My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007-01-05 tclark
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2007
>
2007-01-05 tclark
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 8:41:41 AM
Creation date
6/13/2011 8:41:40 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
to me is the County is being stiffed out of this fee that should been paid in ‘97 and it should not <br />be stiffed. <br />GRAHAM: Did you want anything further from Mr. Lim on that? <br />IWASHITA: Oh, no. I think that’s just my response, you know, to basically, the <br />acknowledgment that Clark Realty knows now and maybe even before it bought this property <br />that the payment hadn’t been made. <br />GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe? <br />WATANABE: I’m not sure if I should make the motion first as you had recommended <br />and we follow it by follow-up comments with Mr. Iwashita -. <br />GRAHAM: We’re really not at the point in the hearing. We still have the applicant <br />before us and we’re just asking questions of the applicant. <br />WATANABE: Well, I, okay. Then it may be a little bit out of order but my comment is <br />this: Okay, in the event that the former owner who originally had the entitlement given to them <br />had paid the water commitment, had developed the property, Clark Realty today having bought <br />that property with an existing building would not be required to pay an additional water <br />commitment. They would just be coming in here for a zoning change because the uses are not <br />permitted within that particular zoning. And to a degree it would seem to me that the zoning <br />change they’re requesting is kind of like a step down from what the current zoning is, assuming, <br />you know, they’ve followed up with all of their commitments. So I just don’t see where the <br />County is getting stiffed. <br />GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa? <br />SIRACUSA: Yes, I was just reading the comment on this application from the <br />Department of Water Supply and there is no mention of a previous water commitment that the <br />Department feels is due to them. If they had built something and were using water and hadn’t <br />paid for it, I could see that as an issue. But since they never did do the construction and never <br />submitted the data, the water use calculations that were requested, it seems to me that Mr. Lim’s <br />client can just go ahead and do it now based on what they’re going to be building, and make the <br />appropriate submittals to the Water Department, and let them calculate it out. It’s their own <br />kuleana to protect their own interests. <br />GRAHAM: Okay, thank you. Mr. Lim, you have anything further? <br />LIM: I guess the last comment we have on this issue is even if this was, the <br />suggestion by Mr. Iwashita was made a condition of the rezoning, we would have to submit <br />calculations of the proposed use for the prior owner, and how would we do that? It would be <br />impossible for us to do. <br />HAYASHI: Mr. Chair? <br /> EXHIBIT A 10 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.