COM 0526.026 2010-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Testimony from Daniel Taylor, RE Bill 168,application for change of zone in Mountain View Aug 15,2012 As a resident of Volcano,active in community affairs,and friend of Mountain View, I offer the following comments in opposition to Council's consideration of Bill 168: • The applicant's property is zoned for Residential use,albeit adjacent to a neighboring property zoned as Industrial(simply because the property contains a passive,quiet switching facility for Hawaiian Telcom.) • The applicant's uphill neighbor will endure the brunt of the impact from a garage by being subjected to noises,odors, lights,and visibility that are produced by the garage. • The uphill neighbor,and other nearby properties,are historically important, having significant connection to the earlier cane sugar production,and earlier still,the Hilo-Kilauea tourist corridor. The uphill neighbor, in fact, lives on a property that once served as a half-way house for horse-drawn coaches that carried tourists to the Kilauea Volcano from Hilo. The dwelling on that property is of historic value in that it was built more than 80 years ago, in an architectural style consistent with the early sugar plantation era,and is situated with a panoramic vista of Mauna Kea as well as a view downhill toward Hilo,where the early traffic came from. • The applicant's repair shop would stand adjacent to the Volcano-Hilo Highway(Route#11). Whether or not the building opens toward the applicant's house or toward the highway does not matter—it will still be an auto repair garage,and therefore quite inappropriate for the highway corridor. Is it not the long range desire by professional planners for commercial buildings to be located away from highway corridors? c; • Entry from and to the applicant's garage from Highway#11 is dangerous. Looking from either direction,visibility is not adequate for safe access. You must imagine the significantly increased potential for traffic hazards and likelihood for crashes and injury. Something is wrong with this application. We see a contentious relationship between neighbors:=--We wonder why a local family cannot open a repair shop in an area that is significantly underservedy commercial development. We have seen professional planners in the Planning Department ch ige theii= opinions about the application. We wonder why the planning bureau would consider an auto repair shop to be built adjacent to the highway,when it is known that this is a poor planning strategy. You can reject the spurious claim by the applicant that he has no alternative to relocate his proposed auto repair garage. Mountain View Village is significantly under-served by commercial development. County planners need to be creative with possibilities for transfer of development rights, indefinite zone designations,and other flexible land planning strategies that would enable more orderly and less confrontational solutions to commercial growth in Mountain View Village. Isn't it time to seek a solution that will benefit all parties,and furthermore set a precedent that will help to re-shape community development all over the region? We need a solution that will enable the applicant to achieve his goal to operate his own repair shop,the neighbors to enjoy the tranquility of their homes,the landscape of the highway corridor to remain uncluttered with spots of commercial development,and the Mountain View Community to develop a long range village plan that will reflect their vision. I cannot reconcile the difficulty of finding a mutually beneficial outcome with the creative and professional mix that we know to be in the Planning Department and among members of this wonderful community. Comm. Nu 2-10. Ref. Ref. Date 1