Laserfiche WebLink
house in Pamahoa Estates. I'm here to speak in opposition to the proposed rezoning of <br /> these four lots. 1 also represent a number of people whose names are on a list which has <br /> been submitted to you who are with me in this opposition. <br /> First thing I'd like to say is there really is no significant effect that subdividing these four <br /> lots will have on the housing situation in Kona. It's simply too small a number. The <br /> other thing is that these lots will not be inexpensive lots. Even though they're going to be <br /> cut to half the size of the current lots, they're still going to be very expensive. So it's not <br /> going to provide affordable housing, it's not going to provide an alternative to people <br /> who are looking for lots in Hawaiian Ocean View Estates, for instance, which came up <br /> earlier in one of the statements. So I think that the argument that this is alleviating the <br /> housing crisis in Kona is insignificant, I'll just put it that way. <br /> Another statement that was made earlier that I'd like to refute is that there will be no <br /> change in density by subdividing these lots, because there are ohanas that currently would <br /> automatically go up in these lots. Now, not everyone who buys a lot wants an ohana. I <br /> don't. I'd rather have a little space around me; and I don't want to have a renter next to <br /> <br /> my house. So with the original four one-acre lots, there may or may not be ohanas put in <br /> there. It would be up to the discretion of the lot owner. So with this subdivision, there <br /> very likely would be an increase in the density. <br /> If we look back in the records, the history of the zoning of this original area, it was very <br /> <br /> recently divided into the 15 one-acre lots. It was also very, very recently, provided with <br /> the variance permit to allow ohanas. All right? Originally, with the 15-acre subdivision, <br /> no ohanas were allowed; and it was according to this here, November 14, 2003, that the <br /> Packs asked for a variance to allow ohanas. So that's a very recent change, and very <br /> soon after the original zoning took place. <br /> If the Packs had not applied for these eight water meters, with the expressed intent <br /> according to Water Department records of subdividing, not providing for ohanas but <br /> subdividing, then there would not be eight water meters available for these lots. And if <br /> <br /> they had not received the variance last November to allow ohanas, then there certainly <br /> <br /> would be no ohanas on these lots. So I think the argument that this represents no increase <br /> in density is specious. <br /> We need to look at another issue here. Tom Pack told me that he used to work for the <br /> <br /> Planning Department (sic) here in the County. Then we have a professional planner <br /> sitting at this table, then we have a Planning Commission sitting before me. So we have <br /> a lot of experience, a lot of expertise in planning in this room. Why is it then that this <br /> subdivision which was originally put into place very recently, very recently subdivided <br /> into 15 one-acre lots, in such a short period of time, then why does it have to be rezoned? <br /> What was so faulty about the initial allowance, the initial subdivision, that it requires <br /> fixing at this early date, not only that but requires changing? At the same time, the <br /> subdivision is being built, people are moving in, people are putting up their houses, <br /> families live there, and now in the middle of all this we want to change the character of <br /> this neighborhood? And it is a neighborhood. We've talked about or the, the two people <br /> 11 <br /> <br />