Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCPLUED 2025/10/07 (2024-2026) DRAFT Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development 18th Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii October 7, 2025 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee onPlanning, Land Use, and ORDER: Economic Development was called to order at 9:02,a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Acting Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Vice Chair Mr. James E. Hustace, Member Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder,Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Mr. Dennis "Fresh" Onish,i, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member Absent& Excused: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair STATEMENTS The Acting Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of FROM THE business. Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individual registered to speak and came forward when called by the Acting Chair: JosephineiKeli`ipio: Bill 52 (Comm. 286), in support. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you, can we move to the first item on the agenda. BILLS FOR The Acting Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of ORDINANCES: business. Bills for Ordinances. PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 Bill 52: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLES 1, 4, AND 5, OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO HENNERIES Allows hens for household egg production on single-family, double-family, multiple-family residential, and residential-commercial mixed-use zoning; provides for certain conditions and regulations. Reference: Comm._286 Intr. by: Council Member Kimball Referred to Planning Commissions: May 20, 2025 and Comm. 286.2: From Managing Director William V.Brilhante, Jr., dated September 9, 2025, transmitting for Council's consideration and action, recommendation letters from the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions. and Comm. 286.3: From Planning Director Jeffrey W. Darrow, dated September 10, 2025, transmitting presentation materials for Bill 51 (Note: Comm. 286.4 from Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated October 3, 2025, transmitting proposed,amendments to Bill 52; and Comm. 286.5 from Council Member Dennis "Fresh" Onishi, dated October 3, 2025,. transmitting additional material regarding Bill 52 were circulated.) Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to recommend passage of Bill 52 on:first reading. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. ACTING CHIC. GALIMBA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL:' Thank you. I'd like to pass it over to our Planning Department to share with us their presentation. Thank you. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Jeff Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. DARROW: Good morning Chair Galimba and members of the Hawaii County Council. Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department, and with me this morning, is Planner Tracie Camero, who will be doing our presentation. Thank you. Page 2 PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 MS. CAMERO: Good morning, as Director Darrow said, my name is Tracie Camero, and I'm a Planner within the Planning Division in the Planning Department. (Note: At this time, Ms. Camero provided a PowerPoint presentation to the members of the Committee. For viewing of the presentation, see the DVD copy of the proceedings on file in the Clerk's Office, or online at http:Hhawaiicountygranicus.com. A copy of the presentation is made part of the record, see Comm. 286.3). MS. KIMBALL: At this time, I'd like to put forth an amendment that follows the recommendations of the Planning Director, and was agreed upon by the Planning Commissions. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 52, with the contents of Comm. 286.4, on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: So, fairly straightforward following the recommendations of the Planning Department and the,Commissions. These amendments are in alignment with what was just shared ifi the,presentation. Thank you. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Kagiwada. MS: KAGIWADA: Thank you so much. The only item that I guess I have concerns with is the one limiting the types of birds that are allowed; ducks, geese, or other poultry; I do know several people that keep ducks as well as wail for the egg production locally. And I'm just wondering do other people feel strongly that, you know, ducks and like some of the smaller poultry that provide eggs for people, should be disallowed. I hear there's a noise issue, but the ones that are in my neighborhood I've never had'a noise compliant about. And the other people I know, I haven't heard any complaints for their birds either. So, I see that there's kind of a blanket statement here, but wondering what other folks think. