|
<br />COMMAND: I think I might be able to give you a little more interpretation on the Old Industrial
<br />Area, Kona Industrial Area. Some of the uses there may appear to be retail, for instance Ace
<br />Hardware, places like that, but I believe what is allowed there is a warehouse with a retail outlet in
<br />front of it as long as the warehouse is the -. I guess it’s an accessory use, is it? Or is it, is that what
<br />it’s called? If you look in the Code, and I don’t know if we want to go through this but, it does
<br />allow for those things as long as the warehouse is there. There were lumber places, lumber
<br />operations, that did have retail in front of them, but the use for the most part was the warehouse.
<br />One of the other things, and it’s hard to control sometimes, but there could be illegal uses there that
<br />may appear to be, you know, legal.
<br />
<br />BEAUDET: My comment was more based on the, you know, if the Director’s recommendation
<br />was in contrast to what was already being operated, you know, if what we currently have in the
<br />Kona Industrial Area contradicts the Director’s recommendation, yeah? And so when I read this, I
<br />was like, hmm, you know, not knowing the true definition of all of the operations there, you know,
<br />you’ve got the market place, I don’t know the street’s name but, just up the road when you come
<br />down the steep entryway, right? And then, so I just wanted to open that up for discussion, and
<br />maybe staff had some insight on that for me.
<br />
<br />HICKCOX: Mr. Chair, if I may?
<br />
<br />BEAUDET: Go ahead.
<br />
<br />HICKCOX: It appears that the proposal initiated by Bill 191, 192 is attempting to somewhat clump
<br />things together, yeah, as opposed to keeping it separate. And if I’m reading the Director correctly,
<br />it appears that he wants to really keep things separate for one, but then on the other hand, not lose
<br />the ability to look at individual applications as they come in, you know, and with this clumping
<br />together, for the lack of any better word, right, it would be more looking on the side of conservancy
<br />as far as being allowed to look at each application separately rather than grouping it. I don’t know.
<br />That’s my take on it anyway. I don’t know. Staff?
<br />
<br />COTTLE: I think that’s fairly accurate as far as not wanting to mix industrial and, say, residential
<br />or school uses. Of course, people always have an opportunity to come and rezone their properties
<br />based on what use they want to establish there. I think what the Department would like to do is
<br />work with Council to try to formulate maybe a new bill that is trying to accomplish the intent of
<br />these bills, but maybe still create a little bit more separation of uses than what they are proposing
<br />here.
<br />
<br />BEAUDET: Thank you. I appreciate the conversation and the clarifications. Any more comments
<br />from the Commissioners for staff?
<br />
<br />COMMAND: I have a question of staff. I’m wondering, if you can tell me, and you are probably
<br />the wrong person to ask, because no one from the Council is here, but what prompted this? What
<br />was the reason that this was introduced? Was there a specific area or a reason that this was
<br />proposed?
<br />
<br />COTTLE: There was no reason given with the bills.
<br />
<br />3
<br />EXHIBIT C
<br />
<br />
|