My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
REP PC 017 02/21/2007 2006-2008
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Reports
>
2006-2008
>
Planning Committee (PC)
>
REP PC 017 02/21/2007 2006-2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2008 10:40:17 AM
Creation date
5/8/2008 5:28:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Reports
Reports - Type
REP
Reports - Council Term
2006-2008
Report
017
Committee
PC
Meeting date
2007-02-21
Comments
Charles Flaherty
Document Relationships
AGE PC 02/21/2007 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2006-2008\Plannning Committee (PC)
BIL 052 Draft 02 2006-2008
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2006-2008
COM 0178.000 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2006-2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
Communication 178 <br /> Bill 52 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br /> Yuen stated that since the council actually passed Bill 51 with a set of amendments, both Bills 51 <br /> and 52 should move up to council together. <br /> Council Member Brenda Ford asked if Bill 52 passes up to council would Section 4 which <br /> relates to chapter 27 have to be revised to include amendments previously made to Bi1151 or, <br /> could it be de-linked in some way. Director Yuen said both bills should be kept consistent and <br /> that the amendments to chapter 27 that were made to Bill 51 should also be made to Bill 52, <br /> otherwise it becomes confusing. <br /> Council Chair Hoffmann then suggested eliminating section 4 entirely since subpazagraph "c" of <br /> Section 2 requires compliance with the provisions of Chapter 27, Hawaii County Code. Mr. <br /> Hoffmann noted that since amendments to chapter 27 were made earlier in Bill 51, there was no <br /> reason to include section 4 in Bill 52 as earlier amendments would also apply here and, instead <br /> of making the amendments once again that it simply be eliminated from this Bill 52. <br /> Director Yuen explained that Section 3 of Bill 52 amends Chapter 25 and requires a site drainage <br /> plan for certain types of development. However, it does not set forth specific contents of a site <br /> drainage plan, which is actually spelled out in Chapter 27 and administered through section 27- <br /> 20. Mr. Yuen noted that in looking at all eventualities, if an insurmountable problem should <br /> arise in Chapter 27, there would be no specified content to a site drainage plan. <br /> Council Chair Hoffmann noted that in a situation such as that, one would cleazly have to go back <br /> to Bill 52, but at the moment, amendments applicable to Chapter 27 were agreed to when Bi1151 <br /> was considered. He then proposed a formal motion to delete Section 4 in its entirety from Bill <br /> 52. Mr. Hoffmann's motion was seconded by Council Member Jacobson and unanimously <br /> approved. <br /> Mr. Yuen commented that the Council would be doing a lot of work on flood control as well as <br /> Chapter 27 and noted that this pollution control bill (Bill 52) should pass, then later appropriate <br /> language could be added to explain what has to be done with respect to a site drainage plan <br /> which is not currently provided for in chapter 27. Mr. Yuen noted another change to item <br /> number 3 that reads "the site drainage plan under section 27-26A, approved by the Director of <br /> <br /> Public Works," should be corrected to read Section 27-20 and not " 27-26A." The correction was <br /> considered a friendly amendment. <br /> PC Report No. 17 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.