My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2017-10-30 Hearing Transcript - Amendments to PC Rule 9 (Joint Meeting)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2017
>
2017-10-30 Hearing Transcript - Amendments to PC Rule 9 (Joint Meeting)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/4/2018 3:27:01 PM
Creation date
1/4/2018 3:26:20 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
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
CLARKSON: Hence, my motion. <br />HENKEL: We still have a motion on the table. <br />UNGER: Can you repeat the motion? <br />CLARKSON: I move that the Joint Commission consider changes to Rule 9. <br />HENKEL: Is there a second? <br />MIYASATO: I second. <br />HENKEL: It's been moved and seconded that the Joint Commission consider changes to Rule 9. <br />Discussion? Let's go first with Leeward and then when, if you guys have no more questions or <br />comments, then we'll, then Windward will take over. <br />UNGER: I would like to proceed. I mean, we're here. And, I'd at least like to hear the <br />presentation from the Planning Department whether we make a ruling or not. Perhaps we could <br />revisit that, a final ruling to make actual changes that could be another point of discussion, but <br />I'd at least like to hear the Planning Commission's presentation. <br />HENKEL: Ok, thank you. <br />CARR SMITH: Vice Chair Unger? Can I make a comment please, Chair Henkel? Nancy Carr <br />Smith. <br />HENKEL: Yes, go ahead. <br />CARR SMITH: Thank you. I understandI don't understand, butI understand that this was <br />agendized correctly and at the same time, the document that we have in front of us that is the <br />Background and Recommendation, it does state in the first paragraph the Planning Director's <br />initiating the amendments, da da da da da. I don't quite understand what the difference is <br />between this and when we reviewed amendments to the PUD rules recently or earlier this year. <br />Can anyone explain that to me? <br />HALL: There really isn't a different. It's just, I mean our normal way of doing things is having <br />the Planning Director initiate. I think that's historically how it's been done in the Planning <br />Department. But, now, it's just become an issue of the wording. So, that's the motion on the <br />table just to make sure it's clear. But, yes, in the past, that's how it's been done. The Planning <br />Director has initiated the rule changes with the PUD as well. <br />CARR SMITH: Okay. Thank you. I support the motion. I just wasn't clear about the <br />conflicting language. Thank you. <br />CHURCH: This is Commissioner Church. I it's such a fine line. The definition of a person. <br />If the Director had simply forwarded this as advice from counsel to the Planning Commission, I <br />EXHIBIT A <br />18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.