2007-07-20 TSUPERSTORE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ALAMEDA: Thank you. Any questions for Craig? All right. I appreciate your testimony. Thanks, again. Greg, would you like to state your name and address for the record? GAUTHIER: Greg Gauthier. I’m just moving this weekend to Wainaku, and I haven’t memorized my address. But moving from Waimea, which I do know my address there: P. O. Box 6412, Kamuela, Hawaii 96743. ALAMEDA: Okay, okay. GAUTHIER: I don’t -, Wainaku boy. ALAMEDA: So you don’t know your address in Wainaku right now? GAUTHIER: Not yet -. ALAMEDA: Okay, you can’t testify. No, just kidding. All right. Go ahead, go ahead. You can proceed with your testimony. GAUTHIER: Okay. I’m going to read off a letter I addressed to William Graham, but this is for you folks. And I apologize because the bottom half -, I’ve been educated since during this meeting in regard to the bottom half. But I’ll read it anyways just – you can throw darts at me – just for fun. It’s Friday. It is with great respect that I come before you as a citizen of this wonderful County of Hawaii as part of the great democratic process we value. Today, you along with your esteemed fellow volunteers who join you as Planning Commissioners have been asked to review the Amendment to Chapter 25 of the Zoning Code initiated by the Planning Director, which would create a Superstore Zoning District. I humbly request that this Commission not support this amendment. I would like to remind this Commission that on July 6, 2007, the amendment to not permit superstores of a particular size and product ratio in this County was in fact supported by a majority of those present, and this particular amendment seems to scoff at the decisions made on that day. As you recall, both this current amendment and the previously supported amendment to not permit superstores were scheduled to be heard, discussed and – at the time I believed – voted upon on July 6, 2007. How disappointing it must have been for those West Hawaii residents who traveled so very far to Hilo on that day to find out that the this amendment would not be decided on July 6, 2007, and that the issue would be taken up at a later date at a different location. One might have been led to wonder if that is a fair strategy as it was neither originally advertised that way nor voted upon by the Commission. Those West Hawaii residents may not have had to feel forced to travel such a great distance to speak on this issue, if there was a clear choice as to the venue. But this dynamic also leads one to ask what – and maybe I can be clear – the parameters are for this Commission as it relates to the modification of venue as it relates to a previously publicized Commission meeting and vote. Can a Kona or Hilo resident reasonably expect that every previously publicized issue that is to be heard by this Commission might not actually take place on the day it has been advertised as such, or will the Commission take, does the Commission take every issue to both sides of the island before making a decision? EXHIBIT F 4