My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2004-12-02 THOAWE
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2004
>
2004-12-02 THOAWE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2011 4:00:20 PM
Creation date
6/14/2011 4:00:18 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
to my right have talked about how theyve created Pamahoa Estates with CC&Rs and <br />voting on certain issues. Its not just some huge subdivision. Its a very small <br />subdivision with many concerned neighbors that live there. So I just dont 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, lets see. In my list, where am I. We do have statements in the CC&Rs and in the <br />salesagreementthatsaythatthePacksreservetherighttochangethezoningor,Ishould <br />say, ask for a change in zoning of some of these lots. I cant argue with that. However, <br />we also have CC&Rs 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 cant have any objection to that, except when its at the expense of other people, <br />as it is in this case. <br />So, to sum things up, whats 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 youll be doing is simply this -- youll be taking money out of my pocket and youll <br />be putting it into Toms pocket, nothing more, nothing less. Thank you, thats 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 Applicants 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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.