My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2025-02-05 Jim McMahon Testimony
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Board Packets
>
2025
>
2025-02-06 - Windward
>
Item #2 Teppy Mountain, LLC (PL-SPP-2024-000075)
>
Info given WPC 2-6-25 meeting
>
2025-02-05 Jim McMahon Testimony
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/6/2025 10:10:47 AM
Creation date
2/6/2025 10:10:36 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
served by transportation, utilities, and other essential infrastructure. Note that the <br /> base yard proposed by the applicant is proposed from distant public roads in an area <br /> presently unserved by any utilities. I would like to see each proposed used measured <br /> against each of the planning objectives found in both the General Plan and the <br /> HCDP. <br /> 14. <br /> As to the heavy equipment base yard uses, there are no conditions restricting hours <br /> of operation or the types of operations on site. For example, can the site also be used <br /> for refueling and maintenance. If refueling should be allowed, how much fuel would <br /> be allowed to be stored on site. <br /> 15. <br /> The Special Permit background report includes a letter between myself and the <br /> former Head of the Highways Branch of the DOT. The Planning Dept. was CC'd in <br /> this letter and for some reason decided that it should be included as testimony. That <br /> was not my intention. Meanwhile other correspondence to the Planning Dept. <br /> concerning this application was not included as testimony. So I really don't <br /> understand how the Planning Dept. decides what is testimony and what is not. To <br /> avoid this confusion in the future, I recommend that all testimony where for or against <br /> be only directed to the Planning Commission mail inboxes with the appropriate <br /> subject headings indicating that it is testimony. Thus no public testimony should <br /> appear in the application nor in the background report. <br /> Description of the Indian Tree Road Access <br /> As the application neglects to properly and thoroughly describe the planned public access <br /> to the subject parcel, the map below shows the location of Indian Tree Road. A -0.7 mile <br /> length of this road provides the present primary access to the subject parcel and is also the <br /> access route vaguely described by the application. Indian Tree Road goes mauka from <br /> State Highway H-19 and crosses several other parcels before reaching the subject <br /> property. <br /> It should be noted that because the subject property deed contains multiple easements, the <br /> proposed access is just one of several possible routes that could be used to connect the <br /> subject property to different public roads located in the area. However, the application is <br /> silent on whether or not any of these alternate routes would be used in the future. This <br /> question is probably of interest to the other property owners who could possibly be <br /> burdened by the additional traffic on roads crossing their lands. <br /> The application claims "legal easement access over the private roadway (Exhibit A)". <br /> Assuming the "private roadway" is Indian Tree Road, then attached Exhibit A in the <br /> application is irrelevant as the nearly attached illegible and obsolete plat map appears to <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.