05-16-2012, 06:24 PM
so, was there a vote?
|
Bill 209
|
05-17-2012, 03:23 AM
quote: My questions are valid questions on the subject property - not your property. You and another mentioned a property sale and 48 uses. I am not demonizing you. I am asking questions to get some insight but if you want to take it that way as demonizing - go ahead - although, frankly, I see a few others actually picking at you, yet you did not lash out at them. I am using the Term "skate people" because I had no idea what else had been planned there except for what my clients had thought about planning 2+ yrs ago and then changed their minds about getting involved in it. If someone else becomes interested in it again that I work with, I do like knowing a history - that is why I am interested. Actually when my clients looked at it, we talked about what nice neighbors the surf shop would be. They considered your business a bonus but then they started into the rezoning issues and decided otherwise on the property. So you did answer one question I asked: is the property for sale again? From your answer, a yes, would be inferred. Implied? I always forgot which one applies where. Edited to reduce assertive questions.
05-17-2012, 09:16 AM
Reply to Rob's comment up the topic.
Yes, I agree that a Design District sounds like a much better fit than what was done in Mendocino (which is not Williamsburg either). They went with "Historic Preservation District" listed on the national register, and I think that was overkill and did contribute to stifling individual character. I am pro individual character and expression. The part I approved of was keeping out the ugly strip malls and fast food joints that could be Anywhere America. If that sort of chain business comes to the main Pahoa Village, it will kill the charm and the quirkiness. How to keep it in Woodland Center and not let it creep into the heart? Does current commercial zoning help preserve Pahoa's independent spirit? Wouldn't some limitations be desirable? North of Mendocino, in Fort Bragg, I remember when a national fast food chain wanted in, I'm thinking it was Burger King. There had been nothing like that even when I moved there. (There was an OLD and very low key A&W and a Purple Pup). Fort Bragg was not a historical preservation district, but they did insist that BK build in the local style (not fake historic as Obie assumed I meant, rather similar to typical local NEW construction in the area). It didn't hurt BK's business at all, and it averted a big eyesore in the town. To me it seems a shame for Pahoa to start rezoning into 48-use zoning while a design district plan is in process. Rezoning is not a property right, is it? The property's actual rights are those that pertain to the zoning it currently holds, are they not? It seems that the owners aren't interested in utilizing the rights they already have, the rights that came with the property when they bought it. I am not saying rezoning is bad per se, not at all. I just don't see what is bad about scrutinizing such an application and weighing the possible outcome for the Village.
05-17-2012, 08:33 PM
Born in the Whale! Sounds like quite a beginning. ;-)
05-18-2012, 08:36 AM
quote:A few things to get this issue in perspective. A Design District has no impact on zoning decisions. A Design District is to control the Look & Feel of the area, not the type of businesses that can operate within that area. Anyone trying to make it sound like deciding on a zoning issue when a Design District concept is being considered is just attempting to confuse the issues. Zoning controls the use of the land, the Design District control the paint color. Even if some form of special controlling district was to be implemented, the existing zoning for all those properties already rezoned will remain and be grandfathered in. So all the property owners who already have commercial zoning will still be free to use their property within the permitted 48 uses without having to deal with any district or community concerns. They have the ability to say screw you and do it anyways so how do you implement a new concept when so many already are exempt? This is why I caution everyone that those who already have this zoning are just playing a game where they get to be the big players because they kept the new players out of the mix. Now as to why the property owners included a reason for the zoning change, well years ago the CoH changed the zoning change application to require a stared purpose for the change. This was traditionally only a mention of "retail", "educations" etc. However, a certain applicant (nonprofit community based) venture decided that they were really walking a fine line between permitted use and non permitted use, so they included a lengthy design and development outline for their request that include some fancy design drawings, well placed words, visual pictures of cottages in the woods, the whole I’m O,K, It’s All O.K ball of brightly colored wax. Well they manage to convince the local neighbors to look at the pictures and not the potential. It kind of stuck from that point forward although they can just use the generic intended purpose. Another reason is that they kill two birds with one stone; they get zoning changes and a preliminary use