Laserfiche WebLink
UNGER: Opposed? \[None.\] Public hearing portion of this agenda item is closed. The floor is <br />open for a motion. <br /> <br />VITOUSEK: Let’s see, I don’t have the sheet, but I make a motion that we accept the <br />recommendations, although I would like to include the condition that was recommended by our <br />planners about coming back to the Commission in the event of any complaints that are verified to <br />be inappropriate use of the property. And, I would also recommend that, that the Condition 4 be <br />amended to indicate that the inspection station operation shall commence the date of the State <br />Department of Transportation reinstates Inspection Station No. 360, as the applicant requests. <br /> <br />UNGER: Do we have a second? <br /> <br />YATES: Second. <br /> <br />UNGER: Motion by Commissioner Vitousek, second by Commissioner Yates. Wehe ka papa no <br />ka ke kūkākūkā, the floor is open for discussion. <br /> <br />Maybe I’ll take a run at clarifying the motion. So, Commissioner Vitousek is making a motion to <br />approve the applicant subject to the conditions by the Planning Department, including the <br />additional condition that the Planning Department put onto their original conditions, and also the <br />suggested change to item 4 as Commissioner Vitousek just explained. So, that, that is the motion <br />on the table, and again, we’re open for discussion. Question? <br /> <br />CARR SMITH: I’d like to look at what was quickly read to us. Is that, I guess that would be <br />Condition 17— <br /> <br />UNGER: Ms. Jackson, could you please re-read your Condition – what is it – 7? <br /> <br />CARR SMITH: Or show it. Let us look at it maybe? \[Ms. Jackson handed Commissioner Carr <br />Smith the wording.\] Thank you. This one. <br /> <br />UNGER: Because the floor is open, I will comment, and I, I am going to vote to approve. And I <br />would say – I understand what’s been going back and forth with the Planning Department and the <br />applicants – I would say my opinion is going to be different, if they come back here within the <br />year or after the year and apply again after-the-fact; but, I think there is a clear direction here and <br />we have a clear response from the applicant on what is expected and what is not expected, I’m <br />comfortable with the change the applicant made that is a, that is a relatively tight timeframe to get <br />the building permit for the, without that, I would have some concerns and more comment, but as <br />stated and as on the table, I will be voting yes. <br /> <br />CARR SMITH: I have one comment about the condition. Is the intent of this strictly as a result of <br />a complaint? <br /> <br />JACKSON: Yes. <br /> <br />13 <br />EXHIBIT B <br /> <br />