|
GALDONES:Knierim.
<br />MOOERS:Knierim. Thank you very much. Theres been a motion by
<br />Commissioner Fujikawa, seconded by Commissioner Springer, that Phil Knierims
<br />Change of Zone application (REZ 04-011) be given a favorable recommendation and be
<br />forwarded to the County Council. Discussion? Commissioner McCall?
<br />MCCALL:Im uncomfortable with the amendment to Condition F, basically
<br />giving them a right to have two parcels on one of the, on one of their subdivisions. My
<br />general feeling on this situation that were, in allowing these subdivisions, the
<br />subdivision of this property, we have been putting the restriction on saying youre only
<br />allowed one parcel on the, one dwelling, pardon me, one dwelling on each lot, and, you
<br />know, no CPRs, no Ag, no second, no Ag dwelling. My general feeling is that we should
<br />stick with that. The fact that this person has put two dwellings on this property, Im
<br />prettysurehecouldifhechooses,hischoicesshouldbeeitherhecanremovethatone
<br />dwelling, move it to another lot, or reconstitute his subdivision to, if possible, to allow
<br />this.
<br />But Im not comfortable with the situation as it is now. Cause what were doing, to me,
<br />were setting a precedent saying, okay, if you put, you know, its okay. And the fact is
<br />when this is split up into three-acre parcel, the guy next door to me who has two lots will
<br />say why cant I put two dwellings, why cant I, and -. I think were just, you know, next
<br />thing you know were going to be Ag-1 acre, Family Ag 1-acre there. And, generally, I
<br />think we need to kind of draw the line somewhere. And I think that were giving this guy
<br />enough by allowing him to split it up into three-acre parcels. If he has to tear down the
<br />dwelling or, you know, convert it back to a garage so be it.
<br />GALDONES:Mr. Mooers?
<br />MOOERS:Yeah, Id like to respond. I appreciate the Commissioners
<br />concerns. This, however, could not happen again. And the reason is, is that you cannot
<br />get an ohana permit in an agricultural district. Secondly, since the Council and the
<br />Department, the Countys position has been to, that this area is an important forest area, I
<br />think it would be very difficult to come in and ask for a second dwelling, the second farm
<br />dwelling on the lot, saying that we need an extra dwelling to grow forests. So I think this
<br />is a unique situation. All right? So I dont think that if its approved as is, that it would
<br />perpetuate further situations like this.
<br />We did look at the situation of the location of these to see if we could configure the lot so
<br />that they could each be on a separate lot; and given the lot setbacks and the layouts, that
<br />couldnt be done. So, really, what theyd end up having to do is just, right, is they would
<br />have to basically tear down this house; and my personal belief is that that would be an
<br />unreasonable thing to do. I share your concerns about precedent; and I hope I addressed
<br />the fact that this doesnt set a precedent. But Id be happy to work with the Department
<br />to see if there is some way we could lay out the lots differently, but I dont think, given
<br />the setback rules and the lot configuration and the Public Works desire not to have
<br />5
<br />
<br />
|