Laserfiche WebLink
house in Pamahoa Estates. I€m here to speak in opposition to the proposed rezoning of <br />these four lots. I also represent a number of people whose names are on a list which has <br />been submitted to you who are with me in this opposition. <br />First thing I€d like to say is there really is no significant effect that subdividing these four <br />lots will have on the housing situation in Kona. It€s simply too small a number. The <br />other thing is that these lots will not be inexpensive lots. Even though they€re going tobe <br />cut to half the size of the current lots, they€re still going to be very expensive. So it€s not <br />going to provide affordable housing, it€s not going to provide an alternative to people <br />who are looking for lots in Hawaiian Ocean View Estates, for instance, which came up <br />earlier in one of the statements. So I think that the argument that this is alleviating the <br />housing crisis in Kona is insignificant, I€ll just put it that way. <br />Another statement that was made earlier that I€d like to refute is that there will be no <br />changeindensitybysubdividingtheselots,becausethereareohanasthatcurrentlywould <br />automatically go up in these lots. Now, not everyone who buys a lot wants an ohana. I <br />don€t. I€d rather have a little space around me; and I don€t want to have a renter next to <br />my house. So with the original four one-acre lots, there may or may not be ohanas put in <br />there. It would be up to the discretion of the lot owner. So with this subdivision, there <br />very likely would be an increase in the density. <br />If we look back in the records, the history of the zoning of this original area, it was very <br />recently divided into the 15 one-acre lots. It was also very, very recently, provided with <br />the variance permit to allow ohanas. All right? Originally, with the 15-acre subdivision, <br />no ohanas were allowed; and it was according to this here, November 14, 2003, that the <br />Packs asked for a variance to allow ohanas. So that€s a very recent change, and very <br />soon after the original zoning took place. <br />If the Packs had not applied for these eight water meters, with the expressed intent <br />according to Water Department records of subdividing, not providing for ohanas but <br />subdividing, then there would not be eight water meters available for these lots. And if <br />they had not received the variance last November to allow ohanas, then there certainly <br />would be no ohanas on these lots. So I think the argument that this represents no increase <br />in density is specious. <br />We need to look at another issue here. Tom Pack told me that he used to work for the <br />Planning Department (sic) here in the County. Then we have a professional planner <br />sitting at this table, then we have a Planning Commission sitting before me. So we have <br />a lot of experience, a lot of expertise in planning in this room. Why is it then that this <br />subdivision which was originally put into place very recently, very recently subdivided <br />into 15 one-acre lots, in such a short period of time, then why does it have to be rezoned? <br />What was so faulty about the initial allowance, the initial subdivision, that it requires <br />fixing at this early date, not only that but requires changing? At the same time, the <br />subdivision is being built, people are moving in, people are putting up their houses, <br />families live there, and now in the middle of all this we want to change the character of <br />this neighborhood? And it is a neighborhood. We€ve talked about or the, the two people <br />11 <br /> <br />