Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0675.558 2022-2024tit( 1�2i WHM.cl-1115, From: do Sent: Wednesday, September 18'2U248:36AM To: Council Testimony Cc: Inaba, Ho|eka;ViUegas, Rebecca; Lee Loy, Sue; Kanea|ii'Nainfelder, Matt; Kimball, Heather; k]erkiewicz,Aah\ey; Kagkwada\Jennifer; Go|imnba, Michelle K4.; Evans, Cynthia F.W. Smb�m�b Bill 1�1 D4 ^ _ -<— Aloha H8VV8i` i County Council, | had submitted testimony to Bill 121 D3 [8qUeGt ngyOUr CODSid8[8tiOn for poSSibhB @n08ndnO8n¢G. I ` - not inopposition toBit[ 121 in its entirety as I believe it is in the best interests of Hawaii County�nd most specifically West Hawaii. I've yet to see [}4 so can't determine if any of my suggestions were considered. In any event, | 8D1 submitting testimony tO Bill 121 D4 in hopes you entertain some consideration for i8ngU8ga that serves tO CiOSe loopholes which some are using now tO circumvent the intention Vfyour actions. Bottom Line: 1. Dnaft3couidumebatterdsfinitk/eianguegein[}efinitionoempeciaUvin"gothering,"notfixing reference for Noise, and not ctosing toophotes for numbers of bedrooms, renters, & guests and advertising. 2. Our neighborhood and many others are taking advantage Vfthe "hosted rental" ioophoietoavoid STVR or B&B guidetines in that our Planning Department has taken the position they do not reguiate"hooted rentats". They are turning residences into commerciat activities worthy of outside investment. Their efforts drive up the costs ofrentoiafor iocoi residents and workers and disrupt neighborhoods not zoned for these activities. | support the goat ofBi\i121and offer suggestions to close loopholes that serve to protect the residents of Hawai'i County. Any loop hote wil.l. be abused and argued as tegitimate use much to the dismay of intentions in Bitl. 121. Unless specifically stated iDlegislation, planning will always side with the abuser. 3. HRS 205 strictly limits uses of activities on Ag tand. The tanguage of this Legistation is to be upheld white State Land Use appeaLs the decision of Circuit Court Judge Wendy Dewees. Yet we who are affected bviiiegoiuses continue 1obgignored. 4. The Ptanning Department consistenty ignores subdivision Convenants, Conditions & Restrictions teaving the burden to object to neighbor violation to the Legat process. This does nothing more than pit neighbor to neighbor for viotation of tegat documents that run with the tand. The process shoutcl be setup to assist those who have trusted in reat property acquisition on Hawaii Island for their go\denyears. Points of Contact: Hawait'i HAR11- 4G Shawn Hammno Ref.Yo Indoor & Radiological HeobhBranoh'yJViae8eotnnGuperVioOr Havvmi'iState Department ofHealth |Ka'[)ihana[)hakino 99-945Hai@vvaValley Street, Aieg,H|887O1 ^ HRS 711'1101 LT Brandon Mansur, Acting Admin LT & Community Policing, 808-326-4646 ext 249; 808-327-9689 RECOMMENDATIONS for the Bilt 121: 1. NOISE: the reference to Hawai'i Administrative Rule Title 11, Chapter 46 is incorrec .Pieaae contact Mr. Haruno, Department of Health, and LT Manur, for additional information. Page 11,CHANGE Section 25-4-16,17(2)(G) FROM "Quiet Hours" TO: Unreasonable noise. The noise from the transient accommodation rental shalt not disturb adjacent neighbors. Violations of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) 711 -1101 shall be reported to the Hawai'i County police department. WH Atypical household may conduct 1-2 sizeable parties a year, however, many of these TARs conduct frequent events and/or gatherings. There is a BIG difference between Condos on AM Drive and Residential and Agriculture zoned properties. Our neighbor conducts utleast one/month and he will keep pushing the limits until he is fined! These events are routine and complaints toplanning have not yielded any relief. 2. The Draft 3 definition would be better worded: "'Gathering' means an assembly that is consistent with activities of residential areas informal in nature and with limited scale including but not limited to o picnic, family dinner, birthday celebration, fitness activities, and educational instruction."' CHANGE DEFINITION OF GATHERING: "'Gathering' means an informal congregation typical ofresidential areas such as picnic, family dinner, or small birthday party, where attendees stay within the parking area accompanying a transient accommodation nantaL" "'Gathering' means an assembly that is consistent with activities of residential areas informal in nature and with limited ooubo including but not limited to a picnic, family dinner, orsmall birthday W��_Y:adding fitness activities and educational instruction will encourage the current bad behavior of fitness/educationat/culturat activities such as luaus, fire knife performances, aerobics, and other events that are NOT normal activities Ofresidential areas especially ifthere ia NOlimit Vnthe number ofbedrooms, rental limits, and/or guests. |frenters and their guests are inside receiving a massage, acupuncture, lei -making, or origami class, the neighbors will have NO idea Ofthe activity, instruction, event, and/or gathering. However, dthere are weekly ormonthly tuaus, fitness, cultural, and/or other educational instructions, there will be no end to renters and theirgueatuahouting"AAA\LC}[)OOHAAA"and"HenoHou|HonaHou|"inraaidentiaiend agricultural zoned areas mtany given hour ofthe day ornight ' CHANGE Section 25-4-16.17(2)(C)TO: The maximum gathering size shall not exceed double the overall renter limit, not to exceed 24, and shalt only use off-street parking or legal on -street parking. WHY. Again, there iambig difference when olocal family conducts 1-2parties myear versus TAR renters and/or guests conducting one Gathering per rental period especially in residential and agricultural -zoned areas. 