My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006-02-03 TRaymond
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2006
>
2006-02-03 TRaymond
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 10:33:09 AM
Creation date
6/13/2011 10:32:57 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
WATANABE:This is similar to what we did with the Inaba parcels that were, what was <br />that, 5-acre lots that we said only one dwelling per lot? <br />SIRACUSA:But this is not addressing my concern about that the lot size might be <br />further reduced through rezoning. <br />ALAMEDA:Well, lets check with the maker of the recommendation. Director Yuen? <br />YUEN:For somebody to, if this rezoning went through and you create 3-acre lots <br />and in the future somebody wants to make 1-acre lots, it would need another rezoning. The only <br />example I can think of, and somebody can chime in if they can think of another one, the only <br />example I can think of where we put a restriction on future rezoning, we were actually only <br />transmitting or carrying on something in the Land Use Commission. Im thinking of the <br />Newton. Can you think of other examples? <br />DARROW:No. <br />YUEN:No. And the reason, I understand the desire to want to say thats it; but <br />rezoningisalegislativeprocessthatsdoneultimatelybytheCountyCouncil.EventheCounty <br />Council, the Charter says that the Council makes decisions by a majority vote. So you take any <br />ordinance thats passed, like a zoning ordinance, and -. The Council today should not pass <br />something that says that the Council in the future cant change it. Thats, we dont know what <br />the conditions are going to be in 20 or 30 years; and, I dont know, in 30 years everybody may <br />think that 1-acre lots with little farms is the best thing that could ever happen. So I, certainly, <br />you know, I understand the sentiment of wanting to lock up an area. But I am concerned and I, <br />without saying wed never do it, I wouldnt recommend a condition like that, nor do I think in, <br />nor do I think that you could really enforce it. Because if you put a condition like that in the <br />ordinance today, the Council can amend the ordinance by majority vote in the future and take <br />that out and say that you can rezone it, and now you can go ahead with your one-acre rezoning at <br />some point in the future. Thats something that we have to live with, that were making <br />decisions at one point in time and other people at another point in the time get to make decisions <br />as well. <br />ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Director. Commissioner Siracusa, you want to follow up <br />on that? <br />SIRACUSA:No. <br />ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Watanabe. <br />WATANABE:I tend to agree with Mr. Iwashita on several points, that, yes, eventually <br />this will amount to gentlemen farms and, yes, the family members, even without subdividing, <br />could share in the appreciation that has occurred over the years. But I also like the fact that I <br />think indirectly the motion is saying that in spite of that we dont want the housing, affordable <br />housing requirements to be diluted. And where I differ from Mr. Iwashita is, I dont have as <br />much of a problem with the spot zoning or whether it even is spot zoning. I understand its right, <br />currently 40 acres. But I dont see any real concerted effort for large farming and maybe three <br />20EXHIBIT A <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.