My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013-12-05 Windward Transcript -Greenlaw
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2013
>
2013-12-05 Windward Transcript -Greenlaw
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2014 10:09:10 AM
Creation date
1/13/2014 10:08:53 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
insufficient. When I’m looking at his letter, I think it’s actually a reasonable statement of what’s <br />going on the property and what conditions if the Planning Commission decides to approve the <br />application request or the permit request would be appropriate; and I think that’s the perspective <br />that, you know, we’re certainly looking at this. So when I hear Maija saying that the December <br />th <br />4 letter is a rejection of the justification that we submitted, I don’t see that in the letter. So I’d <br />have to differ. Then that’s our perspective. But, I, you know, in terms of paragraph 1, the <br />Planning Director is correct. <br /> <br />As we pointed out last time, this use predates the adoption of the Puna CDP, and that’s the point <br />that we were trying to make. We’re not saying that the current, and we recognize the current use <br />does not meet with the Puna CDP. But they started this business way before the Puna CDP <br />started. So, again, we think that these suggestions made by the Planning Director in his <br />th <br />December 4 letter are reasonable and we incorporated all of them in our proposal in the yellow <br />sheet. And the suggestion about not transferring, not continuing to operate the business at his <br />property should he decide to sell it or sell the name, certainly we agree to that. <br /> <br />ISHIBASHI: Commissioners, any further questions? <br /> <br />ONO: I’m sorry <br /> <br />ISHIBASHI: Commissioner Ono. <br /> <br />ONO: I repeat on what you had just mentioned. As I’m reading No. 1 it seems to me that the <br />construction was, for want of a better word, and I apologize, not legal. Am I correct on that <br />interpretation? <br /> <br />HONG: It depends on what legal, what do you mean by legal? So for example -. <br /> <br /> <br />ONO: Well, the last sentence says, the last line says “the current uses are not permittedand <br />remain in operation without having obtaining proper permits.” <br /> <br />HONG: That’s absolutely correct. <br /> <br />ONO: Okay. <br /> <br />HONG: But the point we were trying to make last time we were here in November, and what we <br />tried to, the point we tried to make in the justification that we submitted was when this business <br />started the Puna CDP, it predated this Puna CDP. <br /> <br />ONO: However, if I’m reading that again, it says that it was not permitted, you didn’t get -. <br /> <br />HONG: We didn’t need permits in terms of the Puna CDP until the Puna CDP was adopted. <br />And in terms of permits with respect to violating State Land Use Laws, the Planning Director is <br />absolutely correct. You know, this was what started back then to meet a community need back in <br />8 <br /> EXHIBIT C <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.