Runoff system is almost surely not to code and worse. Taking Advantage of the ELO's absence during construction, restaurant management apparently wants to relive history with yet another unsightly awning battle with homeowners. Most owners will agree they are ruining everyone's long time shoreline views and the overall beauty of the property. Entire building impacted. Why is it OK?
KMS Extended Lanai Owner...
“He looked me square in the eye and told me he was not installing an awning”.
What once was a light & airy pool, deck & restaurant area is now a dark and dreary fortress.
The Magic Sands Beach view from almost every unit in the building is being affected by this monstrosity.
An expert who has reviewed many of the documents has provided the following opinion based on his analysis...
Regarding the permitting process, the applicant in our opinion, skirted many of his potential issues by deceivingly calling his awnings "READILY MOVEABLE HORIZONTAL UMBRELLAS". Based on the photos we examined, the restaurant awnings are neither moveable, nor retractable, nor umbrellas, nor were detached from the building as stated in writing many times, to almost anyone who asked, by the applicant. They in fact are attached to the building with exposed PVC piping normally used for plumbing applications and even have copper flashing jury-rigged to them for a makeshift water drainage system, with the runoff apparently draining directly into the ocean. This situation appears to be a blatant and diabolical manipulation of all involved in our opinion.
An internet search for the term "readily moveable horizontal umbrellas" resulted in this..
Another issue was whether the awnings represented a material or non-material change. Based on the current installation, there is no doubt these are material in nature. At one point, the BOD was convinced to vote in favor of the awnings because they were told something different by the restaurant. When complaints started rolling in from uninformed owners, as well as fellow BOD members, management sent this memo to the Board...
AOAO Management to KMS BOD...
The Board, at that time, rationale was the awning was not material in nature therefore the Board was authorized to approve such installation. A key component is the awning was not permanently attached to the building and would be retractable. Considering the owner’s feedback below as of late, it is evident that owners remain unaware, and may not agree. Please open discussion on this matter. As leaders of your community, the owners are looking to you for leadership and guidance. Should this collective Board feel a new motion to retract the previous Board’s decision is in order, please keep in mind the legal liability which may fall to the Association. Should this vote change the current standing, please refer to your governing documents for the required votes and actions necessary to conclude the matter.
The fact remains, according to 514b -140 the KMS Board does not have the authority to approve the awnings alone. Two other approvals are needed: 67% written approval of all owners and 100% of the owners of the units most affected. We saw no records of any such vote by the affected units and therefore this is an easy conclusion.
The Board acting alone shows the Board is either working in cahoots with the restaurant management, receiving incorrect advice, has not asked what the State regulations are or just assumed the awning decision was the Board's alone. They should have been properly advised by the Management Company if they were uninformed...and eventually were, but not until after their decision took place.
The fact that some owners indicated their approval on assumptions provided by (name redacted) is not the same as receiving 67% written approval of all owners and 100% of the owners of the units affected on (Redacted)'s final plans.
514B – 140
Additions to and alterations of condominium
§514B-140 Additions to and alterations of condominium. (a) No unit owner shall do any work that may jeopardize the soundness or safety of the property, reduce the value thereof, or impair any easement, as reasonably determined by the board.
(b) Subject to the provisions of the declaration, no unit owner may make or allow any material addition or alteration, or excavate an additional basement or cellar, without first obtaining the written consent of sixty-seven per cent of the unit owners, the consent of all unit owners whose units or appurtenant limited common elements are directly affected, and the approval of the board, which shall not unreasonably withhold such approval. The declaration may limit the board’s ability to approve or condition a proposed addition or alteration; provided that the board shall always have the right to disapprove a proposed addition or alteration that the board reasonably determines could jeopardize the soundness or safety of the property, impair any easement, or interfere with or deprive any non-consenting owner of the use or enjoyment of any part of the property.
We see a pattern emerging here...yet another project the Board appears to have failed to follow State or County regulations. The list is growing...add the tearing down and replacing the extended lanais without approved permits. Some evidence has also surfaced pointing to a coverup of similar blunders with the pool project which may be devastating in nature to all owners. End of report.
KMS Owner...
"They do whatever the F*%k they want!"
Illegal Runoff System?
Between the unfinished construction and ugly awnings, construction debris carelessly tossed on the roof, KMS looks like a war zone for months on end. Not a good look for owners trying to maximize rental opportunities, rates, and property values during one of the greatest upward spikes in the history of Hawaii real estate and the vacation rental industry. None of the owners guests on the entire second or third floor are paying premium oceanfront rates to stare at an ugly tarp 24/7. According to one homeowner, "at least the umbrellas were stylish and came down when the business was closed, leaving a completely unobstructed view at least some part of each day". There is no other oceanfront property on the Kona Coast or the nation for that matter who would allow this atrocity in front of their oceanfront views and zero of the affected owners would ever vote for something like this. Are all of KMS residential owners investments being devalued for the benefit of only one owner? Is this a slow and study insurgence which is part of a longer-term plan by one KMS Board Member to grow his holdings at KMS?
KMS Homeowner...
"He told me no permit..said it was not attached to the building...I checked and it sure as hell is."
Will the county think it's OK to drain runoff from the roof of the building, directly into the KMS beautiful oceanfront sanctuary with these ugly protrusions? This is one of the biggest eye sores at the building and KMS owners never even voted on it. Should they have to put up with this?
Do you think KMS pool guests enjoy seeing this every time they come down for a swim?
Do you think bending propane tiki torches to extend outwards over the ocean is respectful to our environment?
Owners have every intention on getting their gorgeous views back.
Comments