Laserfiche WebLink
tCu? Jfl~~ 18 P~1 12 50 <br /> <br /> Hilo, January 12, 2007 <br /> C;, <br /> Deaz councilmember: <br /> My name is Louis J. "Fred" Deetman, and l testified last Thursday, January 4, 2007 opposing bill <br /> 345. Because of time constraints I could not bring all my objections to your attention and want to <br /> continue in this letter to you. <br /> 1. As I testified, this matter is purely a zoning matter, there is already a zoning appropriate for <br /> homes considered rooming or boazding houses in the CN zoning- neighborhood commercial, <br /> CG zoning- general commercial plus personal service uses, hospitals and sanitariums, or CV <br /> zoning- village commercial for rooming or boazding houses or residential uses in connection <br /> with operation of permitted uses. (a copy of the Hawaii county zoning chart is enclosed for <br /> your information) <br /> 2. When 8 clients plus 5 more in an ohana house plus at least 2 counselors or attendants, a cook <br /> and manager for a total of at least 17 persons are on a property it will create more than a <br /> residential family unit. In the case of a care home there may be up to 20 persons (patients <br /> and cazetakers). This resembles a small hospital and with the additional vans, trucks and cars <br /> which will exit and enter the property this will negatively affect the neighborhood. <br /> 3. These operations have often budgets of close to 'h million dollars a year and should be <br /> considered commercial or semi-commercial enterprises and fall in the above mentioned CN, <br /> CG or CV zoning, all commercial designations because of their size. <br /> 4. If these enterprises aze allowed an 8 plus 5 (I heazd of a compromise plan of 5 persons in the <br /> ohana unit) all bed and breakfast operations will also be able to increase their occupants to <br /> this level, or petition to do this, raising another problem. People that have an office at home <br /> will demand that their occupancy should increase and anyone who has now a constraint in a <br /> residential area will ask for increased usage! A multitude of problems will arise just because <br /> of allowing this change! <br /> 5. Once this bill is allowed to proceed there is no turning back, development cannot be <br /> reversed and these pockets of commerciaUsemi-commercial enterprises will be <br /> grandfathered forever, making the general plan for the county a farce and messy. <br /> 6. The need and usefulness of the rehab homes and Gaze homes aze not in doubt, they are <br /> needed and more patient/clients should be serviced, now and in the future, but nobody <br /> testifying in favor could give an estimate of how many more persons are on the waiting list. <br /> If there are 100 waiting it would mean 20 units are needed under the current law. At 8 plus 5 <br /> there would be 16 units needed (8x8 +8x5=104) This difference of 41ess units hazdly <br /> justifies the passage of this bill with all the hardships, uncertainties and associated problems, <br /> which you as council member will create and have to deal with in the neaz future. <br /> 7. I understand that the planning department introduced this idea of increase of family <br /> members allowed in the RS zoning. When one applies for a special or use permit this same <br /> planning deparUnent so eloquently uses the phrase that "desired uses should not materially <br /> be detrimental to the public welfaze nor cause substantial adverse impact to the community's <br /> chazacter or sunounding properties" and" the use permit process provides an avenue to <br /> analyze projects on case-by-case bases", and here they propose an ordinance to the con ~ <br /> Comm. No. <br /> Ref. To:PrNWN0 <br /> Ref. Uote 1 9 9(1n7 <br /> <br />