Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCPLUED 2025/06/17 (2024-2026)Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development 11 ' Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii June 17, 2025 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and ORDER: Economic Development was called to order at 12:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Vice Chair Mr. James E. Hustace, Member Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Mr. Matt Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member (via videoconference from Hilo) Mr. Dennis "Fresh" Onishi, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business. FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Aaron Auna: Bill 60 (Comm. 313), in opposition. (representing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) Leonard Tanaka: Jonathan Roach Evette Tampos: (representing Church of the Holy Apostles and Episcopal Church, Hawaii) Bill 60 (Comm. 313), in opposition. Bill 60 (Comm. 313), in opposition. Bill 60 (Comm. 313), comment. Claudia Rohr: Bill 60 (Comm. 313), comment. PCPLUED-11 June 17, 2025 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, if we could move to Order of Business. Bills for Ordinances. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 60: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 1, ARTICLE 2, ARTICLE 4, ARTICLE 5, AND ARTICLE 7, OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR MEETING FACILITIES, CHURCHES, TEMPLES, SYNAGOGUES, AND COMMUNITY BUILDINGS (Planning Director Initiated) Removes existing zoning regulations for community buildings, churches, temples, and synagogues and creates new regulations for "meeting facilities." Reference: Comm.313 Intr. by: Council Member Kierkiewicz (B/R) Postponed: June 3, 2025 (Note: There is a motion by Council Member Inaba, seconded by Council Member Galimba, to recommend passage of Bill 60 on first reading.) (Note: Comm. 313.2 from Council Member Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, dated dated June 17, 2025, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 60 was circulated.) CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. I'm going to be exercising my latitude as Chair to engage with the Planning leadership at this time to restate for the record, the intention of this particular bill. Over the last couple of days, my officer, offices; Director Darrow, Deputy Ahn have received a number of calls from our faith community with concerns about Bill 60, as written. There is an amendment that I'd like to introduce, which addresses, I believe, all of the concerns that folks have raised. So, let's start there. Actually, let's start with the purpose of the bill. You know, Director, my understanding is, this was to resolve inconsistencies within our Zoning Code. There was a lawsuit filed against our County alleging that our County Code discriminated against religious institutions. Religious institutions had to jump through more bureaucratic hurdles than secular organizations. And so, this bill is in response to that lawsuit, as well as a letter from the Department of Justice saying that our Code is in fact, discriminatory. So, this is ensuring equity among all organizations regardless of your faith. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Jeff Darrow and Deputy Director Michelle Alin came forward to address the members of the Committee.1 Page 2 PCPLUED-11 June 17, 2025 MR. DARROW: Thank you Chair. Good morning, Chair Kierkiewicz, Vice Chair Galimba, and Members of the Committee. Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department. Also with me is Deputy Director Michelle Alin. She was a big part of the beginning of this particular event that occurred that culminated into what we see today as Bill 60. Thank you for the latitude as well to be able to answer the "why" we're here today. In 2023, the Planning Department received a number of complaints regarding a Jewish Chapad in a Residential Zoning. Normally, the Planning Department receives a complaint and they follow-up with whatever action. And directing in the way to become permitted. In the Residential Zoned area currently in our Code, it requires that churches, temples and synagogues go through a use permit process. In this particular case, a group called First Liberty Institute, which is an organization made up of attorneys that work; they defend religious liberty for Americans. They were, I guess, contacted by the Rabi, in this particular case and they ended up participating in this overall event. We were informed at that time that our Code was, in fact, discriminatory. And the reason why that happened .is because they were uses in the Code, in the similar districts that were similar to a church. But did not require the same level of permitting. Such as a community building and a meeting facility. So, at that point, we began to engage with First Liberty Institute as well as representatives from the church to begin to figure out a solution to this. You know, how do we resolve this particular matter? We ended up drafting up proposed legislation. We went back and forth with the parties for probably, I would say, at least almost a year. Going back and forth until we came up with a particular bill that appeared to meet everyone's idea of where we were trying to head towards nondiscrimination. With that, what it was that we would delete certain references in the Code, namely community buildings as well as churches, temples and synagogues; and put them all under the definition of meeting facility. And in the definition, identify the particular uses that could be done as part of