My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2022-07-07 Windward Exh E (Item 4 Yamada & Sons PL-SPP-2022-000012)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2022
>
2022-07-07 Windward Exh E (Item 4 Yamada & Sons PL-SPP-2022-000012)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/9/2022 9:00:24 AM
Creation date
8/9/2022 9:00:18 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
all we ask is that flexibility be built in and not hard baked into the permit conditions that will <br /> foreclose any reasonable opportunities. If Ho`olaulima is to be further widen for example, why <br /> wouldn't that be a consideration where safety concerns are reasonably addressed by the <br /> applicant, and they can continue to use the rock haulers. <br /> So, that's the substance of our requests and the applicant Shellbylynn can speak further to that if <br /> you have any specific questions. So, thank you for your time. <br /> ZERN: Mr. Chair, if I may. Thank you, Mr. Arai. So related to Condition 5 as you just <br /> mentioned. I understand you wanted to be dynamic, so you guys could have the discussion <br /> moving forward with DEM. Is it your understanding though at this moment moving forward that <br /> DEM has already made a request that there shall be no rock haulers used at this time moving <br /> forward, is that clear? <br /> ARAI: That is our understanding based on the memo that's part of the record. Yes. <br /> KERN: So, then the as may be directed gives you the flexibility but your understanding is <br /> now for the record that that request has been made. Doesn't mean that you guys can't talk about <br /> that in the future and come up with some other agreements that is acceptable. Is that the intent? <br /> ARAI: That is correct. The reason being is that while the Department has made its position <br /> known in its memo to as part of this process. All comments received by the reviewing agencies <br /> are recommendations that are, should be considered by the Planning Director. So, like any other <br /> comments we see by the County, the Director and ultimately the Commission and in this case <br /> ultimately the State Land Use Commission will then assess whether or not it's reasonable or <br /> unreasonable. So, we're just asking for some reasonable accommodations. <br /> KERN: Sure. So, with that understanding I am okay with it, with having that condition. But let <br /> it be known that DEM has stated that that's what they want right now. Don't come back and be <br /> like oh we thought it was different. <br /> ARAI: No. <br /> KERN: It's been stated unless we get something different DEM that will hold true. Fair? <br /> ARAI: That is totally understood — <br /> YAMADA: Understood. <br /> ARAI: — and totally fair. <br /> KERN: Thank you. <br /> ARAI: Thank you Director Kern. <br /> YAMADA: Thank you. <br /> 7 <br /> EXHIBIT E <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.