Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0704.027 1998-2000 JUN ~1 '88 1B~B4AM BAYS DEAVEP V~IATTil B08 5~~4164 P. 1.2C~ BAYS 16th Floor - Alii Place DEAV~R 1099 Alakea Stree; - Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 HIATT LUNG P.O. Box 1760 rl Honolulu, Hawais 86800 RASE ~ _ Telephones (608) 523-9000 ' ~aCSimile: (606} 5334184 i~ i FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL. DATE: June 1, 2000 BDF~iLR MATTER ID: 2214-001 TIME: 10:05 AM TO: The Honorable James Y_ Arakaki FAX NO.: 808 961-~~~~ ~ 2 Chair & Presiding Officer Hawaii County Council FROM: A 6ernard Bays, Esq. SENDING 20 PAGE: , (1NC~UDING TRANS~•'IITTAL) RE. The Villages of Aina Le'a REMARKS/DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT(S) TRANSMITTED: Letter dated June 1, 2000 from Mr. Says to Mr. Arakaki. Please disseminate attached memorandum to all council members !f you do rot receive all pages or if they are illegible, please call Edna at (808; 5'?3-9000. We are sending from an automatic facsimile machine which is available to receive on ~::?4-hour per day basis. Original/copy ? will be mailed to you. ® will not be mailed to you. COIVFI~ENTIALITY. The information contained m this fax message is intended only fi7r the personal and c^r, idential use of the designates Recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and, as such, i~ p~i~%ileged and confidential. I` t!,,. reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the interded recipient, the reader ~ hereby notified that you have received this document in error, and that any review, dissemination, distnt~uG ~n or copying of this messag:. is strictly prohibited. If you have rec®ived this communication in error, please notify us immediately t?y telephone and return the oricin~:'. message and all Copies to us by mail in s sealed envelope Thank ~+ou_fo~ Vour assistance. _ Comm. Na ~ 04'. oZ F`ile No. Z-NG~' Ref, Toa,~ ( CO~,jInCt Ref. Date X111 ~ ~ JUN E1 '©G 18~~4AM BAYS DEAVER F-MATT/1 ~©8 5SS41S4 P.c~cS~ ~1~~~~ l~;h P6 ur . p,'..~ P.a~b ~ -:-a~ I3~',5 ~,:alul~ E E: ~i~~i R luiy.U~J;eaSlree! ~',.Ii..~~L Deal^r B-uc_h ~~oa~ I~111~ L.LI Honc .l !ia!~~a~ ~~r313 _ C~a~l F~~:arJ) Co^, r~. ~ ! U0~ L:~iC C. liru+r. P.o 3c:1'uC ~ r. N,'~v_ f?:-~~:.(. P. 11rc-.;:,: ~II,aC...7, ~i $Y%fll. ~-II17{i;F 1::::3 tlN~°~ ~i Q'. ~I ~ L~, Iel ~~i lbj>S~-y!ii;~i _ ~ ~ 4n~Ta ~ i~ubF'h,tC C_i '.~n;c: t6~)ii) `Jj-3154 L:SS H~.rnnc~ ~n 7 Ii-:nn,. ir..alrG-alu.a_r.~l ~m~~~of Igo ~~I `i:~eb ~~,e a,~.vr„hlcc^~i~ ~ uu u utorne~5 a. h~~ J>.ine 1, zooo VIA FACSIMILE The Hon. James Y. Arakaki Chair & Presiding Officer Hawaii CountS~ Council 25 Aupuni Sueet Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Re: The Villages of Aina Le'a 17ear Chairperson Arakaki: I am attaching a memo in response to the recent submittal made Michael J. Matsukawa, Esq. We have made it as objective as possible. I hope you will fine. the information contained in the memo helpful. If you or any of the other Council Members have any questions or ~~~sh to discuss this, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, BAYS, DEAVER, WATT, LL?~i~= ROSE By: ~ 6' J- A. Bernard Bays Attorney at Law, A La« Co-poration Its General Partner AB13;glg Enclosure P_\Bridge-Aina Le'alletters146-01.40 J. Arakaki.doc Bt,' I~.iu~ Ofli:e. Su![e 3~~1 • Parker bq~~om • ~:i~:??y }:rexsih~.e R~r.~l ~ F?'n'.~e,a H.w11 .~C,.