IPFNA_Final_Sept_06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Table 9 OWNERSHIP OF VACANT RESIDENTIAL LOTS Ownership# of LotsPercent Big Island-Single Owner9,12314.20% Big Island-Multiple Owners1750.30% Mixed Big Island/Oth er Owners10,74716.70% No Big Island Owners44,17568.80% Total Vacant Residential Lots64,220100.00% Source: HawaiÓi County Real Property Tax Administrator, January 7, 2006 (data base excludes lots that are (1 ) over 20 acres, (2) already improved with $10,000 or more worth of yard or outbuilding improvements, or (3) commercial, industrial or resort hotel tax classifications or zo roadway, governmental and utility parcels. One option that was considered for this study was to allow any existing lot of record to be developed with one dwelling unit without paying an impact fee. Any additional dwelling units or any nonresidential development on the lot would be required to pay an impact fee. This approach has the appearance of even-handednessÏafter all, every existing lot is gi ven the same development right. However, exempting one dwelling unit amounts to a 100 percent exemption for an existing single-family lot, but a negligible exemption for a 500-acre parcel that will be subdivi ded and developed with 2,000 single-family homes. There are several alternatives for dealing with the la rge number of existing lots. Five options are outlined below. Option 1: Fee Waiver for First Dwelling. Allow any existing lot of r ecord to be developed with one dwelling unit without paying an impact fee. Any additional dwel development on the lot would be required to pay an im pact fee. A concern here is that if the amount of development not paying the fee is large, the impa ct fees will not be sufficien t to provide the level of service that the fees are intended to provide. Option 2: County Grant for First Dwelling. Instead of waiving fees for the first dwelling unit on existing lots of record, an alternative would be fo r the County to use other funding sources to pay the impact fees for a principle single-family dwelling unit on existing lots. This approach ensures that the funding in the impact fee account is sufficient to ma intain the level of service on which the impact fees are based. The County would not need to pay fees for existing lots for which fair share contributions had been paid, since the credit for such payments would likely o Option 3: Transition Exem ption for First Dwelling. An alternative to a permanent waiver of fees for the first dwelling unit is to make it a temporary transition provision. For example, the State impact fee enabling act in Texas allows owners of lots th at were subdivided prior to the impact fee ordinance to pull a building permit within one year following adoption of to pay the fee. A longer time period than one year could be considered, but it should probably exceed five years. The transition exemption could be a blanket one that applies to all building permits for all existing lots, or a more limited one such as the one-uni Option 4: Exclude Selected Areas. A fourth alternative would be to exclude the area where most of the existing lots are located (i.e., Puna and KaÓu Districts) from the impact fee system. Exclusion means H Ó C \I N A ÐI F S September 19, 2006, Page 16 AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT MPACT EE TUDY