My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0965.000 2008-2010
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2008-2010
>
COM 0965.000 2008-2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2021 9:37:53 AM
Creation date
10/8/2010 3:32:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2008-2010
Communication
0965
Point
000
Author
Rell Woodward, Chairman Windward Planning Commission
Communications - Referred To
PC
Document Relationships
AGE PC 10/19/2010 2008-2010
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2008-2010\Planning Committee (PC)
REP PC 101 10/19/2010 2008-2010
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Reports\2008-2010\Planning Committee (PC)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
LEITHEAD TODD: I just wanted to add, I wanted to add that one of the reasons that this has <br /> become more of a problem is since the creation of two separate planning commissions, because <br /> each planning commission only meets once a month. Prior to the creation of two commissions, <br /> you had two hearing dates within a month with the same commission where you could schedule <br /> a hearing. But now it has become much more difficult because you just have that one meeting a <br /> month that each commission meets. So if you're scheduling a hearing, you've just got one <br /> opportunity. And so it has made it very difficult for us to meet these timelines. <br /> WOODWARD: Okay, thank you. <br /> KERN: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chair? <br /> WOODWARD: Yes. <br /> KERN: I've got one question. <br /> WOODWARD: Yes, Commissioner Kern. <br /> KERN: Pretty self - explanatory, I think. But in the event it's a simple application and it comes <br /> through, it can be processed more expeditiously and come on to an agenda faster if it's simpler, <br /> right? <br /> ARAI: Our general rule of thumb is that if an application is ready we don't simply wait out the <br /> entire processing time period. If it's ready to go and there's an opportunity to place it on the <br /> agenda, we will do so. <br /> KERN: Thank you. I just wanted on record. Cool. <br /> WOODWARD: All right. Well, we do have one person who signed in late to testify on this <br /> issue, Claudia Rohr. Okay, if I could swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth <br /> today before the Windward Planning Commission? <br /> ROHR: I do. I do. <br /> WOODWARD: Okay. And if you'll give us your name and address and you may begin. <br /> ROHR: Claudia Rohr, 369 Nene Street, Hilo, Hawai`i. I'm hard of hearing. I have a disability <br /> under the ADA. Could you repeat how long you're extending the time period to, what it is now <br /> and what you're extending it to? <br /> ARAI: The current code and rule requires a 60 -day processing time period. The proposed <br /> amendment is to increase that processing time period to 90 days. So basically a 30 -day increase <br /> in processing time period. <br /> ROHR: The reason why I am late on the next agenda item has to do with time periods. And I <br /> think 90 days really is required. I track the process on most of the hearings that I go to, the <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.