|
In changing the boundary amendment it would permit the applicant to develop smaller lots; and
<br />it would provide for, hopefully, people who live in the area in Hilo who can afford to buy those
<br />lands to buy into it, and it would provide for the local people who live here. And on the other
<br />hand in the future if Mr. Branco decides to sell his 3-acre parcels and even before selling it he
<br />decides to subdivide it for him and his siblings, subdivide it, you know, they can sell it for a price
<br />much more higher than what acre parcels have been sold for. And from an economic standpoint
<br />it’s to his advantage that he will have this in his reserve that he can rely on to meet the expenses
<br />of the day in the future. And that’s why, you know, I speak against the motion. I think that the
<br />State Land Use Boundary application is appropriate in this case.
<br />WOODWARD: Commissioner Bowman.
<br />BOWMAN: Boy, I really sit on a fence here. Maybe there was a reason I was late.
<br />When I just was coming in I heard the recent, on the radio, about land prices and home sales; and
<br />home sales have decreased 50 percent from last year at this time, and condos I think 100 percent.
<br />And as Commissioner Domingo said, there are lots of people coming. Well, I question, you
<br />know, the influx of people with the economic state of the world and our country. So, with that
<br />being said, I don’t know how profitable this subdivision will be.But on the other hand if the
<br />owner is willing to put out the money and, you know, do this, that’s the other side of the coin.
<br />So I maybe want to hear from other Commissioners who favor this, maybe some others; and I
<br />hear Mr. Iwashita’s concern, and I have that concern too. So maybe a little bit more discussion
<br />will help me make that decision.
<br />WOODWARD: Commissioners? Commissioner Alameda?
<br />ALAMEDA: Sure. I think Mr. Branco’s testimony pretty much captured for me, you
<br />know, the idea that, yeah, it’s allowed, chickens, roosters, pigs. But he’s trying to prevent the
<br />inevitable, which is complaints from the neighbors, and what you’ve mentioned, Commissioner
<br />Bowman, the precedence that’s being set and has been set already. So when I asked the
<br />applicant’s representative why .5 acre and why not one acre, you know, the answer was, well,
<br />because previously we approved a .5 acre. And so you see how the precedence works from
<br />previous to now? And so I’m just a little bit concerned about, you know, kind of along the lines
<br />that Mr. Branco has mentioned that there might some precedent setting here. And it’s not just,
<br />you know, one neighbor. I mean it sounds like one neighbor but it’s one neighbor who owns
<br />basically five properties. So if there were more neighbors then you’d probably have more
<br />testimony. So, you know, I mean it just seems to me that the testimony that I’ve heard from
<br />Mr. Branco is sufficient, it’s valid, it convinced me that maybe this is not the right time for such
<br />a development, and it will be a big imposition, and it will change his quality of life as a farmer.
<br />So that’s why I’ll vote in favor of the motion.
<br />WOODWARD: Any other questions or comments? Commissioner Iwashita.
<br />IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just couple of points. One is the point of spot
<br />zoning raised by the Department of Transportation; and I know technically the definition, spot
<br />zoning is argued that, well, since the LUPAG is Low Density Urban that any change of zone is
<br />not really spot zoning. To me that begs the question. And if you look at the map clearly, you
<br />know, we’re going to, this whole idea of precedent and starting down the road to this
<br />development, that’s, I think, pretty much a given. The other point is that, you know, as far as
<br />18
<br />
<br />
|