My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2004-04-23 TSOLOMON
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2004
>
2004-04-23 TSOLOMON
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 2:10:40 PM
Creation date
6/13/2011 2:10:37 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
SOLOMON:Yeah, that’s correct. <br />YUEN:But we, but by the same token they don’t want to give up the <br />existing SMA Permit for the apartment not knowing whether the bed and breakfast is <br />going to be approved. So if it came to the point of a vote, chances are, the proper, if <br />that’s what the Commission wanted to do, the proper vote would be to terminate the, to <br />approve the old bed and breakfast, approve the bed and breakfast upon a condition that <br />the old apartment be voided. That’s how that will be handled at that time. <br />GRAHAM:Okay. <br />YUEN:Is that where you’re going with this or what? <br />GRAHAM:Well, -. <br />YUEN:Like the possibility of there being two permits on the property, two <br />separate -? <br />GRAHAM:No, I’m not so much going for the result. I’m going for like what’s <br />at stake in a contested case hearing. If, when we had these two -. You’re only dealing <br />with two out of three now, too, when we have the old one that’s being asked for <br />continued, and we have the new one that’s on the agenda. So if one wants to contest, <br />does one contest the continuance of the old one, or does one contest the one that’s on the <br />agenda, or both at the same time? And since they’re both not going to be built, that’s a <br />little bit bizarre. And then beyond that we now have a new proposal for a somewhat <br />different situation which it feels like if that’s going to be on the agenda it needs to be re- <br />agendized and put forward again, and not part of what’s going on today. But it also <br />would be silly for these folks to have a contested case hearing about what’s going on <br />today if something new is going to be proposed right away anyway. So I’m just <br />concerned about the whole process with all these different things. <br />YUEN:Well, I think the applicant, as far as the bed and breakfast, the <br />applicant can modify it to change the, to reduce the number of units. They won’t have to, <br />nobody, we won’t have to do a new notice and possibly bring in more intervenors for <br />that. And if I understand the petitions that we’ve received correctly, they are petitions in <br />opposition to the proposed new permit for the bed and breakfast. They’re not opposing <br />the continuance of the old apartment permit. Is that correct? Norman is striding to the <br />microphone. <br />HAYASHI:I think you need to understand that what’s before us is an <br />amendment to the existing permit. So if this request goes through, which is to allow the <br />bed and breakfast operation, then that would replace the wording of the permit to say bed <br />and breakfast operation instead of the three-unit apartment. So this is not a new petition. <br />YUEN:Much better explanation. <br />13 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.