Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 of 1 <br /> P/Pc <br /> Murashige, Laura 9j41 62_q GGUs J Y £1l_ <br /> ro41 ,T <br /> From: Dan Warren [warren36502 @frontier.com] <br /> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 12:43 PM 2c12 r,;,„y 15 PIS 12. 55 <br /> To: counciltestimony @co.hawaii.hi.us <br /> Subject: Bill 209 <br /> To Who it may concern; <br /> An appropriate comment in regards to Bill 209 for your consideration: <br /> In a zoning request, the status of the applicant and their intent really has no bearing on the <br /> issue and should not be a consideration. A zoning change is on the property not the <br /> "person". Why is the intent of the applicant an issue? It's either an appropriate zoning <br /> change, or an inappropriate zoning change. Who the applicant is should have absolutely no <br /> impact since who owns or uses the property can change like any other property. <br /> In evaluating the change of zoning, you're looking to see if the new zoning uses are <br /> appropriate for that property in relationship to the overall zoning, the area, the other uses, <br /> etc. But, what I smell is local opposition to a zoning change based more on protectionism of <br /> an existing local business person who is know locally. I smell the reeking of anti competition <br /> being wrapped up in a nice flowery packaged labeled "applicant honesty". The fundamental <br /> foundation should be if the new uses fit; not about the owner. I would expect a concerns <br /> like this would be raised by a person totally ignorant about zoning issues. However, if that <br /> does not portray the person, the only likely scenario is the person raising these types of <br /> concerns, thinks the people are stupid. <br /> D. Warren <br /> Mt. View <br /> Comm. No. CO 24. 2 <br /> Ref. To: C• <br /> Ref. Date A 16 201Z <br /> 5/15/2012 <br />