COM 0064.000 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

to my right have talked about how they've created Pamahoa Estates with CC&R's and voting on certain issues. It's not just some huge subdivision. It's a very small subdivision with many concerned neighbors that live there. So I just don't see any justification for this piecemeal and, in my eyes, azbitrary and very short-term subdivision of something that was just subdivided. Another factor that goes in with the timing of everything, which is the timing of the Packs' request for these additional water meters, and the fact that they did specify on their application that it was for rezoning, okay, and this came while the lots were being sold, after the lots were being sold and, in my mind, this represents a possible intent to defraud. Now, this, of course, would be appropriately handled by a judge, but I think it bears mentioning here this morning. Okay, let's see. In my list, where am I. We do have statements in the CC&R's and in the sales agreement that say that the Packs reserve the right to change the zoning or, I should say, ask for a change in zoning of some of these lots. I can't argue with that. However, we also have CC&R's within this great compact community that ensure measures that maintain the values of the lots within that community. And this rezoning goes against that stated philosophy, by splitting up these lots from one-acre to half-acre flag lots with very long driveways, with utility lines, more blocking of views and, as I stated before, higher density than would otherwise have occurred. What is happening here is they would be reducing the value of the existing lots that have just been built upon, just this past year or starting late last year. So I can see only one reason why Tom Pack would ask to have these lots rezoned, and that is he realizes the obvious fact that he can get a lot more money selling eight lots than he can selling four lots. And I have absolutely nothing against Tom making money, and certainly can't have any objection to that, except when it's at the expense of other people, as it is in this case. So, to sum things up, what's going on here is we have an arbitrary and piecemeal application for rezoning of a small compact neighborhood community, that has, is still in the process of construction; and the only reason for it is profit at the expense of the people who already live there. So to look at it in the most fundamental sense, if you approve this rezoning application, what you'll be doing is simply this you'll be taking money out of my pocket and you'll be putting it into Tom's pocket, nothing more, nothing less. Thank you, that's all I had to say. FUJIKAWA: Commissioners, you have any questions with the testifier? [f not, you have any questions with the Applicant's representative? 1'iJEN: Could I make a comment, because the testifier said something about the variance permit which was not correct and he may not understand the process here. During the original subdivision, Mr. Pack requested a variance to allow anon- 12