-;3 • Tei (?93) 85j- ~Si-G 6", JU'~I Di 'D8 10~~5AM BAYS DEA'dER HIATT%1 Se~8 ~S341S4 P.3-'c~ To: ABB From: LLB Date: June 1, 2000 Re: The Villages of Aina Le'a The follorn~ing responds to the statements made in the "worlin~~ papers" submitted by Michael J. Matsuka~va, Esq., to Chairman James Azakaki of the Hawaii County Council regarding Resolution 229 (Draft 2). Mr. Matsukawa's "working papers" ob~-iou.sl~~ constitute a material breach of the terms of the Mutual Agreement dated December 11, 1 ~Q 1 (the `'Agreement} by and between The Puako Community Association and Nansa~~. ~adly> the statements made by Mr. Matsukawa are also inaccurate and misleading in z-r~az~°: ,:expects, and serve no real purpose but. to confuse. Specifically, my comments are as folio~T.~s: JUN 81 '88 1©~~SAM BAYS DEAVER HIAT~i1 8D8 534184 ~ p,q.~~© ~',}SlC3RY ~egislat~ve Solution - I.oCate x~.Sl~tare ~ Hotel/Resvrt Areas ~,Tl 1980, tau leg1S18ZU~i'e ObSCIVC~ t113I hmC-Sl~Hre W gCnerelly taking place is condominium buildings. ~e legislature determined that this gctivity should confined to condomentum buildings wrhich are locabrd in "hotel/resort "zoned areas: "~~s bill would provide far regulation of the time sharing industry by restricting sales of urttt.~ pars~uamt to a time sharingprogrgni to buil~rxtgs located in an area zoned hatelhc.sort. " House ~o~A mitbee Report No. 96~, "S B. No. 1516, S.D. 1 gives legal e~cr~tenee to time sharing in condorninfu~m units located ire hoteur~sort areas. „ Senate Committee ReportNo. "~IJt is my ut:derstanc~litg that we are vot~g f~E ~ .this rrieasrme fn order to protect residents in ctpvrtment~~ciricts where time~shar2ng Waxy be attempted " F'toor I:khF°.~~~~, Senate Bill 1516, House journal, page 916 (1980). FA~.~E. The legislature did not determine that time share should be confined tc~ coAdominium buildings which are located in "hotel/resort' zoned areas. The legislature deternuned that time share should be confined to areas suitable for hotel, resort and transient wacatic~n rentals and left the responsibility of designating such areas to the counties. HRS ~ 14E-5. Sec, ~:~onf. Corn. Rep. 1~'0. 37-80, House Journal, S_ B.:'V~ 1516; Conf Com. Rep. ?~'o. 8-80, Senate ~ic~r<, tral, S. B. Na_ 1516. JUN 81 '88 10~25AM BAYS DEAVER HIQTT/1 2~©8 534184 P.5-`c8 g'BSTCRY Legl~lative Sottt~on . Excl~cde Ti~ne~ha~re F~roni Rea~dent~ttal Area Ia 1980, the legislature's con~erencx committee ors ~t~ate Bill 151b decided to exclude time-sthere from certain a~~~: "?ire legislature Intends by this Act that the counties will be guided by the notion that time shcr~~~~,g and transient vacotion rentals ahauld tsol be pernri'~~d wlret~e the 1{je styles of the permanent reaide?:ta wa~'~ a~ disr~ted in can unreasonable nsanner. " FAJ<.SE. The legislature did not decide to exclude time share front residential a~:•eas. The legislature decided to allow the Counties to decide which areas are appropriate or time share use. Your conferees elected not to prejudge w-here in an appropriate area time sharinb and transient vacation rentals should be a11o~~-e~a or prohibited, but to leave that decision to each county as a logic~~l part of its zoning or designation functions. Conj Com. Rep..\w. 3 i-80, House Journal, S. B. ,~'o. 1516; Corif Coat. Rep. No 8-.50. Senate Journal, S. B. No. 1516. Chapter 514E-5, HRS, creates a general prohibition on time share touts, time share plans and transient vacation rentals, with the following exemptions: (a) existing time share units, time share plans and transient vacation rentals, (b) hotels, and (c) areas designated i0r hotel use, resort use or transient vacation rentals pursuant to county authority unaer section 46--?. 