a meeting facility. Additionally, the definition identifies when you actually are termed or defined as a meeting facility, which is if you have 25 or more people excluding family members, and/or operating more than two days a week. If you don't reach that level, then you're not meeting the definition of a meeting facility. And you just continue on with what you're doing. Page 3 PCPLUED-11 June 17, 2025 If you do reach that level, depending on your zoning district, a majority of them just require a plan approval, which is basically a site plan. You come into the Planning Department and then we again, as mentioned, work with different agencies. Some questions that have come up have been, "What about existing churches that were permitted previously?" Those are all permitted. They don't need to go through any new process. They're either under a use permit, a special permit, plan approval, or they were in a Commercial Zoning or something like that. So, that's not an issue for this bill, and this was through our discussion. The one area that we see happening, and this is not just for meeting facilities. It's applicable to a majority of uses that come in. Schools is another good example, and try to create this particular use in an existing structure. When they go through the process, they find out that it may be difficult, because the structure may not meet standards for a school, or for a meeting facility based on the current codes for that. And that has been ongoing as far as I can remember. When we have permits come in for particular uses, we always encourage them to go and follow-up with these agencies before they come in. So, that way down the line, they're not made aware of something that's going to be a difficult process to go through. The majority of these would come in as anew structure. And we would go through plan approval, and then proceed to building permit. There wouldn't be a use permit, except in those three zones mentioned where you go through a public hearing. A majority of them would just bean administrative process. As you mentioned, hours of operation. Through our discussion, that really was an agreement made by all parties. But again, we're not held to it. If it's something that is by the overwhelming majority feels like that's a detriment. By all means, pursue the removal of that. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Director. So, in a nutshell, the Department of Justice found that our County Code violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). The equal terms provision where religious uses were treated less favorably than comparable secular uses, which is why we are trying to eliminate that disparity through this code update. Thank you for acknowledging that. At this time, I would like a motion to amend Bill 60 with the contents of Communication 313.2. Motion to Amend: Mr. Inaba moved to amend Bill 60, with the contents of Comm. 313.2. Seconded by Mr. Hustace. Page 4 PCPLUED-11 June 17, 2025 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Director and Deputy, would you like to walk us through these changes are in response to some of the concerns that have been raised by our friends in the faith community? MR. DARROW: Sure. I did receive several comments from different constituents. Mainly, sent to me through Council Members. A majority of it, again, was just maybe misunderstanding where things are permitted, and what requires a use permit. Currently, there are a number of districts that require a use permit. RS (Single -Family Residential), RD (Double -Family Residential), RM (Multi -Family Residential), RCX (Residential -Commercial Mixed Use), RA (Residential -Agricultural), FA (Family -Agricultural), Ag Districts. This has become far less now. It would just be in the Residential -Agricultural, Family -Agricultural, and Agricultural districts if they follow in the State Land Use Urban District. If they're in the State Land Use Agricultural District, that would require a special permit. And the reason why is because that's really out of our jurisdiction, right? That's State's jurisdiction. Where the County Code is our jurisdiction, we've made it where you come in for a plan approval. So, as part of the amendment, there was some clarification to the definition to include, "New and existing facility." But as mentioned, please before trying to proceed with an existing structure, make sure that you speak with different agencies to find what might be required as far as their building permits. Then we placed the portion that was in the overall meeting facilities portion of what is that definition of when you become a meeting facility, and that's used more than three times per week for gatherings of more than 25 persons. We may want to also include something —I'm just thinking of this now, sorry. Luckily we're thinking of postponing. But one of the planning commissions had brought up, because local families can be very large, they wanted to make sure that there was exclusion for family members. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Director, I just want to make sure we're on the amendment, and if it's not stated in the amendment, we can't talk about it. So, let's put a pin in that one and get back to what's before us. MR. DARROW: Okay, let's put a pin in it. Thank you. Page 5 PCPLUED-11 June 17, 2025 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Perfect. Thank you. So, so far it is a refinement to the definition of a meeting facility. It is also clarifying where a Use Permit or Special Use Permit are required depending on State Land Use Boundary. Then, I think the most important thing to home in on is Section 8 of the bill. Meeting facilities where we are striking the hours or operation piece; acknowledging that many faith events, or worship events happen before and after 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. So that, I think will assuage a lot of concerns folks had in the community. Director, is there anything else here? I know that for Section 14 and 22, lodges and hospitals, sanitariums, old -age convalescent nursing and rest homes were inadvertently missing in your existing drafts. So, we wanted to make sure that they were there because they're currently in our Code. MR. DARROW: Thank you, we appreciate that. I like what you've done as well is identifying specifically where plan approval was required and specifically where it may need a Use Permit or a Special Permit. It makes it very clear to the public. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: To be clear, the plan approval, and Use Permits or Special Use Permits are necessary for new facilities, or in the event of wanting to repurpose an existing facility for that purpose. MR. DARROW: Correct. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, great. At this time, I'm going to hit the pause button and see if there are any questions or comments from my colleagues on this amendment; contained in Communication 313.2. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI `I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you for the amendment. I've had a number of emails and a couple phone calls about the time specifically. And that was addressed in the amendment. So, thank you, I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Same goes for me. I had a church facility that has its first service at 7:30 a.m. So, they were very concerned. So, thank you for the elimination of this in this amendment. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. Just wanted to reconfirm, though, the need for the addition of new or existing, sorry, could you repeat that? We're adding that in the definition for meeting facility. Page 6 PCPLUED-11 June 17, 2025 MR. DARROW: So, what the changes are doing, Chair, is that they are taking it out of the meeting facilities section. And you'll see that new and existing is in that section. And they're putting it up in the definition. So, they're making the definition more complete while taking out those references down in Section 25-4-17. So, that way when someone reads the definition, they get a pretty complete picture of what a meeting facility is versus having to go down and read the specifics in that section. MR. INABA: Okay, understood. So, we're just moving it. I guess from the point of reading it and where it is now. I mean it either is new or existing, right? I don't know if that's necessarily required, but just an observation. Okay, in support. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thanks. I just wanted to ask about the hours of operation part, which I completely understand the churches desires to have more latitude around that and definitely don't see a church being too rowdy, but this would potentially cover other kinds of meeting facilities that could get a little more rowdy. Are there any thoughts on how to deal with that? Other than it being somewhere else perhaps in the Code, I don't know. MR. DARROW: I'm glad you brought that up, Council Member Galimba, because included in the bill is the definition of event. And that entails certain commercial events, commercial weddings, commercial concerts, different commercial gatherings, those kinds of things, and they're linked to meeting facilities in portions of the bill. And so, you are correct that if we take the hours of operation, it will also apply to those in the sense that there won't be any limit. There could be as a possibility, that as a condition of plan approval, we could consider that. It's not something we do often, but I would think that if something becomes a situation where we're receiving complaints regarding noise, we can consider that as an option if they're going out to, you know, very late at night and disturbing the neighborhood. But again, currently in the bill there's not really an option. MS. GALIMBA: So, the events, when they come in for plan approval would get some scrutiny around that. But currently, with this meeting facility language, there was no limitations on hours. Isn't that what you just said basically? MR. DARROW: Correct. MS. GALIMBA: Okay, thank you. Page 7 PCPLUED-11 June 17, 2025 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Galimba. Council Member Kimball in Hilo. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you Chair. On the amendment, well first of all, I do have the same concerns that, I think, Council Member Galimba is raising about the potential in particularly residential and agricultural areas with respect to noise and not having anything with respect to the events in here. So, that's something, I think is important. I did want to ask the Director, in terms of this amendment with the plan approval for an event, is that something the department envisions, like each event would have to get its own plan approval, or would an entity be able to come in for holding regular events at their facility at certain dates and times? Can you just clarify that for me? MR. DARROW: Thank you, Council Member Kimball. We are currently dealing with that very situation right now where we've had a number of what we call the outdoor concerts. But they are being held in event venues that are consistent for holding these. After this particular bill passes, we may be coming back to address that particular issue. But right now, we've