My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007-05-24 TALLIANCE
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2007
>
2007-05-24 TALLIANCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 2:54:09 PM
Creation date
6/13/2011 2:54:06 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, generally speaking, as to any of <br />these conditions, should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with within a <br />timely fashion, the Director may initiate procedures to revoke the permits. So for a permit like <br />this, basically if they’re not being reasonably cooperative, the Director can come in and try to <br />revoke the permit. <br />DOMINGO: You’re saying that there is a high probability that the permit of that <br />Permaculture Retreat be revoked, if they refuse to participate in the cost-sharing program? <br />TORIGOE: Well, that would be the intent of -, you know, that’s a final part of <br />this -, that’s like the last subheading under, at the very end of the proposed decision. <br />DOMINGO: I recall that the owners of the Retreat are a party to the intervention <br />of the application. Were they intervening in this particular case? Sunderlands? <br />GRAHAM: Yes, Sunderlands did intervene. <br />DOMINGO: Okay, so -. <br />GRAHAM: I think I understand your point, Mr. Domingo. It’s that the <br />Wellness Retreat of the Sunderlands has already been permitted -. <br />DOMINGO: Yes. <br />GRAHAM: And they are using the same access road, and it appears that this <br />extra Special Permit may be imposing additional conditions on the Sunderlands and the Wellness <br />Retreat. You are saying, well, is there any way really to enforce that because this is not their <br />permit; this is another permit. <br />DOMINGO: That is correct. <br />GRAHAM: I presume that’s probably not a real issue in fact, because I think at <br />this point the Sunderlands sort of have responsibility for the whole access down to their place, of <br />which this is only a part, and so that maybe this is actually relieving them of some responsibility. <br />But I’d like to look confirmation from Mr. Nishimura about the specifics of this. <br />NISHIMURA: Thank you. In response to the question, Mr. Graham, your <br />description is correct. The Sunderlands have a condition of their own that was imposed on their <br />Special Permit to provide a 20-foot wide gravel compacted surface access down to their <br />property. So the imposition of the same condition on this applicant will result in a cost-sharing <br />of that improvement with the Sunderlands’ property. So they already have a condition to <br />improve it to the same level of improvement that is being imposed on Alliance Redwoods. <br />GRAHAM: Is that okay, Mr. Domingo? <br />DOMINGO: Yes, it’s okay with me. I understand. <br />GRAHAM: Jeff, did you have a comment? <br />EXHIBIT B <br />15 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.