|
dwelling on the property and use that also as a bed and breakfast -- it’s getting, it’s getting to the
<br />point that it’s impacting, I think, our tourism industry. You know, if you look, if you look at the
<br />occupancy rates in the hotels, they’re not at all encouraging. They’re suffering and, you know,
<br />there are people who are being laid off today because there are no jobs for them.
<br />And, you know, we need to look at this whole concept and see how we can co-exists with bed
<br />and breakfasts and with tourist destination areas. And all I know is at this point there are many
<br />people who are being impacted. They’re working part-time during the week. Some of them
<br />have been laid off, and they’re without jobs. And what we’re doing here, what we’re doing here
<br />is encouraging other uses that compete with the hotel industry. With the hotel industry, you
<br />know, people come, they provide amenities for the visitors, they can go golfing, they have
<br />activities on site, and they can dine on the property; and those are incomes for people who work
<br />there and for the State. What we’re doing is we’re impacting that scenario. And I, granted, if
<br />times were as lucrative as it was before then I wouldn’t have this kind of concern. But my
<br />primary concern is based on what we already have. So, you know, I speak strongly against this
<br />motion. It’s not complementing the character of a residential area. We can find people who can
<br />come in with the intent of doing business on those properties, buying those zoned lands, build a
<br />house, provide additional dwelling, and then make accommodations for five individuals per lot.
<br />You know, when you pencil it down it can be beneficial for anyone who wants to do that.
<br />And I think what I’m saying is that I am against that and I would support what we have now and
<br />strengthen what we have; and then if people want to do bed and breakfasts they can, they can
<br />right now, nothing is stopping them. So that’s my whole feeling, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
<br />WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Any further discussion? Commissioner Iwashita?
<br />IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I share some of Commissioner Domingo’s concerns; and I
<br />guess, you know, in my mind the way I figured this is that in essence Mr. Tuttle has figured out a
<br />way to double his capacity from this property, which is to his credit.But, you know, what that
<br />does is it raises a concern that Commissioner Domingo raises. And, you know, as I understand
<br />it, Mr. Tuttle owns all of these lands that we see on the map as part of this application and that all
<br />of the lands, even though it’s three separate lot, the roadway lot and now the two subdivided lots,
<br />are required by covenant to be sold together, you know. And I guess in this way it’s really, you
<br />know, assuming approval it really increases the value of what he has; and I, you know, that’s
<br />great. As far as I’m concerned, you know, that’s great. But I do share Commissioner
<br />Domingo’s concern. However that, given all of that I still feel that Mr. Tuttle has complied with
<br />the law, that the conditions are there, that this is in a way an anomaly. I don’t see others really
<br />being able to duplicate this very much. They may be able to, but this is rather an unusual
<br />situation. So those are my thoughts and concerns.
<br />WOODWARD: Madam Director.
<br />LEITHEAD TODD: I understand Commissioner Domingo’s concerns over the hotel resort
<br />industry and vacancies in the hotels. But what you have in Volcano is a rural area that is a
<br />visitor attraction area because of the National Park. You also have a limited capacity within the
<br />National Park to provide any hotel room accommodations because the land is controlled by the
<br />18
<br /> EXHIBIT D
<br />
<br />
|