HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0624.002 2010-2012 Page 1 of 1
P/Pc
Murashige, Laura 9j41 62_q GGUs J Y £1l_
ro41 ,T
From: Dan Warren [warren36502 @frontier.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 12:43 PM 2c12 r,;,„y 15 PIS 12. 55
To: counciltestimony @co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: Bill 209
To Who it may concern;
An appropriate comment in regards to Bill 209 for your consideration:
In a zoning request, the status of the applicant and their intent really has no bearing on the
issue and should not be a consideration. A zoning change is on the property not the
"person". Why is the intent of the applicant an issue? It's either an appropriate zoning
change, or an inappropriate zoning change. Who the applicant is should have absolutely no
impact since who owns or uses the property can change like any other property.
In evaluating the change of zoning, you're looking to see if the new zoning uses are
appropriate for that property in relationship to the overall zoning, the area, the other uses,
etc. But, what I smell is local opposition to a zoning change based more on protectionism of
an existing local business person who is know locally. I smell the reeking of anti competition
being wrapped up in a nice flowery packaged labeled "applicant honesty". The fundamental
foundation should be if the new uses fit; not about the owner. I would expect a concerns
like this would be raised by a person totally ignorant about zoning issues. However, if that
does not portray the person, the only likely scenario is the person raising these types of
concerns, thinks the people are stupid.
D. Warren
Mt. View
Comm. No. CO 24. 2
Ref. To: C•
Ref. Date A 16 201Z
5/15/2012