My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Opposition testimonies (3) 07.17.23 thru 07.18.23
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Board Packets
>
2024
>
2024-06-20 Leeward
>
Item #1 Kaupulehu Land LLC (PL-SLU-2022-000008)
>
Testimonies Received 6-6-23 thru 7-26-23
>
Opposition testimonies (3) 07.17.23 thru 07.18.23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/12/2024 10:07:31 PM
Creation date
6/12/2024 10:51:54 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
July 18, 2023 <br /> TO: Leeward Planning Commission - County of Hawaii <br /> LPCtestimony@hawaiicounty.gov <br /> FR: E. Kalani Flores <br /> PO Box 6918, Kamuela, HI 96743 <br /> 08ef80@gmail.com <br /> RE: July 20, 2023 Meeting-Agenda Items: <br /> 1. Applicant: Kaupulehu Land LLC (PL-SLU-2022-000008) <br /> 2. Applicant: Kaupulehu Land LLC (PL-REZ-2022-000039) <br /> Aloha e Commissioners, <br /> As a Waimea resident located just a few blocks from the proposed project, I including all <br /> our household family members, adamantly OPPOSE this project and call upon the LPC to <br /> REJECT these applications again for rezoning and state land use amendment for the 64-983 <br /> Mamalahoa Hwy. property for all the reasons stated in my written and oral testimony <br /> presented at the LPC June 15, 2023 meeting and including the following reasons: <br /> Procedural Errors <br /> It is believed that the actions that occurred at the end of June 15, 2023 meeting of the LPC <br /> were improper and in violation of regulations and procedural due process for this <br /> commission. The afore-mentioned agenda items were voted upon and both motions failed. <br /> Then at the end of the second agenda item vote, a staff member informed the <br /> commissioners that there was a "no decision because both motions failed"and then <br /> recommended that this matter be deferred. It's contended that the staff member gave an <br /> improper interpretation of the County Code and inappropriate advice to the commissioners <br /> to "defer the hearing to see if votes change at next hearing." In addition,the staff <br /> member implied that the commissioners were required to defer this hearing without <br /> providing any other options such as no further action. This resulted in the approval of a <br /> motion to defer this matter to the next meeting.' However, it's contended that a motion to <br /> defer this matter is out of order and that such a motion should have occurred prior to <br /> voting and that voting should have also been deferred. It appears that no further action or a <br /> motion to reconsider or for continuance should have occurred on this matter since the <br /> commission already voted on these agenda items which resulted in a no decision and an <br /> Based upon the YouTube recording starting near 1:35:30. <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.