1-1125, or where the county, by its legislative process, designated hotel; transient vacation rental or resort use. JUN 81 '88 1~~Z6AM BAYS DEAVER HIATTi1 5~~4184 P.6-'~~J Y ~~~l1~rsS'h~irCD A Sp~circl Form of ~aRd Use Demand~n~ Re-~~~lo?t In ~ 980, the legislature concluded that the time-shy controversy could be resolved only if the state and coua~= recognized tima~share to be a special farm of land use bad to be dewed and regulated. The legislature desctY~bed the characteristics of tiYnR ~~are qty and established tho areas in wbich Brno-share take ' placx. FALSE. The legislature did not conclude that time share was a special form c~A land use that had to be defined and regulated. The legislature concluded only that time share sholzld be regulated. Your Committee concludes that it is necessary and timely for time shaxin~ to be placed under strict government regulation if the interests of the State, the time sharing ~.ndustry, the purchasers of time share units and above all, the people of Hawaii, are to be ser~~ed. Accordingly, it is the intention of your Committee that careful regulator} oversight of time „.<u-ing in the State of Hawaii be provided. Cortf. Com. Rep. a~jo 37-80, Flouse Journal, S. B. ,'~~o. i ~ ' 6; Cor~f Cora. Rep. IVa. 8-8Q, Senate Jour sal, ,5. ~~o..~ 516 JUN D1 '8D 10~26AN BAYS DEA'dER HIAT-/1 8DS 53341Sa P.~.'c~ Ii~'~~'.Y T~~-Shdr~e ~ Hotels Two yews later, in 1982, the legislature extenc~d coverage of Chapter S 14E, HRS to hotels, IRRELEVANT. The 1982 amendment to Chapter ~ 14E-5, HRS, clazifies that. time share units aze penxiissible in hotels only ~;~here the county explicitly approves time share use., in advance, as a nonconforming use. This is irrelevant to the issue at hand. JUN ~1 '88 10~z6AM BRYS DEA'dER H~TTi1 8~8 5_~~41~4 p.~,~© ?E~tSPORY Ideii~g the ~aracterist~r~ of Tgme~S'ha~ The legislature identified the tn~n chara,cttriBtics of tints-sham as: The use of condaminiu~t units for ttausieat o~up~cy by' Vy51tOfS VAdCf YaTlOt16 a~gCTD~.S ~lntel`~~~~ ownership, interval use, vacation elub~, eto_} • The "conversion"~ of candotn~ntu~n buildings transient visitor use * The division and sale of undivided ingests ~a:,rval units of condom~tiuni units FAg.SE. The legislature did not limit time share to condominium units. The 1e~~islat«re recognized that transient vacation rentals occur in multi-unit buildings, and cony°luded that time share and transient vacation rentals are identical uses of land. 1980 Sefrate .Iour~ucl; p. 942; 1980 House Journal, p. 1091. JUN 81 'B8 10~2bAM BAYS DEAVER HIATTil 8D8 534184 P.9~~~ le~siaodve Decis~n Re,~ard~rt~ tl~e Location of 7~me-Sfrare ~Surn~eorfzed} 198a Time-share in condomhtium buildings rn~..~ be locai~ed in arcag zoned by tha counties batcUresort uses 1982 Timeshare in ho~eIr, though is an $rea ~~red for hoteUresort use, must stilt be approved tae counties FA]1?SE. The 1980 legislation permits time share "[I]n areas designated foz- hots l use, resort use and transient vacation rentals. pursuant to county authority under section 46-~, ear «~here the county, by its legislative process.. designates hotel, transient vacation rental or resort use." Sec~`ion ~1~lE-5{2)(A), HRS. The 1982 amendment to Section ~14E, H1ZS, which is irrElevant here, clarifies that time share units ate allowed irLhotels only where the county f:yLplicitly approved