been working with them to come in for plan approval. Because normally, they have plan approval for the structure already, but maybe not for the outdoor events. Our main concern is parking. We've had a number of situations where the parking is overwhelmed. Particular areas when they've held a concert, they couldn't manage enough parking for that particular event. So, we're asking them to come in. We're working together with Liquor Control because they need a Liquor license normally, and we make sure that they enough parking to be able to hold these outdoor concerts. I hope that kind of answers your question. MS. KIMBALL: I'll just say that I'm a little bit concerned that some of these zoning districts, particularly the commercials and the mixed use are going to require this plan approval for an event where the venue might be a regular event venue. And so, all I'm thinking is logistically, it would be nice to just tweak this language a little bit to say, event or events if it's a regularly scheduled activity at that particular site, if that makes sense. I think I'd have to have you review all these plans when it's the same thing over and over again at the same location. MR. DARROW: Again, what we've been doing or what the direction to staff has been is that, if they already have plan approval, which most of them if not all of them already do, we just ask them to submit an amendment to their parking plan identifying that for these events, that they have enough parking. Whether it's on site or whether they are able to work out a shared -parking agreement in the area. Page 8 PCPLUED-11 June 17, 2025 All of them that we've been working with have been able to provide us with that information. So, they don't have to come in every time. They just come in one time with that additional parking plan. MS. KIMBALL: Okay, thank you for that clarification. I think that makes sense for you guys to handle that internally without us legislating it. Thanks. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Onishi. MR. ONISHI: Thank you, Madame Chair. I just want to say, I'm going to support this amendment because I've had some contact. People called me over the weekend and so forth. And I'm happy to see (c) and (d) are being taken out. And thank you, Director and Deputy Director. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. So, Director just to confirm, folks that have existing Use Permits, Special Use permits, and plan approvals in place, they don't have to do anything. MR. DARROW: Absolutely. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. If there are special events that they are proposing to do that go beyond what's articulated in their plans and their permits, at that point, they submit an amendment to your department regarding parking. MR. DARROW: Normally, it's been, we haven't been receiving those kinds of requests from churches or those meeting facilities. It's been much larger venues where we're seeing these huge music concerts in different locations around the island. And most of us are familiar with them. And again, we just want to make sure of those large events. Usually when meeting facilities, such as churches and the like hold an event, it's normally enough on their property, and it's not going outside of that. These are many events. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, great. Thanks for the clarification. There is a motion on the floor to amend Bill 60 with the contents of Communication 313.2. All those in favor, please say, "aye." Any opposed? Page 9 PCPLUED-11 June 17, 2025 Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 60 with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 313.2 was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Motion carries. Bill 60 is amended. Director now is the appropriate time to talk about the other amendment you were thinking about that wasn't included in Comm. 313.2. And if there are any concerns that my colleagues have heard from their constituents, now is the time to share that with us so that we can resolve the situation. My intention is to postpone Bill 60 until our next meeting on July 81h so that the community has ample time to review the updated version of Bill 60. Director Darrow. MR. DARROW: Thank you, Chair. So in correspondence 313.0, it included information regarding the meetings before the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions. On the Windward Planning Commission, there was a request that they add the phrase, "Exclusive of family members after 25 attendees." So, it would state, "A meeting facility only applies on building sites that have gatherings more than two times per week with more than 25 attendees, exclusive of family members." CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, I'm amenable to that. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, may I please have a motion to postpone Bill 60, as amended to our July Bch Committee hearing? Motion to Postpone: Mr. Inaba moved to postpone Bill 60, as amended to July 8, 2025. Seconded by Mr. Onishi. Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 60, as amended to to Postpone: July 8, 2025, was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Page 10 PCPLUED-11 June 17, 2025 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Bill 60 is postponed to July 8, 2025. That brings to the end of our agenda. Seeing that as there's no other business, we are adjourned at 12:42 p.m. Mahalo nui. ADJOURN- There being no further business, Chair Kierkiewicz adjourned the meeting MENT: at 12:42 p.m. Approved: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development AK/dt ADate) Page 11