|
I had something else. That part of the road is dangerous; and this is a liability to the
<br />taxpayers of this County, that you guys should be aware of that. And who do I hold
<br />accountable when something happens over there and somebody sues
<br />theyÓve allowed this road? And what are the conditions, Mr. Planning Director, what are
<br />the conditions that apply when you make one, actually you give a road a name and you
<br />make it come into -? ÒCause I donÓt think that was even a legal road at any time before it
<br />got a name and that front section got paved, you know. I mean, are there conditions that
<br />must be met for roads coming into meeting a County road? Private roads, do they have to
<br />be safe and all that? I know C. Brewer, all they did was just pave it. They would have,
<br />left it exactly like it was. ThereÓs a bridge on one side, you know, thereÓs poor visibility;
<br />and, if youÓre going to, just a regular pickup truck, you have to make a wide turn.
<br />ThereÓs no way you can turn going, coming to Hilo off of that road and not enter into the
<br />other lane. IÓve never been able to do it, you know. So weÓve got all kinds of problems
<br />with this silly road. I canÓt believe that you guys, you know, that the Planning
<br />Department has approved that.
<br />And then the other question is the matter of these lots. Mr. Director, you said that, you
<br />know, there seems to be some questions. C. Brewer applied for a 25-lot subdivision from
<br />a single-lot subdivision. I see this application for only a change to, itÓs just an
<br />amendment to the original application. It was only one lot and youÓre increasing the
<br />density every time, whether C. Brewer developed it or not. The original lot size is one
<br />lot, not four lots or not 25 lots. TheyÓre not making less. ItÓs still more than what it
<br />originally was. So all theyÓre doing is amending C. BrewerÓs application. I donÓt see
<br />how the density is lowered at all. ItÓs still increasing the density of that area. ThatÓs all I
<br />have to say. Thank you. Any questions?
<br />GALDONES:Thank you. Any question of Mr. Anthony? Okay. Mr. Fu
<br />FUKE:Well, I think that thereÓs a couple of things. One is that I would
<br />tend to agree with the Planning Director. Essentially, IÓve always been a firm believer
<br />that Ðthe punishment has to fit the crime.Ñ And in the situation with the original or the
<br />existing zoning, you know, you did have rather extensive infrastructure requirements.
<br />TheyÓre proposing to do something less. And we believe that the conditions, as
<br />suggested by the Director and as further amended as what we had suggested, would
<br />probably be appropriate punishment.
<br />Secondly, I do respect, you know, the need to make some improvements, you know, to
<br />that area. I donÓt know what the cost is. I know that the Chair has said that, you know,
<br />you need to mull this over, which is fine from the ApplicantÓs standpoint. I think that if
<br />youÓre going to mull it over, what you may want to do is actually drive down to that area,
<br />you know, and have this thing continued to your January meeting, but maybe do a field
<br />trip if you want to, you know, just to get your own satisfaction. And, in the meantime,
<br />maybe the, over the next six weeks maybe the Applicant can make
<br />they want to proceed with the lower density or just go ahead with the original plan.
<br />25
<br />
<br />
|