My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2008-01-11 TKOHALA LLC
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2008
>
2008-01-11 TKOHALA LLC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 8:38:44 AM
Creation date
6/13/2011 8:38:41 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
RHO: Okay, so the Commission actually -. <br />WATANABE: No. <br />RHO: In the end, by the end of tonight we’ll actually have to vote on -. <br />WATANABE: No, we would -. <br />RHO: Moving this to the next meeting? <br />th <br />WATANABE: No, to the March 20. <br />th <br />RHO: To the March 20. <br />WATANABE: The applicant’s representative is requesting a continuance to the <br />th <br />March 20. He’s vacating the desire to have both -. <br />RHO: Cause I’m going to tell you right now that I’m not inclined to do that. I <br />th <br />only have one vote, but I’m not inclined to postpone this to March 20. Because in my view my <br />previous vote will be inconsistent if I do that. I mean, I guess I kind of agree that all of this thing <br />should have been taken up all at one time, because it’s like we’re going backwards to the back <br />door now and doing something to -. And I understand what the vote was in our previous motion <br />and vote. But it’s like we’re going back through the back door to bring that subject all the way <br />back up again with modification. And if that was the case then we should have done that from <br />the very beginning and not take a vote then, which again, you know, I understand that vote. But <br />now to bring it up again, it just doesn’t seem -. <br />WATANABE: Okay. And in all fairness to you then maybe we should entertain whether <br />th <br />the Commission is agreeable to extending it to the March 20 deadline as indicated by the <br />applicant. And so if we could have a motion to that effect then we can determine whether the <br />th <br />Commission as a whole, whether we have the votes to continue it to the March 20 meeting; and <br />if we don’t, then we will deliberate on this now and we more than likely will wind up with no <br />consensus vote so it will go up with a negative recommendation on both. And that’s, like I said, <br />either way is fine with me. I was just trying to, you know -. So Mr. Domingo, I’ll entertain a <br />motion. <br />DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, I don’t have a motion but I would like to make a few <br />comments if I may. <br />WATANABE: Sure. <br />DOMINGO: Mr. Torigoe, is a proposed amendment to the zoning bill appropriate when <br />you’re considering a time extension? <br />TORIGOE: Okay, I think you’re asking basically, the agenda item is a time extension <br />and you’re asking if we can do these other changes including the limitation on the number of -? <br />EXHIBIT D <br />11 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.