|
<br />BEAUDET: Thank you. With no further discussions that I’m aware of, I’d like to ask the
<br />Commissioners for a motion to action.
<br />
<br />KANUHA: Mr. Chairman?
<br />
<br />BEAUDET: Go ahead.
<br />
<br />KANUHA: Before the Commission either goes into further discussion or, you know, for their
<br />consideration on this particular application, I want to make a couple of comments in regard to this
<br />application and just planning in general. On its face, you know, given the existing surrounding
<br />neighborhood that this application is in, it didn’t look like supporting this rezoning would, you
<br />know, be adverse relative to what the applicant is proposing to do. Nevertheless, though, our
<br />responsibility is to take a look at the impacts, land use-wise, to the larger area involved here. And
<br />basically the difficulty here is to reconcile past planning decisions, right, based on whatever
<br />information they had back then, to the current planning situation we are in; we compute into what
<br />we need to look at in terms of a long range viability and sustainability of the area, a whole lot of
<br />other factors, okay? So the information that was available or the thought process that was utilized
<br />when this area was rezoned, you know, way back in the 70’s, the only document back then for
<br />guidance actually was probably the General Plan, and the General Plan just got on board at that
<br />time. We fast forward to today, we have a number of other planning documents that we utilize as
<br />references when we come up with our decisions. And the recommendation we are making today is
<br />not specifically based on nonsupport of what the applicant is attempting to do; our recommendation
<br />is based on our responsibility to look forward in terms of, you know, potential land use, because
<br />we’ve seen, and I think those of you who have been involved in commissions like this in the past,
<br />that precedents always is there. And it’s tough to draw the line in terms of where, you know, where
<br />the line gets drawn because of a particular denial or particular recommendation of a specific
<br />application. Unfortunately, a lot of us don’t go any further, I guess, than looking at the colors on
<br />the zoning map, you know, and seeing whether or not there is consistency adjacent to that; whereas
<br />in the real life situation what we have to look at is, you know, traffic impacts, and in this case water
<br />may be, you know, a potential issue for other projects going forward. Again, nevertheless, we can
<br />provide as much information to potential applicants, surrounding properties in term of what they
<br />may or may not want to do. And when that application comes before us, that’s when we have, you
<br />know, other resources that we can make a decision on. So again, this is not a deal-breaking
<br />situation. What we are starting to see is that, not only in Kona but also on the east side of the island,
<br />is situations real similar to this, you know, fringe applications for down-zoning, which have about
<br />pushed the limits of infrastructure capability, primarily water, and that is basically why we are
<br />taking the position that we are taking on this.
<br />
<br />Again, it’s a recommendation to the Commission. Do realize you are not professional planners and
<br />that’s your role; your role is to bring to your decision-making the particular skills that you have
<br />being on the Commission, right, community people, retired folks, you know, different kinds of
<br />perspectives. So, you know, with that, that’s kind of what I’d like to leave you with. It’s not a
<br />professional versus a personal type of recommendation. We recognize your role and we recognize
<br />what you bring to your, to the decision when you make it. And again, what we are doing is giving
<br />you our recommendation based on our responsibilities to always be looking forward and to ensure
<br />16
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />
<br />
|