|
<br />KERN: Any other discussion? Commissioner Ishibashi, and then Commissioner Domingo.
<br />
<br />ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Brother Chair. Yeah, for that reason too, it’s because of the requirements
<br />that the applicants meet. And, also, the problem I have with this thing is disassociation with the
<br />association in Puna. I don’t know why we cannot talk story, the applicant with the association,
<br />because that’s the key that we have to buy in into the plan. Speculation, yeah, we’re all against
<br />speculation. Just getting the permit in order to sell your property, we’re against that. But after hearing
<br />the planner’s kind of explanation with regards to the financing of the property, she’s still trying to get
<br />the financing of the property. So I just pray that they will go on with the development and do the right
<br />thing. Because I believe this development will enhance the security of the Pahoa area, keeping out the
<br />riffraffs in the area. That’s one step in the right direction. And also the association also says that
<br />they’re okay with this type of development if done correctly. So the speculation is the problem. But I
<br />believe that in sincerity they will try and do the development as planned. So with that, that’s why I’m
<br />pretty much okay with this project.
<br />
<br />KERN: Commissioner Domingo.
<br />
<br />DOMINGO: I have a somewhat amusing story, just like they say, and I’m not saying that we should
<br />do it. Once, once many years ago we entertained a zoning going up Ponahawai in one of the
<br />residential areas. And it was smack dab in a residential area with streets going through. And that
<br />application was for commercial because that individual wanted to open an office, and he was a foot
<br />doctor. And what we did was we specifically stated in that ordinance that upon receipt of that zoning
<br />the use would strictly be adhered to being an office for treatment of the foot. And the concern, the
<br />concern of the people there, that was -. That was devised because the people in there were concerned
<br />what if we give them the rezoning and they put up a service station in which, you know, that would
<br />generate a lot of traffic, whereas a doctor such as that would just be minimal. I’m not saying we
<br />should do that but, you know, those are concerns that have been in existence for years, even Mario as
<br />one individual used to say when he used to come speak to us. And, you know, I know it’s hard, it’s
<br />hard, because I would feel being a layperson if in my area and if I had those similar concerns I would
<br />probably voice some concerns against it. But when I consider the Zoning Code and the manner in
<br />which this, the bill, the zoning is written, regardless who buys the place, they have to comply with the
<br />conditions of the zoning ordinance. And when they comply with the conditions of the zoning
<br />ordinance, I think some of the concerns that have been brought up with regards to approval of this and
<br />their fighting against it would be addressed, no matter who develops the property. So I feel confident
<br />to that degree that I can vote and support it.
<br />
<br />Once before somebody came to us and we gave him the zoning, and he walked away a rich, a very rich
<br />individual, shame on us. Now with this one if we give them the zoning, and the same thing happens,
<br />shame on me. And that’s why, you know, there’s a lot at stake with this for me. And I hope the
<br />applicant, I hope the applicant in all sincerity will go ahead and develop, develop the property as
<br />presented. That’s real important. Because hopefully I aim to be around for quite some time from now,
<br />and if this happens then, you know, the reputation of those who represent the applicant and the
<br />applicants themselves will be in my mind, and not as a planning commissioner but probably at
<br />something else. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
<br />
<br />19
<br /> EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|