02-28-2014, 04:09 AM
Just an aside, I grew up on & have bought narrow AG lots on the mainland, all subdivided in the 1920's - 50's... this was a VERY common practice, and none of them were further subdivided, even though all of these were in the collar counties surrounding Chicago & "prime" development acreage...
Why were they not re-subdivided? because many different landowners had bought parcels, the land usage was already zoned 1-5acre-AG. and housing was established on these individual lots...
This is all very similar to the Puna lots, which are 1-20 ac AG. As to what the intent of the larger land owners at the subdivision...most likely to get as many parcels for the zoning at the least cost to subdivide.... In Puna, if they were going for further subdivision & it was ECONOMICALLY practical, I kinda think those landowners would have done it (these were large land owners, some of whom STILL ARE large landowners...) I really doubt they lacked the resources to subdivide as MOP has suggested...IF IT WAS ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL...
In order to upgrade to a residential zoning as suggested, there is (has been for longer than I have been alive) a very large "entry fee" of roads, utilities, and other amenities that make that rezoning less desirable and rarely done on small scales of a few acres (Images, as MOP has suggested that you have 2 (or 4) adjacent lots in outer HA. To meet the rezoning requirements, you would not only need to pay for the road, but also the SPSS for the lots - ALL of the rezoned lots! and then you would have a mini subdivision...in the middle of outer HA, still having to rely on the roads & such that are controlled by a homeowners group ... ) ....even in a very economically advantageous market it comes at a very HUGE price (Oahu has some of these small parcel AG re-zonings), one I doubt anyone in the 1920-50s, or even 2014 would expect would be advisable in Puna (or even around Chicago in todays market...)
Why were they not re-subdivided? because many different landowners had bought parcels, the land usage was already zoned 1-5acre-AG. and housing was established on these individual lots...
This is all very similar to the Puna lots, which are 1-20 ac AG. As to what the intent of the larger land owners at the subdivision...most likely to get as many parcels for the zoning at the least cost to subdivide.... In Puna, if they were going for further subdivision & it was ECONOMICALLY practical, I kinda think those landowners would have done it (these were large land owners, some of whom STILL ARE large landowners...) I really doubt they lacked the resources to subdivide as MOP has suggested...IF IT WAS ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL...
In order to upgrade to a residential zoning as suggested, there is (has been for longer than I have been alive) a very large "entry fee" of roads, utilities, and other amenities that make that rezoning less desirable and rarely done on small scales of a few acres (Images, as MOP has suggested that you have 2 (or 4) adjacent lots in outer HA. To meet the rezoning requirements, you would not only need to pay for the road, but also the SPSS for the lots - ALL of the rezoned lots! and then you would have a mini subdivision...in the middle of outer HA, still having to rely on the roads & such that are controlled by a homeowners group ... ) ....even in a very economically advantageous market it comes at a very HUGE price (Oahu has some of these small parcel AG re-zonings), one I doubt anyone in the 1920-50s, or even 2014 would expect would be advisable in Puna (or even around Chicago in todays market...)