time share units, in advance. as anon-conforming use. JUN B1 '88 10~z6AM BAYS DEAVER HIATTi_ 8Ei8 5~~4184 P.ll~i~~ ~ ~ Tke Coar~ty ojHaw>Qi1 Zonlag Cede Rerrwves "7`rairaTe~t Y~attor, Resort" Clraractert~rs of Ttm~~re From the Defini~on ojTiiine-Skare 'The legisiature established time-share as a resort-~, use thsx must ue cor~fuied do resor~t/hoteT zoned areas. in Section 514E-5(2), HRS, the legisiariue atatcs ' tinoe-share shou]d be coafirud "in areas desigaaated for h~~e~T use, ' resort use, or trcznsiertt yac~gtion tent~ls," "Transieat vacation rcrttais" to mean "rentals in a ~~~i unit building to visitors with the duration of occupancy las ~ ~'~a thirty days for the irorulent occupagt+" Nonetheless, the Hawaii County 7oQing Cock re»~y~'~=s the transitnt visitor and resort cha:ractenstic of timershare i~ ~~e coning code's defiaicion of time-share. FALSE. The legislature did not establish time share as a resort-type use that ntus~ be confraed to resortlhotel zoned areas. Time share is allowed in hotel, resort and transient vac: ation rental areas. Section 514E-5(~)(A), HRS; states that "[t]ime shaze units, time share plans and transient vacation rentals are allowed (A) In areas designated for hotel use, resort use or t:ransicnt vacation ren'als, pursuant to county authority under section 46-4, or «~here the counn~, b~.~ its legislative process, designates hotels, transient vacation rental or resort use." JUN D1 '88 10~z7AM BAYS DEAVER HTATTil 8~8 5.~~418d P.11~~~d 'Tk~' ~R09L®d There Is Nv provision for "?}onsient Vacat~oR R.e~~~" ~n the Haw+vu Covte~' ~o~~g Code 'Ihe Hawaii County Zoning Codc has no provision ;+~crning "transient vacation rentals" TRUE. The term "transient vacation rentals" is not defined in the County Code. However, there are several terms that are used in the County Code which are undefined but applied in accordance with their coiz~znon meaning. Zoning laws, whether statutes or ordinances, inasmuch as they curtail and limit uses of real estate and are in derogation of the common law must be given strict construction and the provisions thereon may not be extended by implication.... 1~Tevertheless, ti~e,~ should be read according to the natural and most obvious import of the language when there is no manifest legislative intent contrarywise.... R~here the ordinance does not define the ~~~ord '`hotel", we must presume that the legislative body intended that the word should be construed~according to its common acceptance. County of 1l~Iaui v. Puama~ta 11~Ianagefnent Corp, 2 Haw. App. 352, 356 (19811 ;cites omitted). Section 2~-5-32(a)(3) of the County Code provides that boarding, rooming a~~d lodging houses are permissible uses within a RM District; however, neither "boarding," "zoom<n~i house," or '`lodging house" are defined under the County Code. Boardinc, rooming houses and lodging horses are each a form of transient vacation rentals, tivhich in traditional comm~:~n law, refers to the residential use of a dwelling for a short period of time. JUN D1 '88 1~~27AM BAYS DEA~EP. HIATTi1 8~S 5S341S4 - P.1~,'2~ 2T~ The ~lawai~ Co~cnty Zones Code alters the Legislat~ue'~ DeJI,r+~on ojTLrre,S1=are 'ripe Hawaii ~;ousYt~+ Zoping Coop alters the legisla~~R's definition of timt-shale artd tress tune sbere as the inte~~ use or ownership of units without regard to its uarsient occup~.