My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2003-09-11 tpuaanui
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003
>
2003-09-11 tpuaanui
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2011 10:20:12 AM
Creation date
6/14/2011 10:20:10 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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:So, normally, what we do is just review, whenever someone comes <br />in for an amendment to a zone change, we basically review their request and not impose <br />additional conditions that are not related to this specific request at hand. <br />KUBOTA:Oh, I see. <br />HAYASHI:So, on that basis, we did not include anything regarding the <br />roadway improvements that Department of Public Works had recomme <br />particular application. <br />KUBOTA:Oh. <br />HAYASHI:Conditions like those normally are taken care of at the time the <br />application is first reviewed. <br />KUBOTA:Yes, yes. Okay, so, in essence, what youÓre saying is the <br />recommendation that DPW made is moot? <br />HAYASHI:Well, should have been addressed at the time the initial Change of <br />Zone application was taken up. And this goes beyond the review of the request that the <br />Applicant is seeking at this time; and, therefore, we did not include those comments or <br />those concerns that DPW had requested we incorporate as part of this time extension <br />request. <br />KUBOTA:Okay. IÓll ask a hypothetical question. Supposing, and not <br />necessarily on this, I accept your explanation for the reason that is not in our in condition. <br />Hypothetically, if these recommendations, the current recommendations, seem valid and <br />necessary, would we still say it should have been addressed years ago when the initial <br />application was submitted and, therefore, even if it is critical and it is founded, we wonÓt <br />address it? Is that the way it goes? <br />HAYASHI:Well, I think, the way I look at it is that what we would advertise <br />for is two conditions, amendment to two conditions. And I think what, if weÓre looking <br />at some other conditions to be amended or to be included, then weÓre going beyond the <br />scope of what the request basically is and what was advertised. <br />KUBOTA:Yeah, okay. I can see the logic in that. But I still feel that weÓre <br />leaving some things that need to be taken care of untended, but thatÓs beside the point. <br />LetÓs not argue about it. <br />HAYASHI:I just also say that I donÓt think that prevents you from perhaps <br />suggesting that these additional conditions be imposed. <br />KUBOTA:Okay. Thank you. <br />FUJIKAWA:Is there any other question? Go ahead, Commissioner Springer? <br />5 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.