2014-11-06 Hearing Transcript-Scott Watson SMA 450 _Reconsideration_

Home

STRAUSS: I don’t have the exact date with me, with me, but it was well after construction had already started for the, for the footprint. HEAUKULANI: That’s kind of my problem. Why is that? STRAUSS: Because it was not part of the CC&R’s. HEAUKULANI: No, Steve, I don’t mean to cut you off, but building on that shoreline required an SMA permit. STRAUSS: Yes, and that’s what was applied for, and at the time that it was applied for, for a minor permit, the County Planning Department did not bring this setback issue to the attention of the developer. In fact, they applied a different setback. So, if the County didn’t know or wasn’t aware of it, it’s hard for me to understand how you would fault the Applicant which relies on the County to identify and make compliance with its own rulings. It wasn’t part of the CC&R’s. It wasn’t part of the title report. It wasn’t part of the subdivision approval. It was a separate document. And, the County wasn’t aware of it. Otherwise, they would have cited it at the time, and we would not have wasted a year or more in dealing with this process. That’s where this second set of setback rules came from, not what was first originally approved by the County. It wasn’t provided by the seller of the property either. KANUHA: Mr. Chairman? MIYASATO: Go ahead, Director. KANUHA: I think a procedural point of clarification here. The subject before the Commission today is just the reconsideration, not to you know re-argue the case at this point in time, so it’s, it’s, the Applicant’s motion is just for reconsideration of the Commission’s actions at the last meeting, and in support of that, he’s provided information. So, I think that’s all the Commission has to determine, whether or not this new information is relevant to their decision the last time, and then proceed, okay. STRAUSS: I would agree. Thank you, Mr. Kanuha, and this, I believe the information we provided is, directly addresses one of the concerns that you raised, is whether that we would be able to in fact provide a useable grant of easement to the County, and we believe that it was, it’s not subject to any kind of reasonable challenge, and if there is a challenge, we’ll indemnify the County. We have the means and the ability to do that. In the meantime, the public will enjoy the public access. KANUHA: And, again, Mr. Chairman, that’s you know, that’s the sole motion on the table for your consideration today. MIYASATO: Thank you, Director. Commissioners, any other questions for the Applicant? If not, thank you. STRAUSS: Thank you. 11 EXHIBIT C