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Hustace. MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair. For Planning, on Item (5) of Section 25-4-17, "Maintain in accordance with applicable best management practices established by the State department." Does this item remove any sort of responsibility from the County in terms of Police enforcing? Page 3 PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 MR. DARROW: It would not. The Planning Department would still be required if we received a complaint regarding chickens and roosters on the property to verify that they are complying with this particular section as far as the amounts of hens. But this is more as best management practices overall. MR. HUSTACE: Okay, thank you Director. And then, if you could define secured space. MR. DARROW: So, the intent of trying to come upwith language, that it just wasn't open. And the hens would be allowed to roam free. They wanted a fenced area. They wanted enclosed areas to make sure that these hens were confined to a particular area. MR. HUSTACE: I read it a little bit differently. I read it as coop, cage, hen house, fully enclosed; or other secured space. MR. DARROW: Yes. So, that would beagain—we didn't allow inside, right? MR. HUSTACE: Because I read it as secured space could just be a fenced area, not enclosed. MR. DARROW: Yeah, I think we made it so that you had to have it enclosed: The particular language that came out was out—give me a second here'. NM.HUSTACE: If you removed that word, enclosure, which I would assume has gota roof over it, it's fully enclosed. But now, you've kind of loosened itin terms of secured space, which is going to be four fences. MR DARROW.-, ,I'm looking at our recommendation to get a little bit more clarify here. It actually came from the Commissions. So, it was saying, the term fenced area may be interpreted to include partially enclosed spaces without overhead containment, increasing the likelihood of free-ranging birds. This could result in nuisance conditions and conflicts between neighbors and potential public health risks. Therefore, replacing it with the cleaner term, such as, fully-enclosed area or other secured space promotes responsible poultry management, enhances neighborhood compatibility; and helps mitigate noise, odor, and sanitation issues commonly associated with the inadequately confined birds. So, that was our reasoning in requesting the amendment. Just the way it was, it was very loose, and we wanted to just tighten it up. I also believe that there was a concern about enclosures. I can't recall off hand, I mean, most people Page 4 PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 have, you know, they have their hutches, right? And that's pretty secure. They have it fenced. They have even an enclosure over it; sometimes wire, whatever they have. But it's definitely what we consider more of a secured area. I think they were trying to get away with the identification of an enclosed area meaning like a structure that was, you know. So, they just wanted to loosen it up a little bit. MR. HUSTACE: I still have concerns about the language on secured space. Because to me, it doesn't define that is has a roof over the animals---that it could still be an openair space, and these animals could be predated on by endemic species here. So, it might have to be a fully enclosed space. Just food for thought there. If that impacts `I6 and Pueo and other predator birds. If there are these chickens sitting in an'open-air space then that might be an issue of concern. Thank you. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA; 'Council Member Onishi. MR. ONISHL Thank you, Chair. So.;Lack to Section 25-4-17. Can you explain more in detail, what you folks mean by this? MR. DARROW: One,ofthe recommendations tl at we had was to include a reference to applicable State and Federal agencies that regulate poultry keeping. So, we wanted to include something; that was our recommendation. We didn'tcome up with the language. Council Member Kimball added in this language,,which is, what appears to be exactly what we were looking for. But again, it's oversight of the actual management of keeping poultry. So, we wanted to snake sure that there Were the other agencies identified that are involved,in regulating the keeping of poultry. It's not meant for enforcement. MR. ONISHI: It's not meant for enforcement. So, if someone complains? MR ARROW: They will complain to us. MR. ONISHL They will complain to you guys. MR. DARROW: Now, if it has something to do with some sort of best management practices, like they're not cleaning up the area or something like that, it would fall under these agencies. MR. ONISHL Planning Department would contact these agencies, and they would have to come and review or inspect. MR. DARROW: We could, or the complainant could contact them. Page 5 PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 MR. ONISHL So, now we're having the neighbors complaining about each other. I mean, like you know, with other agencies, basically. So, it's like, for example, dog barking, right? I remember passing something before where instead of calling the Police first you needed to talk to your neighbor first about the dog barking, right? And so, I felt that it would make it more challenging for the neighbors, right? So, I think this needs to be more clear. And maybe to the author, I mean you could explain why you put this information in. And you can explain in more detail, how this will work. Chair, would you allow? ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Sure. