Laserfiche WebLink
in this vicinity, the one that we made last month, and the traffic requirements. And I <br />understand from both Mr. Mooers and Mr. TylerÓs comments thereÓs <br />thatÓs ongoing with the owner of that intermediate parcel, so -. <br />GALDONES:Mr. Yuen? <br />YUEN:The conditions were to improve one or the other intersections -. I <br />donÓt remember the exact details but they were, it was going to be quite difficult for that <br />applicant to go ahead and do that under the conditions that we had. So their hope was to <br />piggy-back on the present rezoning and come out at this improved intersection that this <br />rezoning would accomplish. <br />GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? <br />SPRINGER:But thereÓs still a parcel of property that separates the two <br />applications? <br />GALDONES:ThatÓs right. ThatÓs the gentleman in Germany that Mr. Mooers <br />was referring to. <br />SPRINGER:Thank you. <br />GALDONES:Mr. Mooers? <br />MOOERS:Yes, IÓd like to respond to some of the comments from the <br />Commission and from the public. First, there were some referenc <br />agricultural nature of the land and not wanting to lose the agricultural potential of the <br />land. And IÓd simply point out that the Land Study Bureau classification for this land is <br />mostly E, which is very poor, and part of it is D, which is poor <br />I would call attention to page 2 of the Planning DepartmentÓs Recommendation, item 3, <br />which says and I quote: ÐThe conversion from three acre to one acre lots will not sacrifice <br />important agricultural resources. Almost all of the property is classified as ÐEÑ by the <br />Land Study Bureau, the lowest rating. (A very small portion in the southeast corner is <br />classified as ÐDÑ.) Rainfall is marginal. A primary objection to the rezoning of <br />agricultural land to smaller lot sizes is that it may fragment t <br />to be farmed commercially. This does not apply in this situation: neither the three acre <br />lots possible under present zoning nor the proposed one acre lots would appear to be <br />viable units for commercial farming in this area.Ñ <br />There was a representation made with some graphics regarding additional units being <br />created by lots, especially ohana units and mother-in-law quarters, etc. I would simply <br />remind the Commission that the County Council has been uniform in the application of a <br />condition that prevents any ohana, well, presently thereÓs no ohana in the ag district <br />anyway, but no second dwellings, no additional dwellings, in the new subdivisions that <br />they approved. <br />32 <br /> <br />