Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
SPACE gets 6 months to prepare amendments
#1
The Planning Commission has allowed SPACE six months to finish a proposed amendment to broaden the terms of their Special Use Permit.

The Tribune-Herald writes about it here:

SPACE has time to shape up

http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/sect...shape.html

In my opinion Planning Director Bobbie Jean Leithead-Todd seems to be experiencing some serious push back from the Planning Commission. Not the first time either. On a case by case basis our Planning Director has been all over the place in enforcing and not enforcing planning code.

Special Use Permits (SUPs) are a very poor substitute for planning.... and planning is what has been absent from Puna for the past fifty years. Bobbie Jean Leithead-Todd is Mayor Kenoi's director of what department?

Oh yeah, Planning.
Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator
Reply
#2
I can understand the problem of Planning (zoning). Sort of like the Feds figuring out how to pay for Medicare; a convoluted situation with no simple solutions, so let the next administration deal with it.
SPACE is the perfect example; A valuable resource, providing valuable services, with lots of capital investment, but located in spot which does not meet the zoning requirements for such a facility. So the Planning Department grants a SUP to band-aid the problem.
IMHO, the PD needs to start zoning the district properly and as harsh as it sounds, stop issuing SUPs in areas which are not suitable for that use.

Dan
Reply
#3
What meeting were you at?

The commission clearly set an execution date and if SPACE fails to adhere to the requirements, their permit WILL be revoked.

That's what the commission said. They are allowing SPACE to continue operating providing they go forward with the amendments and get them approved. But, when the deferred hearing date comes, it had better be in order or they are going to revoke the permit.

All the supporters’ statements only showed the commission that them granting the extension was correct, but it was as clear as air that they were tired of SPACE flipping them the middle finger and thinking they are above the law. They get the amendment done, or they shut the heck down. That was the final message when you strip away all the rhetoric.
Reply
#4
It was interesting to note that our local whack jobs - R.J. Hampton and Sativa - are apparently the self proclaimed 'tyranny of the minority' complainants.

It would like to point out that there are two sides to this zoning/SUP thing from a zoning stand point. All the house lots surrounding SPACE are zoned AG. There is essentially zero AG going on on those properties (with perhaps the exception of SPACE/Bellyacres). So these residents of the AG lots are more of a R zone in fact than legality.

Now there is nothing that says you have to do agriculture on an AG property. But in AG zoning you are very limited in your ability to complain about roosters, tractors, chemical sprays and farm machinery from the crack of dawn until dusk. SPACE has an event? Basis for a claim. Your neighbors move 75 fighting cocks next door? Tough luck. Raising pigs? Too bad... according to the code.

It is the over riding lack of intelligent and practical zoning both for the residents of a subdivision full of tiny lots and the adjoining 10 acre site trying to function in response to community needs. Needs that have not been addressed by the CoH ever.

And then there is the R.J. Hampton factor. Someone of the tin foil hat variety who acquired a taste for being the center of attention.
If it was not a mere zoning complaint and was a civil matter it might well be considered vexatious litigation.
Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator
Reply
#5
quote:
Originally posted by DanielP

Sort of like the SPACE is the perfect example; A valuable resource, providing valuable services, with lots of capital investment, but located in spot which does not meet the zoning requirements for such a facility. So the Planning Department grants a SUP to band-aid the problem.
IMHO, the PD needs to start zoning the district properly and as harsh as it sounds, stop issuing SUPs in areas which are not suitable for that use.
Actually Dan, that is inaccurate information. That is SPACE's propaganda that their organ grinding monkeys have been dancing to. So lets get the TRUTH out in the open for regular people to understand and maybe the reality of what is happening won’t be so "the world is against SPACE" as they are trying to portray:

1. There is no zoning at the current location that would let SPACE do what they want. Is there zoning in Puna that will allow it? Yes, it was SPACE's decision not to operate where the zoning existed for those purposes. It was not he County of Hawaii that forced them to settle on property within a subdivision. That was all their decision and they did it knowing full well it was not zoned for that use.

2. Since SPACE made the decision to use that piece of property, they needed a use permit to operate. The approval of that permit WAS GRANTED by the County. What was approved was based on the request of SPACE! The County didn’t tell them what to do, they approved what SPACE requested. If SPACE wanted to do something more, they should have put it the permit so the County could approve it.

3. It is SPACE's decision to expand the activities without amending their permit to include those activities. The County has repeatedly told them that their permit limits them to certain activities that they said was all they would be doing and if they expand, they need to be amending their permit to include those activities. SPACE has decided that they are not going to amend their activities and will just do it.

4. As part of their original permit approval, certain site violations were to be corrected. SPACE agreed to correct those violations but has despite the County telling them over and over again, and SPACE agreeing over and over again to correct them, they have not corrected or removed the violations.

5. Certain activities would not be allowed because they bordered on for-profit commercial activities. On a number of occasions, the County warned SPACE that they were engaged in what appears to be for profit activities in violation of the permit and that they need to halt those activities. It appears, based on the documentation available at the CoH, that SPACE deliberately and fraudulently conducted these activities AND concealed them behind false "community" or "non-profit" fronts. That was not only a serious violation but was the reason that the criminal justice arm of the County had to be called in.

6. Although many of the complaints (and I read them all from the written to those called into the County) may have been from a small group of neighbors, they are neighbors none the less! Many other neighbors have also complained but not as much. These is no evidence that ANY complaint against SPACE came from those located Outside of Seaview. I would venture to say that many of their neighbors have either complained at one time or another or confirmed to the County Inspectors that from time to time, the activities do get out of hand.

