Utilisateur:Theobal83
De WikiCinéjeu.
(→State law requires review of property over 50 years old Hawa : nouvelle section) |
(→Give variances a tough review Hawaii News, Honolulu, Honolul : nouvelle section) |
||
| Ligne 24 : | Ligne 24 : | ||
<html>~~ p strong Question /strong : In January,[http://sangolaff.free.fr/wiki/index.php/Utilisateur:Sernawad26#County_-_Area_News County - Area News], the architect designing my new home submitted the plans to the city Department of Planning and Permitting. The plans were approved. There is an old home,[http://dictionary.imbtarchive.ru/index.php?title=%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:Langeland65#Memorial_set_for_Sunday Memorial set for Sunday], built in 1938,[http://www.jerseys-ns.net/Nike-Steelers-7-ROETHLISBERGER-Black-Women-Game-Jerseys-17562/ Nike Steelers 7 ROETHLISBERGER Black Women Game Jerseys], on the same lot, adjacent to where the new home is to be built. It is scheduled to be renovated, but is not part of the new home. However,[http://www.jerseys-ns.net/MLB-Caps-109-11366/ MLB Caps-109],[http://www.newfiepedia.com/index.php?title=User:Edmisteru69#Kid_chef_from_Woodinville_heads_to_the_White_House Kid chef from Woodinville heads to the White House], my permit had to be reviewed by the state Department of Land and Natural Resources because of a ldquo;historic preservation rdquo; requirement that covers all structures 50 years or older, historic or not. It is stuck there. Why does a permit to build a new structure that rsquo;s simply next to a 50-plus-year-old structure get held hostage under the historic preservation law? /p p strong Answer /strong : There must have been some miscommunication because DLNR rsquo;s State Historic Preservation Division signed off on your permit on April 1, saying ldquo;no historic property was affected. rdquo; br / After receiving your complaint, SHPD staff looked up your file and found that a letter relaying that its determination was sent to the Planning and Permitting Department and that ldquo;the homeowner should have received a copy of the letter, rdquo; said DLNR spokeswoman Deborah Ward. /p ~~</html> | <html>~~ p strong Question /strong : In January,[http://sangolaff.free.fr/wiki/index.php/Utilisateur:Sernawad26#County_-_Area_News County - Area News], the architect designing my new home submitted the plans to the city Department of Planning and Permitting. The plans were approved. There is an old home,[http://dictionary.imbtarchive.ru/index.php?title=%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:Langeland65#Memorial_set_for_Sunday Memorial set for Sunday], built in 1938,[http://www.jerseys-ns.net/Nike-Steelers-7-ROETHLISBERGER-Black-Women-Game-Jerseys-17562/ Nike Steelers 7 ROETHLISBERGER Black Women Game Jerseys], on the same lot, adjacent to where the new home is to be built. It is scheduled to be renovated, but is not part of the new home. However,[http://www.jerseys-ns.net/MLB-Caps-109-11366/ MLB Caps-109],[http://www.newfiepedia.com/index.php?title=User:Edmisteru69#Kid_chef_from_Woodinville_heads_to_the_White_House Kid chef from Woodinville heads to the White House], my permit had to be reviewed by the state Department of Land and Natural Resources because of a ldquo;historic preservation rdquo; requirement that covers all structures 50 years or older, historic or not. It is stuck there. Why does a permit to build a new structure that rsquo;s simply next to a 50-plus-year-old structure get held hostage under the historic preservation law? /p p strong Answer /strong : There must have been some miscommunication because DLNR rsquo;s State Historic Preservation Division signed off on your permit on April 1, saying ldquo;no historic property was affected. rdquo; br / After receiving your complaint, SHPD staff looked up your file and found that a letter relaying that its determination was sent to the Planning and Permitting Department and that ldquo;the homeowner should have received a copy of the letter, rdquo; said DLNR spokeswoman Deborah Ward. /p ~~</html> | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Give variances a tough review Hawaii News, Honolulu, Honolul == | ||
| + | |||
| + | <html>~~ p Ambitious plans have been made by the Hawaii Community Development Authority for numerous condominium towers throughout 450 acres in Kakaako,[http://200.0.156.162/index.php/Usuario:Edmisteru50#Woman_testifies_stranger_groped_her_on_United_N.J._flight_0 Woman testifies stranger groped her on United N.J. flight 0],[http://www.jerseys-ns.net/Panthers-90-Julius-Peppers-White-Jerseys-4367/ Panthers 90 Julius Peppers White Jerseys], but the effect on present residents requires serious consideration. The agency's staff has recognized the problem mdash; and is recommending rejection of a tower far higher and closer to an existing condo building than zoning allows. This stance is encouraging and helps set a needed tone as more developers are sure to approach the HCDA for variances and exemptions in their future proposals. /p p California-based MJF Development Corp. had requested its zoning change on the basis that three-fourths of the 192 units in its proposed 803 Waimanu would be quot;workforce housing quot; affordable by median households. Because of that,[http://info.action.or.kr/index.php/%EC%82%AC%EC%9A%A9%EC%9E%90:Sernawad25#Around_the_Nation-_Tracking_Hawaii.27s_Athletes_Hawaii_News.2C_H Around the Nation- Tracking Hawaii's Athletes Hawaii News, H], the building proposes to be 250 feet tall instead of 65 feet tall as allowed by current zoning,[http://www.jerseys-ns.net/Blackhawks-32-Versteeg-red-Jerseys-6595/ Blackhawks 32 Versteeg red Jerseys],[http://mengta.org/index.php?title=User:Theobal61#First_impressions_of_Windows_8.1-_Starting_back_to_the_futur First impressions of Windows 8.1- Starting back to the futur], and would be as close as 39 feet instead of 300 feet from the present Imperial Plaza's mid-rise tower. /p ~~</html> | ||
