My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2023-01-19 Leeward Exh C (Item 3 Stevenson & Fumo PL-REZ-2022-000035)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2023
>
2023-01-19 Leeward
>
Stevenson, Stevenson & Fumo (PL-REZ-2022-000035)
>
2023-01-19 Leeward Exh C (Item 3 Stevenson & Fumo PL-REZ-2022-000035)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/16/2023 4:25:01 PM
Creation date
2/15/2023 11:11:05 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
KNOWLES: Thank you. <br /> PIPAN: It's a very small, very low impact existing use that's not going to <br /> change. <br /> DEFRANCO: Thank you. We have one more question. <br /> PAISHON-DUARTE: Yes, thank you. Actually, this question is for County Council. My <br /> question is, is it proper and appropriate for the Commission to deliberate on— <br /> DEFRANCO: The question is not for the County Council, but for the Planning <br /> Department? <br /> PAISHON-DUARTE: Yes. <br /> DEFRANCO: Okay. <br /> PAISHON-DUARTE: Sure, Planning Department. My question is, can we move forward <br /> as a Commission without having the information from the Department of Transportation report. <br /> My question is, is it legal for us, is it appropriate, is it legal for us to move forward with the <br /> decision prior to us having that information? <br /> DARROW: We typically provide applications to numerous agencies, and we <br /> request comments by a particular date. Normally we get a majority of the comments back. <br /> Unfortunately,there are applications that we don't get back. In this particular case, Department of <br /> Transportation is an example. We have been, we have received previous comments from them for <br /> rezonings in this similarity. So, we have an idea of what their comments will be and that's kind of <br /> stated further in the rec. But again,with this working group that's been happening,there's been <br /> changes and so they've been working on this impact analysis report which is huge because before <br /> they were keeping hands off. But now they're getting involved and so the likelihood of them <br /> being involved with the improvements in the intersection are much greater now. Being that we <br /> have a working group, and the goal of the working group is to provide the improvements to the <br /> intersection. We were hoping that we would have the analysis report done, by this time. They <br /> were saying it would be completed in Fall, unfortunately it's just finalizing now. So,we should be <br /> getting better ideas of the type of improvements they are going to want to see at that intersection. <br /> But again,just preliminary, we are hearing that it's going to need a stop light. <br /> PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you, okay. <br /> DARROW: I don't think there's anything, like legally binding us from moving <br /> forward. A lot of times what we do is if it's something that is going to require like if the <br /> applicants had an access directly on a particular road under the jurisdiction of Department of <br /> Transportation and we did not receive comments. We would put in a condition that says comply <br /> with requirements of the Department of Transportation for access. In this particular case, it's <br /> actually a county road that they are on, but the subdivision is accessed through that intersection <br /> and that's under the jurisdiction of DOT. Thank you. <br /> 8 <br /> EXHIBIT C <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.