My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-06-02 WINDWARD TRANSCRIPT 1ST CHURCH
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2011
>
2011-06-02 WINDWARD TRANSCRIPT 1ST CHURCH
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/4/2012 2:06:00 PM
Creation date
1/4/2012 2:05:55 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
<br />And in their application on Item No. H, they say that the agricultural rural district should not apply <br />because it’s pahoehoe lava. But the entire development is on pahoehoe lava. And we have orchards <br />out there, we have nurseries out there. I personally have over 25 fruit trees, and it’s not any fun to dig <br />a hole to plant a tree by hand. But once you get them in the ground the trees do fine. So as far as it not <br />being agricultural land, it is agricultural land. But the designation, in fact, this is more a school than it <br />is a church as far as I can tell. But, at any rate, it goes against the master plan and the Board. This is <br />not just for me, this is a letter that the Board voted to, against this development. And, now you guys, at <br />the risk of, you know, making you mad at us, nine times out of ten you guys override our governing <br />board with your votes and you let these developments go in. But you really need to provide some <br />oversight because the developments don’t get the requirements that you want them to do, do not get <br />done in a timely manner. Sometimes you’ll approve a day care center for 6 kids and in six months <br />there are 26 kids and they’re disturbing the whole neighborhood. So when you override us, it’s my <br />opinion that you guys ought to take responsibility for those developments, or you should. So that’s all <br />I had. <br /> <br />KERN: Any questions for the testifier? Seeing none -. <br /> <br />ONO: I just have a comment -. <br /> <br />KERN: Go ahead. <br /> <br />ONO: You’re saying you don’t know who owns the adjacent property? <br /> <br />WATSON: No. <br /> <br />ONO: Wouldn’t it behoove you to find that out first and have that individual provide testimony, I <br />mean, as a Board? <br /> <br />WATSON: Well, they’re agricultural lots; and it’s basically for residential. When you approve <br />something like this right next to it with no buffer you’re -. <br /> <br />ONO: Yeah, I understand that. But I’m suggesting s as a Board if the position of the Board is to be <br />concerned about the adjacent owner would it not -? <br /> <br />WATSON: It goes against our master plan anyway -. <br /> <br />ONO: I understand that. But you’re speaking for someone that’s absent and I’m having a hard time <br />accepting that when the person is not willing to speak on his own behalf. <br /> <br />WATSON: I’m not speaking for them. I’m just saying that if that were my piece of property and I <br />was planning on developing it later I would be a little upset if I came in and found out that there was a <br />new development next to it that was not agricultural or residential. <br /> <br />ONO: So -? <br /> <br />6 <br /> EXHIBIT B <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.