|
VAN PERNIS: First of all, Parcels 42 and 43, that's surrounded in black, that's the A -5 and below
<br /> it the RS -10 in yellow. Those are both controlled by the same — (receiving a laser pointer from
<br /> staff), okay, thank you. That is Parcel 42. This is Parcel 43. Together they are approximately 30
<br /> acres. They are owned and controlled by the same entity, or same person, that person being
<br /> somebody from the mainland, of course — Lee Barrett, who is doing business under Brendan Lee,
<br /> LLC. So to comply with the State and County requirements, this should be, those two parcels
<br /> should be submitted as a single 30 -acre application. Parcel 42 is alleging that they can take access
<br /> through Parcel 43 and vice versa, so being developed jointly as one. They are seeking the same
<br /> zoning. On Parcel 43, A -5, they are seeking 10,000- square foot zoning. There are no 10,000 -
<br /> square foot lots anywhere in the vicinity or anywhere along Hualalai Road. Let me point out,
<br /> Hualalai Road is -. Look at all the road frontage they have. Just right here where the RS -20 is, The
<br /> Heights at Hualalai, with 16 lots they built a channelized intersection to Hualalai, and paid for it
<br /> with 16 lots. These 30 acres have 145 or more lots; they can certainly do a channelized intersection
<br /> to Hualalai as well. Now, there are no RS -10 lots anywhere along Hualalai Road, as I indicated,
<br /> and the adjoining property is RS -15 and RS -20, the closest lots. To approve RS -10 is to depreciate
<br /> those lots. And you have duty to the public, not to the developer, to make the areas compatible.
<br /> Other testifiers talked about spot zoning 10,000- square foot lots — that's what it is when you go
<br /> 10,000 up in A -5. The smaller lots are down in Pualani down below along Queen K where there is
<br /> a channelized intersection and there is a double -lane signalized, public parks, roads gutter,
<br /> sidewalks. This is a totally different development, and it's unfair, I think, dishonest to say that
<br /> Parcel 43 has nearby small lots and then refer to Pualani. It's up in the agricultural area. Now,
<br /> when Pualani and Hualalai was developed, it was required to have a through road from Kuakini and
<br /> a channelized intersection up at Hualalai. There is no reason why this development shouldn't have
<br /> the same thing. Although we all know, let's be honest, that this 60 -acre piece is submitted as a
<br /> separate development, would require compliance with various laws and regulations, State Land Use,
<br /> etc., and instead, they broke it down to less than 15 acres each, even deeded away some of A -5 to
<br /> make sure it's less than 15 acres, so they can come to you and avoid the State Land Use situation;
<br /> but we all know this is being developed as a single entity. They'll all be in interconnections.
<br /> Also, we should point out in regards to the roads that they are saying that they are going to use. See
<br /> the roads here, these roads up here, these are private roads. There has been no demonstration of any
<br /> right to use these private roads — I know they say I have two minutes left, but as I said, I'm trying to
<br /> cover both applications with one testimony — they don't have any rights to use those roads, and that
<br /> says they should not be granted any approval until they establish what those rights are. And the fact
<br /> that Parcel 43 is going to supposedly take access down through Parcel 42 into the adjoining
<br /> subdivision shows that they are being developed at least as one 30 -acre parcel. I don't think it's
<br /> correct for them to attach themselves to someone else's infrastructure without any contribution,
<br /> particularly when those, some of the infrastructure is private. They have not demonstrated rights to
<br /> it. Until they show you those demonstrated rights, I think they should be denied the application,
<br /> unless they are going to have access all the way up through Hualalai as recommended by the
<br /> Department of Public Works.
<br /> I think this entire situation should be rejected and the applicant reapply as a 30 -acre or 60 -acre
<br /> parcel. I think that the Department of Public Works' recommendations, if it's going to be, if there's
<br /> going to be any kind of a rule, it must be followed. And most importantly I think that Parcel 43
<br /> needs to be 20,000- square foot lots — too late for Parcel 42, which I'm mostly testifying about — but
<br /> Parcel 43 should be 20,000- square foot Lots, and should not depreciate the adjoining subdivisions,
<br /> 6
<br />
|