2004-06-18 TSMITH - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

the County into accepting this road in limbo as a County right-of-way. This badgering was the ultimate result of an unrealized eventuality that another area zoning change applicant suggested would happen, but thats another story. As the copy suggests, the neighborhood thought that a one-time improvement with no further maintenance by the County would be an acceptable choice. This got the neighborhood an improvement that was supposed to allow fire truckaccess down the road, and a demand that the neighborhood absolve the County in writing of any responsibility. Needless to say this application would create a major impact on our self-maintained roadway and infrastructure, especially with the County refusing to be responsible for any maintenance. These facts could force us into a potentially serious conflict with the applicant regarding our electrical, water and road service with no help from the County. Its not a stretch to imagine that the applicant would be using the neighborhood-maintained road to develop his property, run waterlines, receive electrical service; and then after making a mess of our infrastructure eventually connect with (the gated private) Hualalai Vistas, leaving usholdingthebagwithnohelpfromtheCounty. Ihaveemphasizedeventuallypurposefully.Itishighlyunlikelythattheproposed Road Lot A, and this may be resolved already but Im going to read this paragraph anyway. Its highly unlikely that the proposed Road Lot A of this zoning change application would connect with the gated private Hualalai Vistas and very likely that the lot owners would end up using Government Road (Church of God Road) creating 7 more dissatisfied residents demanding to know how the County could allow such a situation to continue to deteriorate. The idea that this party could suggest interconnectivity with a gated private second party to allow a third party access to the highway sounds about as eventual as one can get. The neighborhoods experience shows that suggested eventualities ultimately turn into unlikelihoods that come back to the Commission looking like poor planning decisions. This neighborhood has been burned before by eventualities. At the meeting where the Hualalai Vistas application was considered and approved, the State Highway Division had not provided the Planning staff with any information regarding the status of the intersection the Vistas would be required to construct at the highway. If the applicant is implying that the lot owners will be accessing the State Highway via Hualalai Vistas, then it seems proper planning would require that the application should be deferred and contingent upon an agreement between the State Highways and Hualalai Vistas regarding that intersection being resolved. Question: Are the Commissioners aware of such an agreement? And I believe that the staff has suggested that theyre at least moving towards some sort of resolution. At present, the applicants map shows the Road Lot A to be tantalizingly close in alignment (This is the maps that the neighborhood has received from Mr. Smith) to be channelizing the, close in alignment to Hualalai Vistas road, but misaligned enough to thwart interconnectivity. The layout of the applicants subdivision lots would preclude moving his alignment, thereby requiring the eventuality of Hualalai Vistas moving their stndrd roads to accommodate this applicant. (A 1party,2partytobenefita3party eventuality). So by default the new lot owners could be required to access the lots via 12