~~ by visitors in resort areas. This is contrary to the legislature's definition. FAILSE. The County Code does not alter the legislature's definition of time sllase. The County Code actually adopts the legislature's definition of time share by expressly pro~~iding that all time share units wvithin the County must be regulated under the prop-isions o.~ Chapter 514E, HISS. A "time share unit" means `Sany multiple-family dwelling unit or hotel, :n.~: ich is o~~~ried, occspied, or possessed, under an ownership and/or use agreement among variou> persons for less than asixty-day period in any year for any occupant, and is regulated under the ~~ro~~isions of chapter 514F, HRS." Section ?5-1-5(103), County Code JUN D1 'D8 10~27AM BAYS DEAVEP. HIATTil S08 5534184 P.1~20 Art Ei~4T~AUS ~.~~'1~I'lpN Resolr~dore 229 (D?~ 2) Erro~eeotra~y Declares tbat "~`~slern Vacation Rentals" is a Permitted Ise ~n the RM ~ ct Resolution 2z9 (~rai~ 2) declares that "transient v~.-won rental" activity is pem~itted in non-tCSOrt R1Vi distriCks Howevcc, solution 229 (Dram 2) does not state legal authority underlying this declaration (for v~ich tl~cre Ys ~-~s.F~). FALSE. Transient vacation rentals are permissible uses ~x~ithin R,l`~l Districts. Pursuant to Section 2S-S-32(a){3) of the County Code, the following uses are permissible uses ~t-itlzin an RM District, {3) boarding, roominb or lodging houses (19} time share units." Boarding, rooming houses, lodging houses and time share units are all forms of transient ~~acation rentals. JUN 71 'a0 10~~7AM BAYS DEAb'ER HIATTi1 8'x8 5~~41~4 P.14i20 II.LB4~. ?o Made Maters Worse, Sectlori 2S-S-~2(a)(191(Ca May V~olore ~1ie Cour?iy €~tcr Under the Hawaii County Charter, tba voters of t~ qty stated tb$t the executive depgrtrntnt, acting through the pl~xg departrr?eut and its hoed, the planning director, "shall ~ist~er" the zoning code. However, Settian 25-5-32(ax19)(C) stales t~iat the cou~cit steal! "adrniaistcr" this specific portion of the zo~i~g code rel~g to timeshare in non•resort RM distriCLS. Tht county cor~nci! Cannot give to itself powers whi~~ the voters of the county gave to the executive departaxeat ux~d~'~ the charter. See l.1fe of rive Land v. City & County of Honor:I~~~ 61 I3aw. 390, 42$ (19$0). ~ . FALSE. Section 25-5-32(a}(19}(C) does not state that the County Council shall "administer" the zoning code as it relates to time share. Section 25-5-32(x)(19){C) states the follc~~~-ing: 2~-5-32(x) The following uses shall be permitted in the Rlvl district: (19) Time share units situated in any of the following: (C) Area determined for such use by the council. by resolution. 1~he adoption of the County Code ~~•as a legislative act by the County Council. The County Code sets forth the law with respect to zoning and the use of land In adopting the Colnty Code, the CoL.nty Council resen-ed u.nto itself the legislative discretion to determine, b~. resolution, areas ~~-itlun the RlU1 district which are appropriate for time share. Such legislative. discretion can be exercised by the County Council as a non-legislati~•e act via the adoption of a _esolution. See, Life of the Land v. City and Countl- of Honolulu, 61 Ha~~aii 390. 