|
KUBOTA:Mr. Chair, not to belabor the point again, but, you know, this Condition
<br />E as it's written, as I said earlier, it seems a very, well, Mr. Tyler used the word draconian,
<br />but it seems extremely harsh or demanding; and, therefore, I questioned Mr. Yuen about the
<br />prevalence of these kinds of wording in conditions. Because I don't -, I may be wrong, I
<br />forget things very easily, but I don't remember our demanding improvements of this nature to
<br />be made by an Applicant requesting a small subdivision of land. And I know you gave me an
<br />answer to that, but I still feel very uncomfortable about it because I think it is a massive -.
<br />Although we say we're giving the Applicants a choice, I don't think he has much of a choice.
<br />YUEN:Yeah, I'd like to address that question. This is a common situation. We
<br />are dealing -, we have an infrastructure that was, in these homesteads areas and these areas
<br />where you have small fragmented ownerships that was really built, it wasn't very good even
<br />for the time that it was built and is way out of date today. You have an intersection that is
<br />very seriously substandard. You have an eight-foot paved lane. You don't even have a
<br />sufficient pavement for two cars to pass. You have a number of homes, a number of
<br />properties that are using that intersection. Now we have someone come in for a rezoning that
<br />would intensify their use of their land. It would increase the number of properties that would
<br />be able to -, if they took the access off of this intersection, they would be able to use that
<br />intersection. What do we make them do? My belief and my opinion is that we should make
<br />people have safe access when they rezone their property to a higher intensity use, that people
<br />should solve the site specific problems that come with their site if they want a rezoning. If it is
<br />infeasible for them to do that, if it doesn't pay off, then I think we should not make the
<br />problem worse by rezoning the property. We are looking here at, sure, two lots. But if we
<br />say, well, it's only two lots, then if you look at the map, there are a number of other
<br />properties, there are a number of three-acre properties further down, further makai from this
<br />that are presently zoned for three-acre lots. They could come in for one-acre rezoning. And if
<br />you've said yes to one, then you say yes to the next, and you say yes to the next, and pretty
<br />soon you have a lot of people coming out of a very, very substandard intersection. We back
<br />ourselves into this problem when we don't deal with it up front at the beginning.
<br />If we take, say, the Kaloko Mauka situation, I'm uncomfortable -, we have recommended
<br />approval of a couple of rezoning on Kaloko Mauka -.
<br />KUBOTA:Ah, we sure did.
<br />YUEN:With simply individual -, with payments, basically, rather than you need,
<br />your subdivision needs to fix the intersection. It was, it is difficult to recommend anything
<br />otherwise because people would come in with -, they have a 21-acre lot zoned for 20 acres.
<br />They want to rezone for three-acre lots, and then we're looking at a situation where the
<br />properties above them, to either side of them, and below them were rezoned to three-acre lots.
<br />So my take on that has been, okay, we're not going to stop now, and we're going to
<br />recommend a rezoning to three-acre lots and try to deal with that intersection through an
<br />accumulation of payments.
<br />20
<br />
<br />
|