My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005-03-18 TPARKERSCHOOLBOARD
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2005
>
2005-03-18 TPARKERSCHOOLBOARD
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 12:11:27 PM
Creation date
6/13/2011 12:11:23 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
theyre completely separated. Theyre both on the same piece of property. Theyre both- I think <br />that they would do very well to get together and discuss this. Perhaps the intervenors and the 2 <br />applicants can sit down and discuss this a little more. I think they can probably come to some <br />sort of agreement on this and perhaps a contested case may not need to be necessary. But I think <br />they need to, you know, I dont think trying to railroad this through the Commission is going to, <br />I mean thats that feeling I get, is that to some extent that these guys just want this to rush <br />through like were in, you know -. I get the feeling that theyre trying to put the, I dont know, <br />just dump it on us that were holding back this progress, and I think that, you know, we need to -. <br />I think that it would be good to have a hearings officer hear this. Let things get cleaned up and <br />cleared up; and then we can see whats happening; and then make our decision. <br />GALDONES:Thank you, Mr.- Commissioner McCall. Commissioner Graham. <br />GRAHAM:I had a question. Mr. Vitousek, in light of what Commissioner McCall is <br />sayingandall-IrememberontheearlierapplicationwhenMr.Fukehadmentionedthatthere <br />th <br />had been a double community meeting on the 7 <br /> of March which to me if thats the first official <br />th <br />community meeting on that application andits now only the 18 of March, obviously the <br />application and the Directors work have already been in place before the community meeting. <br />So I felt kind of rushed to me already. Im wondering on this application, have you folks had <br />community meetings over a longer period of time that have, you know, worked their way into the <br />particular application youve put forth already? <br />VITOUSEK:Yeah, may I, I just got involved in this when the contested case hearing <br />was requested. So may I ask Carl Sturges to respond to your question? <br />GRAHAM:Please do. <br />STURGES:Yes, we actually began hearings with the neighbors in the Fall, I believe <br />the first one was in October. We held the second hearing in- meeting with neighbors in January, <br />and we invited everybody around the block to come to both of those, and we had quite a large <br />turnoutforbothofthose-bothofthosemeetings.Ivealsobeento2TrafficCommission <br />hearings, 1 in December and 1 in January, to discuss the traffic issues related to this project, in <br />additiontothat. <br />GRAHAM:Thank you. <br />GALDONES:Further discussion. <br />SPRINGER:Question. <br />GALDONES:Commissioner Springer. <br />SPRINGER:Regardless of the ownership, can the 2 applications be heard together <br />whether outsourced or held by the- heard by the Planning Commission? May they be <br />consolidated or do they need to be held separately? <br />10 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.