My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-06-04 HearingTranscript - Arrow of Oregon Amend SPP09-076
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2015
>
2015-06-04 HearingTranscript - Arrow of Oregon Amend SPP09-076
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/2/2015 10:35:35 AM
Creation date
7/2/2015 10:35:31 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
MOSES: Thanks, Jeff. Commissioners, any questions of staff? <br /> <br />rd <br />HEAUKULANI: Jeff, thank you. I wanted to—I’ve got a June 3 letter from Ms. Raznov. I’ve <br />nd <br />got a June 2 email with conditions from Mr. Dahlberg. Is that, was that what you were <br />referring to? <br /> <br />DARROW: There would be a June, let’s see here— <br /> <br />rd <br />HEAUKULANI: Looks like it might have been received by the Department on June 3— <br /> <br />DARROW: Yes, you’re, thank you for the correction on that. So, the, the date that we’re <br />rd <br />looking at on June 3 would be our stamp date. That’s the date we received it— <br /> <br />HEAUKULANI: Thank you, and— <br /> <br />DARROW: --that would be their most current conditions. <br /> <br />HEAUKULANI: --so, between the two of these, these are the two most current proposed <br />conditions? <br /> <br />DARROW: Correct, as well as the Planning Department’s conditions. <br /> <br />HEAUKULANI: Thank you. <br /> <br />MOSES: I’m going to turn some time over to Danny Patel, Deputy Corporation Counsel for the <br />Commission. <br /> <br />PATEL: Yeah, I’d just like to make a quick procedural note so everyone’s on the same page. <br />There was the petition for standing that was filed. So, the process we’re going to follow is the <br />applicant will have the opportunity to speak as to the merits of their application as is usual. After <br />that, the focus will be solely on the petition for standing. So, any discussion by the petitioners <br />should be focused on why standing should be granted. If there’s anyone here that would like to <br />testify as to the application in general, they will be allowed to do so, petitioners included, but that <br />testimony would be public testimony limited to three minutes. <br /> <br />And, for the Commissioners, if at any time you would like to go into executive session to discuss <br />the merits of the petition for standing, and what process would be followed if standing were to be <br />granted as far as contested case hearings and procedures, I’d be happy to discuss that with you in <br />executive session. We would just need a motion by a Commissioner, and the Commission would <br />need to vote to enter into executive session. <br /> <br />MOSES: Thank you, Danny. Any other questions, Commissioners, of staff? If none, then will <br />the applicant or their representative please come forward. Good morning. Okay, I’m going to <br />swear you in. Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth <br />on this matter now before the Planning Commission? <br /> <br />4 <br />EXHIBIT B <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.