HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0313.033 2024-2026P / Pomp
bill 0
cow.3l3
From: Jim and Lichun
Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 11:52 AM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Written Testimony in Opposition to Bill 60 - August 5. 2025 Meeting of taPolio,
Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development c c= c::�-
-� O
R _T1_
D
RE: August 5. 2025 Meeting of the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Devel mer ::EZ
o
Please accept my following testimony in opposition to Bill 60 as it is presently drafted (draft 02) and its
proposed changes to the Chapter 25 of the County Code.
The proposed changes to the County Code in Bill 60 goes beyond the stated goals of: compliance with the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) and to address an active lawsuit filed
against the County. It does this by trying to address a broader set of administrative and enforcement
challenges with the existing County code. While simplification is usually welcomed, there are risks in making
broad changes to definitions to basic language underpinning much of the County Code. Therefore caution is
warranted here. Here are some of the concerns:
1. The definition for "Meeting Facility" as defined in draft 2 of Bill 60 is as follows:
Meeting Facility means a new or existing facility or building site that is used for recreational,
social, or multipurpose use, and may include a kitchen, but has no transient accommodations,
and is used more than 2 times a week for gatherings of more than twenty-five persons.
Typical uses include private clubs, union halls, cultural, community, and association centers,
religious facilities such as places of worship, and student centers. This does not include schools
or events.
This is a very unusual definition to be found in an ordinance because it attempts to define both a venue
and its uses together in a very convoluted way while also considering the number of attendees and the
frequency of the use. According to the Planning Director, the reason for inclusion of the "and is used
more than 2 times a week for gatherings of more than twenty-five persons" filter is to differentiate
the use this definition is addressing from family and other private gatherings on public property.. Not
only is this unclear as to how this more narrow definition would have the desired effect. But it is likely to
create new loopholes in the County Code to be exploited in both anticipated and unanticipated ways
while also inviting other legal challenges.
This definition would almost certainly be unique to Hawaii County. I would therefore urge the County to
look elsewhere for a better definition(s) that have already been tested through successful code
application and the courts. It should clearly separate place (venue) from its use and not set any
min/max limits in the definition itself. The latter goals would be best achieved those consideration of the
permits for the venue (e.g. number of available parking spaces, fire department capacities, etc) and the
specific types and size of the events to be held there (e.g. major vs. minor events) all of which would
require additional definitions in the code.
2. The definition for "Event" as defined in draft 2 of Bill 60 is as follows:
44
Comm. NGLA -
Ref. To:
kef. Date GAG — 5 2025
Event means an assembly, generally by invitation or ticket purchase, that extends beyond the
typical meeting facility or residential use, including but not limited to commercial weddings,
wedding receptions, promotional events, and concerts.
This definition, in particular the phase extends beyond the typical meeting facility or residential use
is again unusual. The lack of specificity here in terms of the type of and quantification of use is of
concern. Events are usually categorized based upon scope, longevity, magnitude and use, into a
specific list of event types.
3. Changes to section 25-4-17 of the County Code as proposed has gone through some changes since it
was presented before the Planning Commissions. The section covering hours of operation for "Meeting
Facilitates" appears to have been removed from the latest 02 draft. Why? I would agree with the
removal from this chapter assuming that hours of operation are addressed elsewhere in the County
Code.
4. Amendments to Section 25-4-51 of the County Code as proposed covering parking requirements for
various facilities would appear to be overly generous for "Meeting Facilities" by requiring only one
parking space for 150sgft of floor area or seven people of whichever is greater. One parking space for
—50sgft or each 2-3 persons would be more typical and practical.
Regards
Jim McMahon
Papaikou
Jim & Lichun