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: So, I added this Additional language based on the recommendation from the Planning Commissions and the Planning Department. I think it's more About insuring that folks that witnt to raise hens have a place to access information about bestpractices. So, they are available on the Department of Health and Department of Agriculture website's information about how henneries should be maintained and how chickens should be cared for. In terms of the enforcement piece,you know, it's similar to language that was related to the bees, the apiaries that Was introduced by Council Member Kierkiewie2,where the Vector Control side at the State is the responsible party to handle nuisance complaints or safety complaints with respect to henneries. MR ONISHI: Well,I think then this shouldn't be in this area if it's for education",where people can go do research to find the best practices to raise hens. Because to me in this section is more like enforcement. So, for tne, I would think people would look at this, and if they feel that their neighbor is, I guess, if they just don't want it, then they're going to go and call all these agencies to see how they can get the hens removed. So, this is not really good with me. I mean, not sitting well. And I would think that we need to redefine this, because the thing too is; what if or for example, I think it was on Oahu, they had that virus that affected some of the chickens. So, now, who's going to monitor that? MR. DARROW: Which agency? Department of Health, Vector Control. MR. ONISHL Right. That's if there's something that happens, right? MR. DARROW: Right. Page 6 PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 MR. ONISHL So, now, Planning would call the Department of Health? MR. DARROW: We could or again, the complainant could call. MR. ONISHL But how would the complainant know that the chickens have this virus, right, because they would have to be sick in order to, right? And so, then they'd have to go to the doctors, and then they'll find out, okay, they have this. And then they're going to have to research and say, "Okay, maybe these chickens are infested with this virus." MR. DARROW: I hear you. I think what we're trying to do is just provide information that's helpful to those that are going to'bb raising hens on their property. It's not meant to be a means of, you know, trying to set-up complaints from neighbor-to-neighbor, or°even complaints to these agencies. It's meant as an avenue to be able to understand best management practices on operating henneries. I think that was our main focus on requesting the information. MR. ONISHL I see. Do you think we should do another section to have where it can explain about how to manage and,how to create? Because not everyone is going to know how to raise hens,right? "So now, if this passes and the word spreads out, you're going to have,you know, I don't know how many people might wantto do this. 'But they might know the real practice. So, maybe this should be an educational part. MR. DARROW: What we can do before our next hearing is try to look at the different sections within these agencies that reference that. And maybe what we can do is reference it within the Code, within this section. MR. ONISHI: Okay, thanks, I yield. MR ARROW: Thank you. ACTINGCHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. I'll keep it brief. I support the amendment. The amendment is actually sparkling clear; every part of it. Fully-enclosed areas secured space at all times. That's pretty clear, and then doing our best to maintain how the chickens shall be managed that keeps people safe is pretty clear as well. I appreciate the language from the Planning Department. Thank you to the maker for bringing the amendment forward to further clarify the complexities of having chickens in your back yard. I've had chickens for a number of years. There're ways of containing them without actually having a fully-enclosed area if you take the time to Page 7 PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 learn and how to do it. It's not very heard. Then I think we get to the real heart of the matter and why this bill is important when we get to the main motion. I yield Chair. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, it's to interesting, I've had constituents ask me to try and draft something to solve this issue since I got into office. So, thank you for stepping forward and presenting something. It seems to be a theme in this term that we're taking on some things that have sat unresolved for a long time. I also think it's interesting, thank you, Council Member Hustace, that your concern for the statement just being''a secured space. My first thought would have been that the chickens could escape and wreak havoc. But I just want to acknowledge that your first thought was for the safety of the Liens. And I just found that really different and grateful for that., I know enough now to know that no legislation will ever be perfect. There will always be ways for people as diverse as we are in all of our minds in the ways that we think to perceive things differently. I also want to acknowledge Council Member.Kagiwada's concern for those that raise ducks and geese and whatnot., I would say that I'm still okay with the amendment because let's also just be honest here. It's through complaints that anything would be. And if your neighborhood doesn't have any issues, and the neighbors don't have any issues with geese. But in general, representing