My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0092.025 2004-2006
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2004-2006
>
COM 0092.025 2004-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2008 4:22:41 PM
Creation date
5/8/2008 11:22:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2004-2006
Communication
0092
Point
025
Author
Claudia Rohr
Communications - Referred To
COUNCIL
Comments
Presented: Council - 3/01/05
Document Relationships
BIL 355 Draft 01 2002-2004
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2002-2004
BIL 356 Draft 01 2002-2004
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2002-2004
COM 0092.000 2004-2006
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2004-2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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).
View images
View plain text
<br /> this enhanced the rural lifestyle of East Hawaii. I do not think the "rural lifestyle" was limited to those living in rural <br /> <br /> communities but generally available to those with transportation (including the Hawaii Consolidated Railroad tourist train). <br /> <br /> The questions I would appreciate the answers to, from each of your perspective experiences in matters before <br /> <br /> the Planning Commission and County Council, are: <br /> 1) What happens when a new landowner seeks to bar the public's customary use of recreational opportunities on his land <br /> <br /> when such customary use of his land had satisfied the requirements of HRS 205A and HCPC Rule 9 in previously issued <br /> SMAs, and a rezoning ordinance? <br /> 2) What happens when the new landowner attempts to overlap a new SMA permit and rezoning application on a portion of <br /> land covered by existing SMA permits and a rezoning ordinance? In the case of proposing development on open space? <br /> 3) What is the proper procedure for considering a new SMA permit and rezoning ordinance when they affect the <br /> previous SMA permits and rezoning ordinance? Isn't the correct application one for an amendment to the previous SMAs <br /> and rezoning ordinance? Can the previous land use permits be ignored and left unamended? In the case where the <br /> industrial activity still exists and official Closure is required? <br /> 4) Would the new landowner be in violation of the existing SMA permits and HRS 205A and HCPC Rule 9 if he attempted <br /> to discourage the public and bar customary use of the shoreline area on his property? <br /> "5) Would it be a violation of the Sunshine law to amend SMA 221, as amended, and REZ 477 and the <br /> corresponding ordinance in part with a new SMA permit and rezoning ordinance without clearly providing notice and an <br /> agenda stating so? <br /> 6) Doesn't the Department of Health Clean water branch and solid waste branch have to provide certain closure <br /> conditions to convert HCPC's industrial complex (including a coal pile and NPDES permitted ouffalls) into residential lots? <br /> Thank you for your time in advising me on these matters. There are a lot of confusing issues at hand. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Claudia Rohr <br /> 369 Nene St. Hilo, HI 96720 <br /> 934-8040 <br /> fax 935-0940 <br /> z <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.