My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012-03-01 Windward Transcript Graphic Images
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2012
>
2012-03-01 Windward Transcript Graphic Images
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/3/2012 3:01:23 PM
Creation date
4/3/2012 3:01:19 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
KERN: Which is the current motion that we have in place now, correct? <br /> <br />COTTLE: Correct. <br /> <br />KERN: Okay. So I guess we can move forward now, now that we’ve got clarity. <br /> <br />ONO: I need a clarification. <br /> <br />KERN: Yes, Commissioner Ono. <br /> <br />ONO: How can we submit a favorable recommendation and have items that are not favorable? <br /> <br />LEITHEAD TODD: Well, what you have is an application, and they ask you for 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on it. <br />And we do a recommendation that says 1, 2 and 3 are okay and we recommend approval; but 4 and 5 <br />we don’t agree with so we recommend that the application which asks for those amendments that that <br />portion of the application have an unfavorable recommendation. Because the application as it comes <br />in asks for several different actions. And so what we’re saying is on some of them we’re saying okay <br />and on the other two we’re saying not okay. And that’s basically what the recommendation from the <br />Department is. And that goes up to the Council so that in the event that there’s a discussion about <br />changing those specific requests regarding drainage and stuff at the Council there is a record that both <br />the Department as well as the Commission agreed that those amendments should not be made. <br /> <br />KERN: Thank you, Madam Director. Commissioner Ono. <br /> <br />ONO: I’m still puzzled. The total proposal is that we send a favorable recommendation. As an <br />example, on these two we’re saying we’re not comfortable with it. How can we send a <br />recommendation of approval when there are, in this example, conditions that are not satisfactory to the <br />Commission? <br /> <br />LEITHEAD TODD: So, basically the recommendation is written up and then we attach the draft of <br />how it’s supposed to look. The draft doesn’t have the amendments that they asked for in H and I; and <br />that’s what gets incorporated into the bill. But the recommendation has to reflect that if you asked for <br />five different things and we’re only recommending that the first three be approved, but you have to <br />address the application as they come in. So if there was an application that requested all of these <br />different changes, you have to respond to each one. And so that’s why sometimes you have what looks <br />like a strange thing we’re recommending it but we’re not recommending it. What we’re saying is <br />we’re okay with certain requests and a couple of the others we think should remain as is, and <br />specifically those requirements for the improvements to drainage. <br /> <br />KERN: Does that make sense, Commissioner Ono, to you? <br /> <br />ONO: No. How do you -? <br /> <br />KERN: Well, I mean, basically those conditions are already in there. The applicant was requesting an <br />amendment to that so it’s not, the original conditions still exists. <br />17 <br /> EXHIBIT E <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.