6B. This is important, as it also appeared that some of the very complaints or supporting statements and documentation with SPACE was coming from within the organization itself. There appears to be a crack forming between the majority and a smaller minority that is starting to be concern that SPACE is not even trying to be a good neighbor or obey the rules. They are concerned that this continued thumbing of their noses at the County is going to have some serious consequences and is actually anti-community which goes against what SPACE claims they are for.

7. This is not the first, second or third go around with SPACE. The sticking point with many in planning was that they could not trust SPACE to do what they say they will do. It was almost as if they wanted to come out and say that as far as anyone should be concerned, SPACE is an untrustworthy liar. How do we trust them on their word when everything they agreed to before and promise to do, they reneged on? You will see this over and over in the margins of the reports, handwritten by staff on complaints and written into official documents, they can’t trust SPACE to be honest and not outright lie to get their way.

So Dan, based on the above. If SPACE was to apply for a zoning change and it was approved, How can anyone trust that they will do what they say they will do and stay within the bounds of the zoning that was changed based on what they said they would do? The County is not the management of SPACE and the County has no idea what SPACE needs are now and in the future. The County depends on the applicant to tell them so they can approve the activities. But if SPACE keeps saying A, B and C but keeps doing whatever they feel, how is a zoning change going to solve disrespect?

Even a zoning change will come with limitations and since SPACE continually lies and flips everyone off, can they be trusted to obey zoning codes or will it just be another arrogant do as they want issue. We hold developers and investors to certain limitations in permits and zonings, how would you feel if one of them plain old ignored the rules, did what they wanted, and lied to you every time you challenged their violations? You would be calling for their head, so why aren’t we demanding that at least SPACE honor their word and do what they say they will do?

I have no issue with SPACE pushing the envelope and trying to be the camel with its head in the tent, but they are outright liars who say one thing, plan on doing something else all along and pretend like it’s everyone else causing the hardship. If they just stop being liars and con artist, maybe I could support their activities, but so long as they are outright untrustworthy bullies who word isn't worth sh*t, they get nothing from me but contempt.

The CoH has and does rezone agricultural land to other uses upon application. It is not the job of the County to try and guess what zoning needs people want, it for the people to petition the County for the change based on their needs. Developers, non-profits, industrial, schools, retail does it all the time so SPACE can do it also. However, on a side note, Puna is the worst for approving zoning changes because often it’s not the CoH that raises objections, but the people themselves for all sorts of reasons. So, please do not think the CoH is solely at fault because there is more than enough evidence to present that some of your own local grassroots folks will try and torpedo a legitimate zoning change because that new business may be a competitor of their own business.

Now Rob, you said this was like vexatious litigation? Absolutely not. None of the complaints were frivolous and all were based on legitimate issues. Just because the person complains or calls on every violation, does not make it vexatious because they are all violations. If I called everyday to report you illegally parking in a handicap zone, even if the police take no action or you moved the car before the police arrived, the complaint itself is legitimate; you violated the handicap parking rules. In order to sustain your claim, the complaint would have to have been false, but although not all were serious, they were all legitimate. Have you read all the complaints? If not I will be happy to send you all of them so you can show me the ones that were false.

It wasn’t just the complaint of interest but the way the County gave SPACE the benefit of the doubt in many cases. They knew there was a violation but let SPACE claim an oops. But they still noted that the complaint was valid but the county will let it slide a bit. However, that was starting to be taken by SPACE as proof they can get away with anything instead of the humbling experience that they caught a sympathetic break. But, the complaints were pretty much all confirmed.

So, I would like to be shown that if SPACE applies for a zoning change or they get their amended use permit approved by the County, that all will be well, but based on all the documentation provided for this action, I have more faith in Charles Manson doing the right thing than I would have in SPACE or their leadership. But I do give SPACE credit, their propaganda machine (their paid attorneys and public relations firm) is doing a bang up job and the music SPACE is playing has the monkeys dancing in step.
Reply
#6
Bob,

Perhaps you misunderstood my position.

I am suggesting that the PD should never have granted the SUP to SPACE, because it is in a predominately RR (rural residential) utilized area and should be zoned as such.

With as much community support as SPACE has, they should have no trouble raising the resources needed to move to a location that is suitable for commercial use and zoning.

In fact I feel that most of the parcels in the subdivisions in Puna should be zoned RR; because that is how they are being used, Not as AG land. That AG zoning was a sham in the first place.

The PD should set aside areas for all kinds of different uses based on the suitability of the parcels (General Plan).

Dan

Ed. to add:
I suspect that SPACE did not evolve into what it is today overnite. I suspect that it grew and evolved much like the Winchester Mystery House. All of a sudden it outgrew it's britches. Time for new britches.
Reply
#7
All these compounding shams as you put it are the root of the problem(s). I think that we should not be doomed to live with past mistakes just because the county made the original mistakes. The whole land use issue from a planning perspective needs to be reworked.
Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator
Reply
#8
So if Space can have a SUP, why cant the skateshop on the main Pahoa rd?

It's inequalities like this, that make me suspect of the whole system.
Reply
#9
Perhaps because of abuses of previous SUPs (see above), the Planning folks are tightening up on their issuance? Just a guess.
Reply
#10
quote:
Originally posted by Kapohocat

So if Space can have a SUP, why cant the skateshop on the main Pahoa rd?
It's inequalities like this, that make me suspect of the whole system.
Are you talking about REZ 11-137? If so, that is not a SUP, but a request to change the actual zoning to allow their commercial operation. It has met stiff resistance from its neighbor who does not want the zoning change as it may create competition. I suggest you look up who that neighbor is and who the owners are. Inequities? It’s not the County attempting to stifle competition under the guise of zoning concerns. [Wink]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)