428 (1980). JUN al '88 10~~8AM BAYS DEAVER HIATTil '8~8 5334184 P. 15%c~ aZEC3l~. I c~~L1it8 L''~en {~Ser~3or~ as-s•3a~~1z9~~C~~c~ No: Yio~a~ ~'~a~~' G'harter, It Cyeates a L~~S~ve "Perna" FrQgra~ l~~,t Sr~ers Flom De~uicles of ha Overt If the county council can establish a legislative "pig' program which is administered by the county oou~cil by ~ of passing non-legislative resolutions, the coun~? caWicil a in an administrative (non-legislative} capacity when it adminis the program. See L~, of the land v. Countty+ Cotmett, supra; Beoch Ae~1ense Find v. ~Co~Y Corunctl, 70 Haw. 3b1, 3fi~~ (1989); AnderspnR ,Americats Law of Zoning, Secs. 9.1 g, ~ ~ .1 Q {4th ed. 1996).. However, this legislative "p+~tmit" Program suffers ~m - ma~jar deficiencies and does not satisfy the requicemenis law. FALSE. Section 25-5-32(a)(19) of the County Code does not create a legislati~~e permit program. Time share units do trot fall within the category of uses vi~hieh regture the issuance of a use permit, Transient ~~acation rentals are permissible uses in the Rho district in ~-arious forms, including boarding; lodging houses, rooming houses and time share units. All time share units in the County of Hawaii must be '`regulated under the pro~~isions of chaptEr ~ 1=#L, :FIRS." See, Section 25-1-5(103), County Code. JUN ~i1 '88 10~28AM BAYS DEAVEP. HIATTil 8~8 5~~41~4 P.le2~ F"oir F~ple1 Seexton ~S-s-~a(~(19)(C~ Does Nvt .~~sl~ ,~~y dbJcctive SY~ndard to Guide Cbrr~eil Ac Section 25~~32(a)(19xC) does not provide $t~y ob~tiv~e standard ar procedu>R which the county council uwst lioalc~ and, r>norc importantly, which other laadowtucs csa expect ~ ~ council wilt apply uniformly in all nan•resort RM distri throughout the island. FA~,SE. The guidelines to be followed by the County Council in designating; areas v~~ithin the RM district appropriate for time share units are contained within Section 514E-4., HRS. The threat of Chapter 514E, HRS, is to place the zoning zesponsibility clearly upon the counties, giving them certain guidelines to observe. 19b'0 Senate Jor~rnal, 789 (stute,~~e~%t ofS'erzator Cobb. Section 514E-4, HRS, states that "[tJhe several counties shall, by amendment of ~~lzeir zoning ordinances, limit the location of time share units, time share plans and other transient vacation rentals, within such areas as are deemed appropriate." Section 514E-4. HRS ~s mandate to the counties to defzne areas they deem suitable for time share. The Count} of Ha« aii responded by passing an ordinance that allowed time share in the V, resort hotel district, the C~;, general commercial district, and the RM, multiple-family residential district. JUN 81 '88 10~28AM BAYS DEAVER HIATTi1 53?4184 P.l~~c~ A Caunc~!-Ad„~~it~tered "P~~" ~?ogran~ ,dust be ~l dauintstered b'y Accordance with Publlahr,~ Smndardf and Proeedure~ Courts demand council-admuiistered `~ern~t" pro,~;is to be adminestered in accordance with published standards procedures. Sep Anderson, s~rpra. IRRELEVANT. ~Tdhile courts may demand council-administered "permit'' prof rams to be administered in accordance with published standards and procedures, the adoption of resolution in accordance vv~ith Section 2~-5-32(a)(19) oftlze County Code to designate area; appropriate for time share units does not constitute a `'permit'' program. Time share units are ~ permissible use in the RM district. - JUN ~1 '88 10~Z9AN BAYS DEAVER HIATTil 3Nd 5~~418u P 1~;~~ S~im,~s~u?y - Scctlox as.~.s2(c~(19}lC~ ~s vata 5tctior 25-5•32(a)(19}(C) violatr~: Stare law • The county chatter s 1"ha due process clause of the 14th Ame~a~meni to the Uaited States Constitution, ~'AL5E. Section 25-~-32(a)(19) of the County Code does not violate state la~.