3. EVEN add "retreat" to the list of "events" which is also beyond the scope of typical residential There is an enormous difference between someone renting out an Ohana-type dwelling versus oninvestor renting out amansion. ADD TO Section 25-4-16.17(2)(A) AND other Sections as applicable: The maximum number Of bedrooms for a transient accommodation rental is five (5). NO exceptions or different authorizations by the Planning Director. WHY: the definition ofeTAR was deleted inBill 121Draft 2. Having 12people ataTAR iaenough REGARDLESS ofany additional space. |tiahighly unlikely local residents who are renting out an Ohanamrother building toassist with living expenses wilt have aTAR with over five bedrooms. An investor will use this loophole to maximize the number of renters. Please add this five (5) bedroom limit to all applicable Sections. R����LKJMI[ Again, an enormous difference between an additional dwelling unit, B&B, Ohana, and aG'ODO-1O'OOOofmansion. CHANGE Section 25-4-16.17 (2)(B) Rental Limit. The mtUdnu-narenter limit, calculated ottwo more than twice the number of bedrooms for rent of the TAR not to exceed 12 adults in five bedrooms. NOmodifications due tounique properties urcircumstances; NO. exceptions or different authorizations bvthe Planning Director. IAW Again, if the CoH Planning Department is allowed to be convinced there are "flex" rooms which can serve as bedrooms there is no limit to an investor's creativity. For example, ifthere are 15 bedrooms then there could be 32 registered renters, which in the County of Havvai'i is unreasonable especially inresidential and agricultural zones. ADD tmSection 25-4-16.17 (2)(C):Ali adults attending the shall beregistered with the owner orhost and shall comply with the terms ofuse ofthe property. NOTE: given there wilt benmmore than 24 adults ota ,thianmquirennentianot burdensome. K5Bedrooms x2adults) +2additional adults] x2=24adults WHY. For insurance purposes, a legal TAR would need documentation for liability purposes so adding this requirement would not be burdensome. Clarify Section 25-4-16.17(3)/0daakhas aHUGE Loophole. The paragraph states "Advertising or promoting a TAR as a venue for weddings, wedding receptions, concerts, or events, and providing any professional services TOANYONE OTHER THAN REGISTERED GUESTS of a TAR is prohibited unless allowed byspecial permit nruse permit." I interpret if the REGISTERED GUESTS have a professional service then the event is a-11Q—wed. BIG LOOPHOLE especially given the B|LL121 Draft 3definition ofGathering. Folks have argued that massage, health class, fitness classes, cultural activities, educational activities will be ALLOWED." DELETE "TO ANYONE OTHER THAN REGISTERED GUESTS ufaTAR." If for some reason this phrase is not deleted: ADD "retreat"tnthe list. CHANGE "guaata"to"rentara° The modified Section 25-4-16.17(3)(0) would state: "Advertising orpromoting aTAR aaavenue for weddings, wedding receptions, concerto, retreat, or events, and providing any professional aen/ic8S is prohibited unless allowed bvspecial permit oruse permit." NOTE: Please ensure the Planning Department understands there are NO Professional services unless for the 12 Registered Renters (2 x 5 Bedrooms plus 2 = 12 adults) 5. PMASiEUT (]penatophoatedandun-hoetadTARein agriculture or resLdential zoned areas. TARs in agriculture or residential zones and not investors or groups ofinvestors 6. CC&Rs Requireourpienningdeportnonttoqugatonunypernnitragordingthepneaenoeof CC&R's and if the permit application is consistent with those provisions. |fnot, they are todeny the permit application. WHY: Our residents invested a great deal oftime and money toensure certain protections of their property through these legal provisions that run with the Land; this is particularly true to those who chose Hawaii for their retirement years. To ignore them is a violation of due process and adenial ofthose protections. Steve KovxenaLopez KGi(VuKune From: slopez808 Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 4:31 PM To: Council Testimony Cc: Inaba, Holeka; Villegas, Rebecca; Lee Loy, Sue; Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; Kimball, Heather; Kierkiewicz, Ashley; Kagiwada, Jennifer; Galimba, Michelle M.; Evans, Cynthia F.W. Subject: Bill 121 D4 - OPPOSED Aloha Hawai' i County Council, In the state this legislation is currently written, I must oppose. The bill does not reference the provisions of Hawaii County Code Chapter 25 known as the Zoning Code. In particular I direct your attention to item 2 of the codified legislation. This is nowhere to be found in Bill 121. So we don't mince words, TAR definition of short term is less than 6 months, ergo "short term vacation rental". Section 25-4-16. Short-term vacation rentals. 