My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2008-11-24 TKOHALA LLC
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2008
>
2008-11-24 TKOHALA LLC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2011 3:53:17 PM
Creation date
6/14/2011 3:53:10 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
decision on the zoning or not. And I see Mr. Yuen would care to make comments also at this <br />point. <br />YUEN: Commissioner Iwashita did ask for comments from both parties. I simply <br />renew my statement of objection to the deferral. On the more general question of what happens <br />with the Leeward and Windward Commissions, what Mr. Lim and Mr. Torigoe have said is <br />correct. It would be, if there is a matter that is validly deferred out of this Commission and at <br />that time when it goes over to the – when the Commissions gets split, they do get split <br />geographically into Leeward and Windward – and if a matter is in a formal contested case mode <br />where it would be as if new commissioners were appointed and had to review the record before <br />they took a vote on it; so that part is correct. <br />If I can try to be a little helpful on the question of not leaving this sit out there. It’s quite likely <br />that you’ll see the rezoning come through. My plan would be to have the zoning come through <br />the Commission. I believe we were trying to get to the – I can’t remember if it was December’s <br />– actually it would be sometime in January, so the Commission, you know, you’ll have a new <br />zoning bill. Although I’d like to take it straight to the Council, because all the issues have been <br />thrashed over quite a bit, the fact of a matter, to be procedurally correct on this, these rezonings <br />have to go through the Planning Commission. So I wouldn’t be worried that you are not going to <br />see something; if you don’t see something, it means that the Department, the Council or/and the <br />property owner have not done anything to initiate a rezoning that would come through you. So <br />the idea that you need to schedule a renewal of looking at the SMA Permit, I don’t think that’s <br />really necessary. <br />HOUSEL: Mr. Chairman? <br />WATANABE: Mr. Housel? <br />HOUSEL: I wonder if I can ask Mr. Lim. You said that you and your client intended <br />to put together a new plan for developing this property. What do you think is a reasonable time <br />frame that you can do that? <br />LIM: I would say we probably need a minimum of six months, maybe eight <br />months. <br />HOSUEL: Okay. And do you intend at that time to request rezoning? <br />LIM: I haven’t thought of that far ahead, but we may. It depends on how the <br />Council also wants to treat it; they could do it how they did this time, which is basically the <br />zoning allows something like 110 lots, but the SMA took it down to 50 lots. And we could do it <br />the same way with the actual density is higher. But I heard Commissioner Iwashita’s comment, <br />you know, so we’ll consider that so long as it doesn’t expose my client to additional impositions. <br />HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. <br />EXHIBIT A <br />17 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.