy. That is not the great majority of the time. 5 EXHIBIT B