Posts: 8,490
Threads: 1,034
Joined: May 2003
The commercial zoning application for Pahoa Village which has garnered some attention comes before the Council Planning Commission on:
Wednesday, May 16th at 2 pm under the heading:
Communication 664
Bill 209
http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/Weblink8/...?id=769112
The application is for retail and accommodation bungalows.
I am in favor of the application and will testify in support. The location is perfectly appropriate for commercial use despite the objections of an adjacent property which already is in commercial use.
Trying to launch a commercial enterprise of any type is hard enough without having to run the rapids of rezoning. Pahoa Village and Puna are frankly starved for commercial zoning and business investment should be encouraged.
Most often people only speak or submit testimony to council on things they oppose. I believe people should take the time to support things too.
If you want to submit written testimony on this item you must do so before May 16th and can send it by email to:
Subject: Planning Committee Testimony Comm 64 Bill 209
To: County Council <counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us>
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 1,839
Threads: 48
Joined: May 2007
I see that there was an unfavorable recommendation by the Windward Planning Commission Vice Chair Dean Au. No details given. I wonder what the reasoning was. Any link to that report?
I also see that there is a pending motion to approve by Ms. Smart with a second by Ms. Ford.
Dan
Posts: 8,490
Threads: 1,034
Joined: May 2003
I looked into the unfavorable recommendation and what I am told is that the neighboring property owner and their attorney provided a cloud of doubt over the applicant's honesty and intentions... which led to some commission members abstaining and a majority voting negative.
It is what I have been told... and I am not saying who told me though that person was present at the hearing.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
FWIW ... Dean is a no B.S., straight up, pono guy.
most sincerely,
pog
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Tucker
I looked into the unfavorable recommendation and what I am told is that the neighboring property owner and their attorney provided a cloud of doubt over the applicant's honesty and intentions... which led to some commission members abstaining and a majority voting negative.
It is what I have been told... and I am not saying who told me though that person was present at the hearing.
In a zoning request, the status of the applicant and their intent really has no bearing on the issue and should not be a consideration. A zoning change is on the property not the "person". Why is the intent of the applicant an issue? It's either an appropriate zoning change, or an inappropriate zoning change. Who the applicant is should have absolutely no impact since who owns or uses the property can change like any other property.
In evaluating the change of zoning, you’re looking to see if the new zoning uses are appropriate for that property in relationship to the overall zoning, the area, the other uses, etc. But, what I smell is local opposition to a zoning change based more on protectionism of an existing local business person who is know locally. I smell the reeking of anti competition being wrapped up in a nice flowery packaged labeled "applicant honesty". The fundamental foundation should be if the new uses fit; not about the owner. I would expect a concerns like this would be raised by a person totally ignorant about zoning issues. However, if that does not portray the person, the only likely scenario is the person raising these types of concerns, thinks the people are stupid.
The County has every right to look long and hard at a zoning change because it’s changing the use of the land. But that hard look is about the use, not who owns the land. Once again, it comes back to the cause of bad zoning in the Puna District isn’t the County but the PEOPLE!
Posts: 1,839
Threads: 48
Joined: May 2007
Bob,
I agree with your position on proper zoning procedure, but to let the County officials off the hook for improper zoning practices because certain people are whining doesn't hold water for me. The Planners should proceed like planners, not elected politicians who's main interest is staying in power and being re-elected.
Any word about the pending motion to approve?
Dan
Posts: 8,490
Threads: 1,034
Joined: May 2003
I agree with Bob 100%. Who the owner is has nothing to do with a zoning application and the process appears to be corrupt in this case.
If anyone wants to testify on this application the link is in the first post and today is a god day to submit.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 56
Threads: 19
Joined: Aug 2007
Sorry about that... I went to reply to this thread, and then I guess I pushed "new topic" rather than "reply to topic." So, my new topic is "Bill 209"... and you can find it here...
www.punaweb.org/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14441 (I think)