approval. If the zoning is approved with that specific purpose shown, they know there will be no issues with that project as stated because it passed the approval test during the zoning process. As far a as zoning as a right. Under Hawaii law, yes zoning is a joint right of the property owner and the people (County). The property owner has the right to do what is allowed under zoning and the right to request a change of that zoning. The People, have the right to establish appropriate uses and deny changes if inappropriate. When the CoH evaluates zoning changes, they have to make sure that the zoning and all conditions attached to that zoning are appropriate, and they have to make sure that nothing in changing that zoning will have a detrimental impact on the community and the people. If they have no reason to deny the application, they are required to approve it. That’s why you see in some Counties a requirement to act on the application in certain timeframes or risk it being approved by default. As it pertains to this issue, even if the current applicants have no plans on doing what is in their plans, it really is not a consideration because so long as they stay within the established permitted uses for that property, they can do what they want when they want. Do we go back asking the property owners who already have that zoning if they did what they said they were going to do? Do we ask them if they will be keeping everything s it is now? No, we only ensure that what they can do is what they have done. So for any of the current commercially zoned properties to question what the applicant wants to do as if they are sinister is to hold up some huge mirrors and release that smoke makers full force because they can do all the evil things by right that they want you to look at as a negative with the applicant. The truth is all this discussion of design districts and community villages and such is a con game being played on you. They want you to follow the non issue so far down the path that by the time you realize you've been played the fool, it’s too far and too late for you to get back and ask the right questions.
05-18-2012, 10:32 AM
I thank you for that really useful explanation, Bob.
Re Tiffany's family's business, I think you are completely wrong when you say that her opposition is a con game. That family honestly doesn't want to be anything other than a family shop, no smoke and mirrors, no angling to be the first in town to sell out to MacDonalds or a crematorium. Just not true. As far as the history of presenting a business plan, I appreciate and understand your explanation. I still don't approve, from an ethical standpoint, of proposing a business plan unless it's a good faith plan. I also wouldn't find it ethical IF Tiffany were opposing that broad range of uses while secretly knowing her in-laws have some diabolical plan to make the most bucks the zoning allows. But I know she is sincere about her reasons for opposition. There is a difference between what a business can legally do and what I consider ethical. My notions of ethical have no legal force whatsoever, but ... I have every right to hold them and express them.
05-18-2012, 12:41 PM
quote:So let me understand you correctly and please correct any misunderstanding. The process of rezoning shouldn’t be based on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the use, but rather if we like or trust a person. That would mean the laws and regulations of the County of Hawaii will be replaced by individual personal likes and dislikes, something along the lines of nepotism and favoritism, not on an independent neutral objective criteria. In other words, just plain old who the elected and appointed county officials like and dislike. If that is the process you’re suggesting, isn't that what everyone is saying is the way they see it now and claim that’s what’s wrong with the County government?
05-18-2012, 12:55 PM
Bob, 100% of what you wrote is misunderstanding my position. [
 ]I'm not going to go over it point by point, because I have stuff to go do. However, I would not agree that anything you just wrote reasonably paraphrases my views on the subject.
05-19-2012, 02:52 AM
quote: Is the only opposition (by any community member] that the range of approved use is too broad a field? Is there any other valid opposition? I havent heard/seen anything but please if there is - it should be presented. Maybe what Planning Dept needs is for there to be different commercial zoning designations that are less encompassing than currently exists. These then can be applied for without a fear of crematoriums, as a comparison. The one silliness I do see is that as the example of a crematorium is brought up, there is often a HUGE difference between what can be done, and what will be done. Many times the other hurdles would preclude business like a crematorium opening in that area - SOH DOH being I see the largest hurdle in the case of a crematorium. Some of the other businesses IMHO on this list are just not viable profit makers in that specific location. We would be better served to rally around figuring out what is going in across from the Post Office than one small piece of property that will probably be retail. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)