My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005-01-21 TIMMING
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2005
>
2005-01-21 TIMMING
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 9:42:41 AM
Creation date
6/13/2011 9:42:37 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
environment, its only under those kinds of conditions that traffic becomes relevant to an SMA <br />permit. And then, if it is relevant, then the Commission also has to look at whether there are <br />conditions that can be applied to mitigate that impact, rather than just rejecting the permit out of <br />hand. <br />So, basically, traffic should not be an issue on an SMA permit unless it is a real impact on the <br />environment; and then you need to see if you can mitigate that impact by conditions. <br />SIRACUSA:And increased density, as an issue? <br />TORIGOE:I would defer that. <br />SPRINGER:Mr. Takemoto. <br />TAKEMOTO:Well,notnecessarilydensity,yourereferringtoaffordablehousing, <br />right? And, there is a finding in the hearings officers report, its Number 54. That basically, if I <br />can summarize, that this property was already zoned and affordable housing requirements are <br />imposed at the rezoning stage. And so, basically, through an SMA its not appropriate to impose <br />affordable housing requirements. The way, I dont know if you can rough topic, but the way <br />Finding 54 is written now, the Director had some problems with it and he wanted it clarified. Is <br />it appropriate now for me to read the Directors desired amendment to this finding? <br />TORIGOE:I suppose. <br />SPRINGER:Mr. Torigoe? <br />TORIGOE:Yeah, go ahead. <br />TAKEMOTO:Okay, so it would, presently reads, Although Messick claims that units <br />within the development will not be affordable for the local market, and heres where the change <br />begins, we would strike everything after that comma and replace it with, the zoning of the <br />subject property preceded affordable housing requirements. Hence there are no affordable <br />housing requirements on this project. And, The SMA law does not authorize adding a new <br />affordable housing condition to property already zoned and without this requirement. <br />SIRACUSA:So youre saying its grandfathered? <br />TAKEMOTO:Yes. <br />SPRINGER:And thats an amendment, recommended amendment to what section? <br />TAKEMOTO:Finding 54. <br />SPRINGER:Thank you. Other Commissioners, any discussion? If the Commissioners <br />have no further questions for the applicant and his representative, I would like to, again, ask if <br />theres anyone in the audience who would like to testify. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.