My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014-12-04 Hearing Transcript-Council Initiated Bill 281 _PUD_
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2014
>
2014-12-04 Hearing Transcript-Council Initiated Bill 281 _PUD_
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/8/2015 3:55:10 PM
Creation date
1/8/2015 3:55:08 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
IKEDA: Mr. Darrow, I have two questions. It says, I’m reading the bill, an analysis of the <br />relationship of the proposed development to the General Plan and any applicable community <br />development plan. So, what if there’s a difference in the CDP and the General Plan? Which one <br />takes precedence? <br /> <br />DARROW: In the General Plan, it specifically states that if there is a conflict between the <br />General Plan and specific community development plans, the General Plan is the authority. <br /> <br />IKEDA: Okay, then we better tell the public that, because when I was on the Council, they used <br />to challenge us all the time when there was a conflict between the General Plan and the CDP. <br /> <br />DARROW: Which, I mean, not to say that everything, we live in a perfect world, but when a <br />CDP is created, if it does conflict in certain areas with the General Plan, it’s good to bring those <br />into compliance-- <br /> <br />IKEDA: Right— <br /> <br />DARROW: --as part of the process. <br /> <br />IKEDA: No, so I kind of agree with a statement like the last one we went through. The CDP, <br />the Hilo CDP is what 25 years old, it’s out of date— <br /> <br />DARROW: --yeah— <br /> <br />IKEDA: --so it doesn’t comply. The second one I have that I’m really against is that, if we fail <br />to give any kind of a, a motion or how shall—it says, I have it written down. If the Commission <br />fails to render a decision within a prescribed 60-day period, the application should be considered <br />as being approved, provided that no written objections to the PUD permit application is received <br />by Commission. I really object to that. I would think that it should be like it is now; it should be <br />denied. I would, you know, favor being a little more cautious than, you know, being—I think <br />it’s being kind of over optimistic or generous by just approving something if the Commission <br />didn’t make a decision. And that’s my gripes. <br /> <br />KANUHA: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can respond to that and— <br /> <br />MIYASATO: --yeah— <br /> <br />KANUHA: --and maybe add some history. With regard to the two concerns by Commission <br />Ikeda, the difficulty, the difficulty between—well, not the difficulty, but the reason there’s <br />language in there that when a PUD is being considered that if taken account, both the General <br />Plan and the community development plan says, is actually becoming more complicated ever <br />since the community development plans have recently been adopted by ordinance. Okay, <br />previously, they were adopted by resolution, which made it clear that the General Plan, because <br />it was adopted by ordinance and Charter, was the prevailing document. Now that we have both <br />documents approved by law, that, the General Plan still prevails but it does complicate things a <br />bit, which is, which is why there was that inclusion for the CDP’s. <br />4 <br />EXHIBIT C <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.