~. the County Charter or the due process clause of the 14`h Amendment to the United States Constitution. This conclusion is based upon the authors notion that the County is "administering. a use permit probram;" v~~hich is simpi}~ not the case. The County Code designated time share as a permissible use in the R1~1 disirict «~hich complies with the legislative mandate to zone for time share. The County Council reser: ed to itself the legislative discretion to approve time share in specific locations within the RNA district by resolution. The proposed Resolution is entirely appropriate if the Council derennines that time share is an appropriate use in the Aina Le'a project. JUN Gt1 '88 10~29AM BAYS DEAVER F~-IATTi1 X08 5~~41~4 P.1~%~© B~'~ AT18ldT1dN The Core~Y Counal Daas Nos Gave tl~e D~arr.a~ io Grnns Sosree Raquesir, N~~e De~y~ ether Re~~.~~a, for ?~~u-Sure t>s N'ors-Re~orl RM D~Lstr~ Under the current zoning code, the county couac~`~ des aot have discretion to exsraine each ragwest on ~ "c~c by-e" basis, granting Soma nquests w~tile datying other requests for ~~ne-sbaro in ttoo•resott RM districts. This is the result of sa flawed zoning code. FA$.~SE. The County Code does not prohibit the County Council from exercising its discretion on a "case•by-case" basis. The County Council is required to regularly exercise its discretion on various zoning issues as a matter of good planning and good judgment. A decision by the Coiuzty Council to grant an application for rezoning on one parcel and not another, or to impose more stringent conditions on one permit application as opposed to another doe, not give rise to the right of the less benefited applicant to demand equal entitlements or conditions. The County Council is expected to and must decide many matters on a case-by-case basis. It is not required to`rubber-stamp" each request for a time share use in an RM district that comes before it as suggested by Mr. Matsukawa. It can grant or deny requests for time share use in an 1~1 district as a legitimate exercise of its discretion without any recourse by the applicant. This is exactly what was intended by the County Ordinance JU~`I'a1 'D8 1~~~9AM BAYS DEAVER.HIATT~1 8~8 5341^04 P.2~/?© DA)i Dr1Z' Xf t~ Cou~y Council Adopts l~~otution ZZ9 (Drab thr Cluenrll May Not "be Able to l7e~y F~dure Reque~'®r Tim~?Slan ~~'`Ptrq~'~ ~n .1 ~y lyon-Resort RM A~~tx If the cour?ty council adopts Resolution Z29 (Drab the council nay be tunable to deny future requests for time-sue in auy non~esort RM distnCt because 5occtioe 25-5*32(a)(19)(C} does not bav~ any guiding standards dad proccdtsres and because the county council wi11 be umable 1a,~ustifY the denial of lure regwests for timersha:e in eny non•resort RM district. FAb,SE. The adoption of Resolution 229 (Draft 2} would not force the Count; Council to approve future requests for the designation of areas «zthin the RM district appropriate for time shave units. Chapter 514E, HRS, states that time share units may be in areas designated for hotel use, resort use or transient vacation rentals. The County Council, reserved unto itself, the legislative discretion, to determine areas u7th the kM district appropriate for time sliare units. As stated previously, the County Council is expected to and must decide mane matters on a case- by-case basis. It is not required to "rubber-stamp' each request for a time shat:. use in an RM district that comes before it as suggested by Mr. Matsukawa. It can grant or dez~'~- requests for time share use in an RM district as a legitimate exercise of its discretion ~~zthout any recourse by the applicant. This is exactly what was intended by the Count~~ Ordinance.