My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007-06-05 TMATSON
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2007
>
2007-06-05 TMATSON
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 3:28:11 PM
Creation date
6/13/2011 3:28:07 PM
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
HAYASHI: Oh, yes, as far as this particular area, the Harbor and its facilities were <br />developed many, many years ago. Rule 17 was not in existence at that time. In order for, as part <br />of this particular request, the applicant would be required to put in some sort of landscaping in <br />accordance with Rule No.17. <br />SIRACUSA: Thank you. May I? <br />GRAHAM: Go ahead, Commissioner Siracusa. <br />SIRACUSA: Yes. I understand that the applicant is requesting that the Planning <br />Director waive the requirement for a shoreline survey. So I would like to ask the Director if he <br />does indeed intend to do that. <br />GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen? <br />YUEN: Yes, I would because the improvements are clearly outside the shoreline <br />setback. I’d have to look at the Rule. I’m not so sure that Rule 17 does require, actually require <br />landscaping on the site because it’s surrounded by Industrial, it doesn’t actually abut. Let’s take <br />a look at that. The reason I say that is that it doesn’t, I think if you have an Industrial abutting a <br />Residential then you would have to do landscaping. I don’t think it requires that you landscape <br />an Industrial site that’s entirely within, contained within an Industrial area. <br />SIRACUSA: Follow-up. <br />GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa. <br />SIRACUSA: Do we need then to put another condition or anything else in the <br />conditions there to specify that a shoreline survey is not required so that there would be no <br />question about it down the line somewhere? <br />GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen, do you have any thoughts on that? <br />YUEN: I don’t think it’s necessary as a condition. There’s a rule that says the <br />Director can waive the shoreline certification when the development is clearly outside the <br />shoreline setback. And this site, first of all, it’s the harbor, and the shoreline is largely set by <br />improvements on the harbor; and then, secondly, it is clearly well beyond 40 feet from the <br />shoreline setback. If this were just coming in, say there was already an SMA Permit that allowed <br />it but then the plans came in for the building, they have to show compliance with the shoreline <br />back for the building. And sometimes even though there’s an SMA Permit you have to go <br />recertify the shoreline to get your building plans approved. But in this case it’s quite clear that <br />there’s no point in having a shoreline certification. <br />GRAHAM: Mr. Hayashi, did you have anything ready to go on the landscaping? <br />HAYASHI: Rule 17 does address landscaping and it does talk about the MCX, ML, <br />MG District needing to provide some kind of buffer yard or landscaping. But if the Director <br /> EXHIBIT B 3 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.