HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0019.055 2002-2004 17 Jan 2003
RE: Lumber warehouses in Volcano (Change of Zone Application
REZ 02-011 Maurice Thomas, RS-20 to CV-20)
Dear Council Members,
Please read my enclosed letter to Planning Director Chris
Yuen. I feel there has been an improper recommendation to allow
warehousing in CV zoning.
To many residents in Volcano, this is an urgent and pivotal
matter -the precedent of allowing industrial uses in CV zoning will
shape the future of Volcano.
If you agree with the points in the enclosed letter, please have a
talk with Mr. Yuen before you vote on this issue on 23 January.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
~
Jillian Marohnic
POBox 611
Volcano, HI 96785
985-8959
iillian volcanovillage.net
1 enclosure (letter to Chris Yuen)
cow. iva. •
File No.
fief. Ta h
xer. f~>;e.IAN 2 3 2003
15 January 2003
Dear Chris Yuen,
I am writing in regard to your recommendation to allow lumber warehouses in Volcano, in a
proposed CV district (Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-011), Maurice Thomas, RS-20 to
CV-20).
I will just restate some known facts, as pertain to the Hawaii County Code:
- "Warehousing" is a defined usage category.
- "Warehousing" appears as a permitted use in the industrial zones MCX, ML, and MZ.
- "Warehousing° category is excuded from the CV zone list of permitted uses.
- The CV zone definition InGudes the Clause: "Buildings and uses similar to the permitted uses listed
above shall be permitted in the CV district, as approved by the director."
Your recommendation to allow warehouses in CV is based on application of the Gause
above, which I will refer to as the "similar" Gause. You started out with the excuded category
"warehousing", found a similarity to a permitted category, and allowed it. The problem is that
you started with an excluded category - it is already not allowed.
A reasonable usage of the "similar" clause would be to consider "video rentals". "Video
rentals" do not have a category of their own, so it would be reasonable to compare this usage to
"retailing", and then allow it in CV. Warehouses, on the other hand, are in the expliciHy
excluded category of "warehousing". Is it right to now start comparing them to other things to
see if they can be allowed?
What if someone came before the Planning Board with a CV paroel, and proposed a usage
that was similar to nothing except'yvarehousing"? Rereading the "similar" Gause above, would
you disallow it, pointing out that, "'Warehousing' isn't one of the permitted uses listed for CV, so
being similar to it doesn't get you in there"? Or would you say that, "'Warehousing' is actually
allowed in CV, even though it's not in the list, so the similar usage is also allowed"?
At some base level, any building and any usage can be construed as being similar to any
other. Using your proposed application of the "similar" Gause, any excuded category could be
allowed in CV zoning -rendering the existing definition of the CV zone meaningless. On the
other hand, if excluded categories remain excluded, the definition of CV remains meaningful
and intact.
I strongly object to your recommendation to allow'yvarehousing" in CV zoning. t feel it is in
violation of the Hawaii County Code, and I ask you to reconsider your decision and
communicate this to the Council before the second reading of Bill tit4 (Change of Zone
Application (REZ 02-011), Maurice Thomas, RS-20 to CV-20) on 23 January. It is important for
you to do this, because, despite valid arguments to the contrary, many of the Council members
have simply responded that, "If Mr. Yuen recommended approval, then it must be OK".
Sincerely,
Jillian Marohnic
PO Box 811
Volcano, HI 96785
985-8959
iillianCa)volcanovillage.vet
cc: Mayor Harty Kim, Hawaii County Councl