Laserfiche WebLink
to my right have talked about how they€ve created Pamahoa Estates with CC&R€s and <br />voting on certain issues. It€s not just some huge subdivision. It€s a very small <br />subdivision with many concerned neighbors that live there. So I just don€t see any <br />justification for this piecemeal and, in my eyes, arbitrary and very short-term subdivision <br />of something that was just subdivided. <br />Another factor that goes in with the timing of everything, which is the timing of the <br />Packs€ request for these additional water meters, and the fact that they did specify on <br />their application that it was for rezoning, okay, and this camewhile the lots were being <br />sold, after the lots were being sold and, in my mind, this represents a possible intent to <br />defraud. Now, this, of course, would be appropriately handled by a judge, but I think it <br />bears mentioning here this morning. <br />Okay, let€s see. In my list, where am I. We do have statements in the CC&R€s and in the <br />salesagreementthatsaythatthePacksreservetherighttochangethezoningor,Ishould <br />say, ask for a change in zoning of some of these lots. I can€t argue with that. However, <br />we also have CC&R€s within this great compact community that ensure measures that <br />maintain the values of the lots within that community. And this rezoning goes against <br />that stated philosophy, by splitting up these lots from one-acre to half-acre flag lots with <br />very long driveways, with utility lines, more blocking of views and, as I stated before, <br />higher density than would otherwise have occurred. What is happening here is they <br />would be reducing the value of the existing lots that have just been built upon, just this <br />past year or starting late last year. <br />So I can see only one reason why Tom Pack would ask to have these lots rezoned, and <br />that is he realizes the obvious fact that he can get a lot more money selling eight lots than <br />he can selling four lots. And I have absolutely nothing against Tom making money, and I <br />certainly can€t have any objection to that, except when it€s at the expense of other people, <br />as it is in this case. <br />So, to sum things up, what€s going on here is we have an arbitrary and piecemeal <br />application for rezoning of a small compact neighborhood community, that has, is still in <br />the process of construction; and the only reason for it is profit at the expense of the <br />people who already live there. <br />So to look at it in the most fundamental sense, if you approve this rezoning application, <br />what you€ll be doing is simply this -- you€ll be taking money out of my pocket and you€ll <br />be putting it into Tom€s pocket, nothing more, nothing less. Thank you, that€s all I had to <br />say. <br />FUJIKAWA:Commissioners, you have any questions with the testifier? If not, <br />you have any questions with the Applicant€s representative? <br />YUEN:Could I make a comment, because the testifier said something <br />about the variance permit which was not correct and he may not understand the process <br />here. During the original subdivision, Mr. Pack requested a variance to allow a non- <br />12 <br /> <br />