My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014-11-20 Leeward Exh A (SSV 14-09)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2014
>
2014-11-20 Leeward Exh A (SSV 14-09)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/18/2014 2:41:38 PM
Creation date
12/18/2014 2:41:36 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
they can strip it down to what they want it to be, meaning if you have anything in place, lawyers can <br />strip that thing apart to make it for a personal gain. That’s what I’m saying. Because if we don’t <br />have something in place in writing, stating the reason, what we discuss with you here, that will <br />support anything that the County has in place for the future, that would be something good that we <br />can work with. But if we don’t have anything in place, it can be stripped apart. That’s all I have. <br />Thank you. <br /> <br />TANAKA: I’m sorry, Commissioner, we have the owner here, if he has any comments with <br />regards to potential lawsuits, but at this time it was our understanding, I’m not a lawyer, please <br />forgive me but I feel like I’m educated, younger generation, and Corporation Counsel did say that <br />even if something were to be written down, that the County would not be liable whether it will strip <br />down or not, I mean, the basis of any case would be dismissed. And that is our understanding from <br />the County’s Corporation Counsel. But if you would like to hear anything for reaffirmation in <br />writing from the owner, we can do that as well. But at this point we don’t feel that the County <br />would be liable in any case. <br /> <br />HICKCOX: Mr. Chair? <br /> <br />WHITTEMORE: I’ve got a question. I just, just of clarity, on the particular subdivision, I noticed <br />that there was one picture that was presented, an aerial, it showed other properties, not contiguous <br />but other adjoining properties nearby that did have pools, and my recollection in going along the <br />coastline there they have, those particular pools have the benefit of having a significant rock wall <br />buffering them between the rocks below and where their pool is, there is an elevation, is that <br />correct, on the other properties? <br /> <br />TANAKA: There are pools with the condition, yes. There are other pools along the shoreline that <br />do not have the condition. So it is in both situations. <br /> <br />WHITTEMORE: Okay. <br /> <br />TANAKA: We do have photos of pools that have that and don’t have that for your record, if you’d <br />like to see them. <br /> <br />WHITTEMORE: So the, my other question that I want to clarify, and perhaps the Robinsons could <br />answer this, historically, it seems strange that the wall is so low at that point when it’s significantly <br />higher on all the other points, was there a drop between the wall and the rocks below previously? <br />Or was it always at the ground level? <br /> <br />TANAKA: I believe the wall was always two feet high in front of the Robinson’s property. <br /> <br />WHITTEMORE: It was always two feet high. <br /> <br />TANAKA: Right. <br /> <br />WHITTEMORE: I’m talking about the makai side of the wall. <br /> <br />TANAKA: Yes, it was always that high. <br /> <br />8 <br />EXHIBIT A <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.