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
consensus if we didn’t bring in any finer -, and so I proposed that. Again, it was proposed as a <br />draft. If you’re against it, that’s fine, you know. Commissioner Graham. <br />GRAHAM: Yeah, I think I understand Commissioner Domingo’s point, and I also <br />generally agree with Commissioner Rho that I feel like we ought to take action on 5 also today. <br />And my intent when I spoke before was just that, you know, this document could be forwarded <br />up to the County Council in some way for them, when they go forward. And I think <br />Commissioner Domingo is right, the particulars in this document do feel more appropriate to an <br />SMA than to a rezoning. However, I think what you were feeling was that once the rezoning <br />gets acted upon by the Council then it may preclude some things, and so you kind of wanted to <br />have this in play for them to think about at rezoning time. So, anyway, that’s all my thoughts. <br />WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman? <br />WATANABE: Commissioner Woodward. <br />WOODWARD: I think it may be is cleaner from a legal standpoint to have a, I want to ask <br />Mr. Torigoe if I’m right in that regard, to go ahead and vote on this issue and have this in the <br />works; and then if Mr. Kim wants to resubmit a proposal, amended proposal -. <br />TORIGOE: Mr. Lim. <br />WOODWARD: Lim, yeah. Isn’t that what I said? <br />TORIGOE: You said Kim. <br />WOODWARD: Lim, oh, okay, sorry - wants to submit a revised proposal then that can be <br />addressed? Yes, no, maybe? <br />TORIGOE: I’m sorry, I got a little lost there. <br />WOODWARD: Okay. Well, I was just saying, and it sounds to me like people want to <br />vote on this issue. And I think what’s going to happen is there’s going to be a negative <br />recommendation for both 4 and 5 that goes to Council, which leads everybody sort of in limbo; <br />and there’s still time to discuss this. And if the, you know, the applicant wants to resubmit an <br />application -. <br />TORIGOE: Well, I suppose, off the top of my head I can’t recall what the timeframes <br />would be for resubmittal. I suppose that the applicant or anyone could at the Council level, even <br />if both of these went up with default negative recommendations, I suppose that a draft such as <br />the Chairperson has created could be brought up for discussion with the Council. <br />LIM: For purposes of the record, the applicant is willing to waive the 90-day <br />period in the Planning Commission Rules that the action by the Commission should occur <br />th <br />within, and like I said we would be willing to waive to the March 20 hearing. My intent and <br />my goal would be to come up with something like the recommendation that was passed out today <br />EXHIBIT D <br />13 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.