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
GRAHAM:Id just like to see the public get their testimony in so, cause it <br />helps us focus our interest and all stuff, if we could, since theyve been waiting so long. <br />SPRINGER:Yeah, I think, Mr. Graham, what the intention is is to go through <br />these so that the public has a chance to hear what the proposed amendments are, and then <br />well invite them up as soon as we finish the Puaa conditions. <br />GRAHAM:Okay. <br />SPRINGER:So, Mr. Fuke, if we may then turn to your proposed amendments <br />for the Puaa Development. <br />FUKE:Sure. The proposed amendments I found on Page 1 of what I <br />passed out, conditions, the proposed amendment to Conditions F, G and I, again, would <br />beidenticaltowhatwehadproposedfortheSuffolkproject,andspecificallytoindicate <br />when these improvements have to be in. And what were saying is that they have to be in <br />prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the non-residential structures or <br />inspection of any, Final Inspection of any residential structures, the so-called concurrency <br />issue that Mr. Takemoto had intimated earlier. <br />Condition J requires like the designation of an easement; and thats very understandable <br />because the County just wants to make sure that there are interconnectivities of road. <br />And, so, what Condition J is talking about is like having an easement that would be <br />directed to the properties to the north. And that easement, you know, if you look at that <br />map over there, would preliminarily be, and it may change, would preliminarily be right <br />after you get off the primary intersection and head north. <br />SPRINGER:Mr. Takemoto, do you have any comments on this proposed <br />amendment to Condition J? <br />FUKE:Well, what we were going to suggest was just to add the second <br />sentence like, again, to clarify like when it has to be done. And then, basically, were <br />saying that the designation of this easement and its terms shall be established prior to the <br />issuance of a CO for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential <br />structures. Again, it just makes it clear. And, you know, I had to add the easement and <br />its terms because, you know, theyre going to be providing the easement. And we would, <br />the respective property owners would still have to get together to figure out like, you <br />know, whos going to do what, what are the liabilities, the interim access, so on and so <br />forth. So thats the description of the easement and its terms. <br />TAKEMOTO:Thats acceptable. <br />SPRINGER:Thank you. <br />FUKE:On Condition K was just more an editorial change. That thing was <br />just an omission, the word, minor editorial change, add the term to between the words <br />20 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.