|
Ayes - Kobayashi , Iwamoto, Noes - None
<br /> Ishida, Schutte,
<br /> Sensano, Omonaka, Absent - Cadinha
<br /> Yagong, Trulson,
<br /> Yanaga, Sakata - 10 Carried.
<br /> MRS. KOBAYASHI : Following the testimony from
<br /> Mr. Legaspi and the Chairman of the Pension Board, could we
<br /> go back to Article V, Chapter 3 , Section 5-3.4, page 11 , on
<br /> the Pension Board. I move that we accept that section as it
<br /> is without change.
<br /> MR. SENSANO: Second.
<br /> CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded
<br /> that we retain Article V, Chapter 3, Section 5-3.4 as such in
<br /> the charter, with no changes. Any discussion on this? It has
<br /> been moved and seconded that we retain Article V, Chapter 3,
<br /> Section 5-3.4 without any revisions in the charter. Roll call.
<br /> Ayes - Kobayashi , Iwamoto, Noes - None
<br /> Ishida, Schutte,
<br /> Sensano, Omonaka, Absent - Cadinha
<br /> Yagong, Trulson,
<br /> Yanaga, Sakata - 10 Carried.
<br /> CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Is there any section or area
<br /> that we talked about last time that we missed, or anything? If
<br /> not, we will go into Article VI , Executive Branch, which will
<br /> deal with the Managing Director. There is more discussion on
<br /> the Planning Department?
<br /> MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman, how do you want to
<br /> proceed with regard to what Mr. Oda has proposed?
<br /> MR. ISHIDA: We have a slight problem. Mr. Oda
<br /> explained the whole thing and it is not on record.
<br /> MR. ODA: I have a suggestion on how the concerns
<br /> of Mr. Omonaka and Mr. Ishida can be handled. If we just add to
<br /> the present section under the Planning Director a subsection (h')'
<br /> to give the Planning Director. . . "Be charged with the approval
<br /> of variances if reasonable justification exists for its approval . "
<br /> Move what is (h) now to (i ) and make the (h ) to (g) . We are
<br /> going to have the Planning director approve variances, in :other =
<br /> words, if a reasonable justification exists for its approval.
<br /> Variances, by _nature, are nonconforming. Let ' s say a setback
<br /> requires 10 feet and a guy has requested a 5 foot setback , so it
<br /> is automatically not permitted by law. So, the guy comes-in and says
<br /> hey; gran t. ma, a variance to have this house with only a 5 foot
<br /> setback. He can approve it, right, if he is convinced that it
<br /> is a good enough reason for that particular request, even if it
<br /> is not according to law. But, if it is denied, they have a right
<br /> to go to the Planning Commission, under subsection (g ) on the
<br /> second page (proposal) . . . "Hear and determine appeals requesting
<br /> variances. . " So, you see that the homeowner has a right to have
<br /> his day in court , so to speak , before the Planning Commission.
<br /> --25�
<br />
|