1. (a) Short-term vacation rentals; where permitted, specific prohibitions. 1. (1) Short-term vacation rentals shall be permitted in the: 1. (A) V, CG, and CV districts; 2. (B) Residential and commercial zoning districts, situated in the General Plan Resort and Resort Node areas; and 1. (C) RM district, for multiple family dwellings within a condominium property regime as defined and governed by chapters 514A or 514B, Hawai'i Revised Statutes. 1. (2 In following the Zoning Code, you are bound to require our planning department to question any permit regarding the presence of CC&R's and if the permit application is consistent with those provisions. If not, they are to deny the permit application per this ordinance. Our residents invested a great deal of time and money to ensure certain protections of their property through these legal provisions that run with the land; this is particularly true to those who chose Hawaii for their retirement years and/or those who invested to protect their real property. To ignore them is a violation of Hawaii County Code, due process and a denial of those protections. Mahalo for your strict attention to this provision in our governing code. Steve Kawena Lopez Kailua Kona From: do Sent: Wednesday, September 25,20245:0OPM To: Council Testimony Cc: Inaba, Ho|eka;ViUegas,Rebecca; Lee Loy, Sue;Kanea|ii'0einfe|der, Matt; Kimball, Heather; K]erkiewicz,Ash|ey; Kagkmada,Jennifer; Ga|imba, Michelle K4.; Evans, Cynthia F.W. Subject: 8i||121 D4 OPPOSED Aloha H@Vvoi`iCounty COUnCi[ In the state this legislation is currently written, I must oppose. The bitt speaks in many instances about TAR on AG tands. As you are wett aware, come time ago the State Land Use Commission appealed the ruting of Judge Wendy DeWeese to contest her decision regarding proper uses on AG zoned land. This went to the Hawaii Supreme Court who has overturned that decision and held that the provisions of HRS § 205-4.5 are correct that short term vacation rentats (TAR tess than 6 months) are not permitted in AG zoned\ond. I insert the Supreme Court decision here and request you conduct a fu1L review of BiLl 121 and its intentions regarding AG zoned land and further require the PLanning Department to abide by this ruLing and any effect it has taken that is contradictory to this Supreme Court decision. Its effect goes back to the original date the oppea[was fibyd. Mahato for your strict attention to this tatest development in proper uses of AG zoned tand. Steve KovvenaLopez K@iiU8KOO@ Supreme Count of Hawaii Opinions Rosehill v.State Docket: SCAP-22-0000371 Opinion Date: September 24`2O24 Judge: RECKTENVVAILD Areas of Law: Government &Administrative Lavv, Real Eetoba & Property Lmvv, Zoning, Planning @Land Use The case involves @ dispute over the use Offarm dwellings iOthe County of Hawai'i passed an ordinance banning short-term vacation rentals on lots built after 1976 in the agricultural district. The Rosehill Petitioners, who own lots created after 1976, sought nonconforming use certificates to use their farm dwellings as short-term vacation rentals, which the County denied. The Petitioners appealed the denial to the County Board of Appeals, and both parties agreed to stay the appeal and seek a declaratory order from the Land Use Commission (LUC). The LUC ruled that farm dwellings could not be used as short-term vacation rentals, finding that such use was incompatible with the agricultural district's purpose. The LUC also found the Rosehill Petitioners' request speculative and hypothetical. The Petitioners appealed to the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, which reversed the LUC's decision, holding that farm dwellings and short-term vacation rentals were not incompatible and that the LUC had abused its discretion. The LUC appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), arguing that the circuit court erred in its findings and that the LUC's interpretation of HIRS § 205-4.5 was correct. While the case was pending, the Hawai'i Supreme Court issued a decision in In re Kanahele, which clarified that appeals from LUC declaratory orders should be made directly to the Supreme Court. The Rosehill Petitioners then applied for transfer to the Supreme Court, which was granted. The Supreme Court of Hawai'i held that the case could be transferred nunc pro tunc to the date the appeal was initially filed in the circuit court. The Court reviewed the entire record, including the circuit court and ICA proceedings, but gave no weight to the circuit court's findings. The Court affirmed the LUC's decision, holding that farm dwellings in the agricultural district could not be used as short-term vacation rentals, as such use would undermine the purpose of the agricultural district. The Court vacated the circuit court's judgment and affirmed the LUC's declaratory order.