My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005-01-21 TSUFFOLKOPUAA
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2005
>
2005-01-21 TSUFFOLKOPUAA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 9:43:44 AM
Creation date
6/13/2011 9:43:29 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
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
TORIGOE:Well, I suppose that in order to allowany members of the public to <br />testify intelligently about these things, I dont know if these amendments have been made <br />available to the public at this point. If not, then, you know, perhaps they should be made <br />available. And if theres going to be discussion regarding these, I suppose you may want <br />to allow the public to have a look at these and present testimony before you go into your <br />discussion. <br />SPRINGER:Sidney, are we about ready to bifurcate the discussion and proceed <br />starting with Suffolk? <br />FUKE:Sure. Generally, though, you know, just for the Commissioners <br />information, both the proposed amendments are not really substantive in nature and they, <br />because most of the conditions are, were the same for both Puaa and as well as like <br />Suffolk.Theamendmentstotheconditionswouldbeidentical.Butifyouwishtohave <br />it separated, then we can just look at the proposed amendments to Suffolk. <br />SPRINGER:Commissioners, are you comfortable with some, proceeding in this <br />way? Weve had a discussion of the, a comprehensive discussion of the two <br />developments, and especially with regard to public testimony. Im thinking that we <br />should now separate out the discussion and proceed with one Applicant and then the next. <br />Commissioner McCall? <br />MCCALL:My thoughts on this would be perhaps if we, my thoughts would <br />be that public testimony would probably also be the same for both applications. Perhaps <br />if we take public testimony jointly, we could ask each testifier, you know, do their <br />comments imply to both, or just to one. And in that way we could kind of, you know, go <br />through where, so -. <br />SPRINGER:Okay. Thank you, Commissioner McCall. Mr. Torigoe, would <br />reading the proposed amendments to the conditions be sufficient with regard to public <br />notice of them? <br />TORIGOE:Well, that would be a start. Perhaps you could try reading them <br />and then see if any member of the public would like to take some time to take a look at a <br />copy, or perhaps obtain a copy, then that can be considered. <br />SPRINGER:I would ask the staff if we have a copy of the amendments that <br />could be made available to the public for review. <br />FUKE:And, Madam Chair, perhaps like in the interest of having some <br />general public information, if I were to review them, you know, using this process, I <br />think that theyll be able to understand like what these changes are intended to do. <br />SPRINGER:To read them? <br />17 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.