My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2009-09-01 TIIDA
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2009
>
2009-09-01 TIIDA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2011 9:43:09 AM
Creation date
6/14/2011 9:43:07 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
I thought about this real hard and, you know, I feel reluctant to consider such a move because, <br />you know, a CN zoning permits certain particular uses and it’s permissible. What we did, we put <br />restrictions and tell them, okay, you guys have the zoning but you just have to do certain uses. <br />Now they’re coming in because of some circumstances which they have no control in the future. <br /> With the expiration of the lease, they need to relocate the use. And I totally sympathize with <br />that, in the predicament they’re in. <br />But from the standpoint of land use actions that we take, you know, I’ve always contended that <br />the General Plan and the Zoning Code are the most important planning documents in the County. <br />It has to be specific and real exact as to what one can do and what one cannot do. In this <br />particular case, you know, we’re just wavering on the line and saying okay, we can do this, and <br />next we’re coming in and we’re deleting that, and then now they can do that. That’s why my <br />question was if we take no action, and considering that we gave them the zoning in the past, <br />what would then be their alternative? And you indicated that, well, the existing uses and all <br />existing, all uses as permitted in the CN zoning would apply to this property. And then that’s <br />where I’m coming from. That’s my concern. <br />WOODWARD: All right. Any further questions? Okay, seeing none, let’s call the applicant <br />and/or representatives up. All right, Mr. Fuke. <br />FUKE: Morning. <br />WOODWARD: Hi. If I can get you to raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the <br />truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? <br />FUKE: I do. <br />WOODWARD: Okay, very good. Are you both going to testify or just Mr. Fuke? <br />FUKE: Just myself. <br />WOODWARD: Okay. All right, Mr. Fuke, if you’ll give us your name and address; and then <br />you may begin. <br />FUKE: Sure. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Sidney <br />Fuke. I’m a planning consultant. But today I’m here more as a role of helping out the <br />applicant’s father who’s a good friend of mine. And so this is what I would say like a not-for- <br />profit type of pro bono work, but his father is a very good friend of mine. But my address is, <br />business address is right across the street, 100 Pauahi Street, Room 212. <br />In listening to the dialogue, you know, that Commissioner Domingo and, I guess, Commissioner <br />Ono had also raised I’d like to just kind of give the Commissioners some background on this <br />situation here, inasmuch as two years ago or two and a half years ago I was kind of like helping <br />out Mr. Iida again on this same application. The biggest debate between the former planning <br />6 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.