one of the most Urban districts, as this will blanket the island, geese do tend to—we had geese when I was growing up. And you know,we had ducks, and they were noisier. And they were more apt to fly, and they're a larger species. So, it can be okay with these amendments, in general, to get this moving forward. I think perhaps in the future, if there's an opportunity or enough people are affected negatively by the removal of these other foul species, then we tackle that then. L have a question as it relates to—I guess maybe we should go to the regular as opposed to this amendment. Well, Residential-Ag (RA). So, if somebody currently lives in Residential-Ag and has what they call, Free-Range chickens, and there's no limit to the number of hens or roosters they currently have on that property. This legislation will create boundaries and parameters for them to be held legally accountable to best practices. Whether or not it's in an Agricultural area or not. Page 8 PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 MR. DARROW: So, the addition of Residential-Agriculture is included in this bill. So, it will be limited by the numbers that are added in here. I have to check. There are two State Land Use Boundaries that Rural is consistent with. That's State Land Use Rural and State Land Use Urban. Both of those fall under the jurisdiction of the County. It's not as if we have conflicting jurisdictions like we do with the State Land Use designation of Agriculture where that falls under the Land Use Commission. So, once we added in this section, it's going,to limit the amount of hens that they can have on Residential-Agricultural properties. You will find they're a little larger. They're typically at least half=acre in size. So, it may allow more, right? MS. VILLEGAS: More hens. And having had some chickens,my daughter had silkies, and when she got the four of them,you don't know when there are eggs, right? And you don't know when there are hatchlings. So, when you discover you have a rooster,you need to operate a rooster-relocation protocol. But I'm in support of this legislation and happy for the opportunity to provide support for people living in residential neighborhoods who have wanted and who have had hens for years. And Lord knows the price of eggs makes this much more relevant. So, with that, I'll yield. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Just following-up. First of all, I'm just Wondering,,do you have any data you could share with us on the number of complaints, for instance, ducks versus chickens. That would be super helpful. MR. DARROW,'' Typically, we just get a complaint that they have chickens or roosters. It's typically not a specific, like if there's geese or ducks. They just say,they have a compliant of unpermitted foul on a particular property. Most of the Notice of Violations that I have signed in the past, and not 99 percent of them have been for roosters. That's the one that appears to be the problematic foul, as far as being on small lots because they're louder, and they get up earlier. You know, in the past when I actually was inspector, we would get complaints of ducks and geese, and it would always be because of because they were loud, but they were also more aggressive. And we'd get complaints that they would be aggressive to the neighbors So, I recall that Page 9 PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 very distinctly. Even going out on a site-inspection. It was pretty rough with one complaint in Kapoho where they were actually coming after me. But the reason why the request was actually put in here; the request to take those out, was we did receive comments from Research and Development (R&D). They asked that they be removed. They said that geese and ducks can be very disruptive in residential neighborhoods. And if allowed, should be limited to two. They also said, residents that utilize this new allowable use should also comply with Department of Agriculture and USDA (United States Department of Agriculture)regulations. So, they brought that information to us. They were really wanting to focus this on henneries, on hens and keep it at that. When we were at our commissions, there were several commissioners that brought up that they agreed with the change„because if their experience with geese and ducks. .............. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, but there's no data. Maybe R&D has data. MR. DARROW: I don't know if they have data on complaints of roosters, or ducks, or geese. I think we would. I can follow-up on that. But again, typical complaints are chickens and roosters in residential zones. MS. KAGIWADA: I mean the issue around them maybe being more aggressive, would be taking cared of with them being in a secured space, right, and limitirig the number would also be taken care of this with this bill. MR. DARROW: That's again, a request to limit them. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. My other question is just about the Residential- Ag, going back to that. It says that you wanted to distinguish between small- scale, noncommercial poultry-keeping from intensive livestock. So, if somebody, for instance, have more chickens or ducks in this area, can they then somehow apply for intensive livestock operations, to keep that going, or Would'they still need to if this passes with the Residential-Ag inclusion, keep the numbers down and enclose them? MR. DARROW: I mean, it either allows it, or it doesn't. There's no permit to allow you to go beyond that particular use. In the Residential-Agricultural district, they were thoughtful as far as they address livestock production. They had said that you had to meet the requirements of Health, that you had to receive approval from the Director, and, "Any feed or water area, saltlick, chorale, run, bar, and shed; stable, house, hutch or other enclosure for the Page 10 PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 keeping of any permitted animal shall be located at least 75 feet from any lot line." So, it's very restrictive in the RA district. MS. KAGIWADA: I see. So, this would give more flexibility in the RA district, except for not allowing ducks. Okay, yeah. I still would like to discuss a little more about the duck issue. Maybe if we could get some data on whether you actually do have complaints about that. I don't know anybody that keeps geese. But I do know several people that do have, like two ducks or something, and they do rely on theit'eggs for food source. So, like I said, I don't know of any complaints, butIwould love to hear if there are a lot of complaints around ducks. Alright, thank you. Thank you to the'maker for putting this forward. Once again, it has been an ongoing issue, and we should definitely address it and support it overall. Just knowing some individuals who are iri this situation, I do have concerns, and I would hate to just tell them, you know, don't worry unless your neighbors complain, like break the,law. That's not the way I hope we operate. But to try to get our Code correct, so that we allow people to operate the way we want them to. I yield. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Hustace. MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair'. Thank you for the note, Council Member Villegas. I'm pushing for the greater definition on the secured space, notjust for the safety of the hens, but it's also our endemic bird ,species. Particularly, as you know, we have conversations, and we're impacted by the other Avian diseases. So, any transmission to our latest populations., That's where I also have that concern. More predatory birds seeing easy prey,'and if they're not fully enclosed, then we have another issue. So,justwant to make that point. Thank you. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Onishi. MR. ONISHL Thank you, Chair. Director,just for clarification, right now in residential properties, are they allowed to have chickens? MR ])ARROW: It's not listed as a permitted use. MR. ONISHL Yeah, okay, thank you. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: So, thank you all for the feedback on the amendment. As far as just limiting it to chickens, again, this was the recommendation from the Department and the Planning Commissions. I think it's probably a good Page 11 PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 place to start and to just see how this goes with implementation and everything. And then look at it expanding at another date. So, you know, if people feel strongly that other poultry should be included, that's fine. You know, I'm not super strong either way. But I do think it is reasonable to just start here with chickens and then see how that goes. With respect to your comment, Council Member Hustace, do you have any suggestions on language that might improve thatphrasing? ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Hnstace. MR. HUSTACE: An easy fixture,just to beremoved for other secured space, and just leave it at, "Henhouse fully enclosed areaat'all times." Just a quick fix there. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I'm amenable to that. -But what I might suggest then is to move forward with this amendment to get everything else in. And then, I can come back at our next hearing andmake that adjustment, if everybody else is in agreement with that. MR. DARROW: Chair? ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Sure, go ahead. MR. DARROW: Thank you. Just looking at the communications, we did receive Communication 286.05 from Council Member Onishi, and just wanted to know if there was something you needed us to respond to regarding that communication? MR ONISHI No, I was going to wait until we go back to the main motion, because it's not I guessI'm looking at lot sizes. And so, to me, if it's on a smaller lot? And then, there's this 20 feet, right, so I need more clarification on that part too. Because I'm thinking a lot of people are going to be putting their coops all on the border, right, away from their home. So, that could affect the neighbors. And if you have a smaller lot, it's going to affect, you know, more. But thank you. MR. DARROW: Thank you. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Are you good for now, Director Darrow? MR. DARROW: Thank you. When we get into the questioning, I can address that. Page 12 PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Sure, okay. So,personally, I also think that there might be a good case for ducks but not geese. Ducks don't make a lot of noise, generally, whereas geese definitely do. So, I might be in favor of language of ducks and other small poultry, perhaps. Maybe you need to check and see if there's a definition of small poultry before getting into, I don't know, confusion. But that's just a thought. But I'm in favor of this amendment, and we can move forward and refine it. So, all in favor of amending the contents of Bill 52 With Communication 286.4, please say, "aye." Any opposed? Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 52, with the contents of Comm. 286.4 to Amend: was carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Hustace, Inaba, Kaneah'i-Kleirifelder Kimball, Onishi, Villegas, and Acting Chair Galimba—7. Noes: Committee Member Kagiwada— 1. Absent: Committee Member Kierkiewicz— 1. Excused: None ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you, Clerk. 'Moving to the main motion. Council Member Kimball. MS`KIMBALL: Thank you. Just ask for my colleagues' support. You knew, I'm happy to introduce the simple amendments suggested here today at First Reading,,But I think we can-move forward with this now. Again, this was`a constituent request from my district, and I'm happy to take any other feedback or questions. ACTING CHR, GALIMBA: Council Member Onishi. MR. O ISHL Thank you, Madame Chair. So, I do have Communication 286.5, and basically, it's just showing in my district, the different sized lots. So, for me, I would really want to support something where we limit on the size of lots that is allowed to have hens to be raised on the properties. And I would need more clarification on that 20-foot buffer or what do you call that? MR. DARROW: So, yeah, I got that. So, typically, and this is outside of this bill as well. You have setbacks, right? So, the lots that you had put as examples were all between 10,000 and 20,000 square feet in the Residential zoning district. So, these setbacks are 20 feet front and rear; sides, 10 feet. Typically, we allow permitted projections within the setbacks for particular things; roof overhangs, lanais where they're open. Page 13 PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 If something doesn't trigger a building permit, unless Building has something specifically for it. And what I mean by that is like,you'll have these small little hutches or small rooster or chicken pens, that are not very high in height, they most likely will not trigger a building permit. And therefore, it doesn't trigger a setback requirement. So, they typically will put them along the boundaries. I see your point. You're saying that may cause more issues. That's where we usually find them when we receive a complaint. We'll,go there and they'll have all these pens that are aligned along the boundary lines. MR. ONISHL Correct. So, as you mentioned. Okay,,so, if the coops that they build are certain heights over this allowable height,then it would require a Building permit. Now, in this bill that we have here, tdoesn't really mention anything about that, correct? And so, do you think that we should mention so that the person—again, with education that was mentioned earlier in this amendment, if someone who wants to raise hens would need to know all these different requirements before they do build, or before they raise chickens, right? I mean, because my districtis very Urban, right? There's a lot of Residential, and I don't want to be having calls when there's going to be problems. And because of where the lot sizes were smaller, the neighbors don't care about the other neighbors. But because now it's a law, they're allowed to do it, right? So, I'm not going to be able to help them, and Planning Department is not going to be able to help`them. So,I just want to make sure that if we can make it at certain lot sizes, and they keep'itat a certain height; and then if they put it along their border, but'they're farther away from the neighbor's home, then I can see that it's erkay. Because hens domake noise. Before, I think, when this first came up, we had testifiers saying that hens don't make noise, but they do. And so, that's all I'm worried about. And I mean, some of the districts are Agriculture, right? They're bigger. So, they're not into these little, smaller lots like in Hilo. So, that's my concern. So, I don't know if we can work on something together. MR. DARROW: We can, and if it's okay, we're going to just this last week, I was working on a variance for a playhouse, and I was surprised to see a section in the Building Code that allowed it in the setbacks. It actually didn't require a Building permit, but it had a number of different structures that did require a Building permit. So, I need to look at that section again to see if these types of structures were mentioned in that section. Page 14 PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 That doesn't mean you still couldn't include it as a setback in this amendment. I just wanted to make sure that wasn't something that was going to run into an issue with the Building Department. MR. ONISHL Also, with those coops being next to the border, you'll have a smaller lot. If the person is not maintaining the waste, then there could be a smell, right, that could affect the neighbors. So, that's another thing that we've got to look at, right? So, I'll yield at this time. Thank you. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member .Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Jeff, I was thinking about the setback conversation, and we've had this conversation before. My concern was, if I remember correctly,you,can put a cement slab on your property boundary and put up a clog kennel without having to get a Building permit and without violating any setback requirements, correct` MR. DARROW: That's if that particular structure doesn't trigger the need for a Building permit. MR. KANEALI`I-KLETNFELDER: Not over six-feet high. And if there's no complaint. MR. DAR-ROW: That's why you'll see boundary perimeters of rock walls that'are like five-feet-eleven, right? Because they just don't trigger that ,permit. If they go over that, then they need not only a Building permit, they'll need a setback variance from us. MR. KAEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, luckily, dogs can't fly. Because it can be open'then. You don't need a roof for your dog, which is, you know, appropriate. But they do smell don't they? Dog feces does smell as well. MR. DARROW,'' They can be a little loud too, at times. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I agree. So, I guess my point is, if we're going to make rules regarding setbacks, then the discussion needs to be more open to what we're going to allow in setbacks across the County, and the impact of whatever we allow in that setback on its neighbors or their neighbors, not specific to just poultry. What is the section you were talking about in regards to the playhouses? MR. DARROW: It's in Chapter 5, and that's what I was trying to find. It was the first time I had seen that being utilized. Because this person was coming in for a variance from us for this playhouse that well over six feet. And I was like, how are we even able to do this, because the Building Page 15 PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 Department didn't require a Building permit for that particular structure. But there's a whole list of items. So, I want to just take a look at that section. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That would be nice. Although it's neither here nor there, I appreciate that. Because as a dad, I've had a number of projects my kids and I did together, and one of them was a playhouse or treehouse. If I had tried to follow the Building Code to build it, it would have taken me 15 years and cost me a fortune, and they'd,be out of the house by then. Regardless, the bill in front of us; overarching theme, eggs are $10 a dozen, it's crazy. So, this bill begins to chip away, at the over-bureaucracy that we put in place sometimes to protect people and allow them to self-sustain themselves by having chickens in their backyard. We've taking out the rooster part, and there was a discussion about ducks and geese,and quails, and whatever we want to include in this discussion. But the overarching theme, and I think it's very coincidental that Heather and I both landed a bill exactly the same at the same time. And maybe LRB (Legislative Research Branch) had a play in'that. But regardless, I mean here we are, two bills at the same time to allow people to have chickens in their backyards. Because that way,they can raise their own poultry and have their own eggs. Our job then,is to allow this,which I have to say, is surprising that we need to allow people to have chickens. I do find that slightly concerning, but here we are.', But to allow them to have their own chickens; to raise their own poultry; to eat or to use their own eggs in their own homes without having to say allowed: We removed the zooster component, which is the loud part of roosters and chickens. And I really feel good about the bill that we have in front of us today, because it does a number of things that are all positive for our community. I completely understand the perspective of some of the Council members as far as the noise issues presented and some possible concerns about what,you know, what domestic foul can bring in as far as diseases. That's an interesting component to be determined. I've reached out to some folks for some answers on that. But overall, the bill in front of us today is positive for our community and begins to open up what people can do to support themselves as we look at these interesting economic times we're in, and this ongoing concern about the price of eggs and the price of chicken costs across the nation. Page 16 PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 So, thank you for your help in bringing this bill back to us. And with some comments and suggestions from the Planning Department and Planning Commissions; for the overview and the clarity that you've provided both in the amendment and the bill. So that we can give this American, God-given right of having poultry in our backyard, but allow it legally. So, I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Darrow and Ms. Camero. I yield, Chair. MR. DARROW: I would like to put in a shameless plug since you touched upon a subject that's been on my heart for a longtime. And that is, you know, we live on an island that has majority agriculture. Yet, we are required by law to have to show proof of commercial agriculture for our dwellings. And they do not allow us to utilize subsistence farming as part of that equation. And I really feel strongly that we're at a time now that we really need to recognize the need for people to be able to utilize their subsistence farming in equation to their farm'dwelling,a Because whether I grow it here and eat it and not go to the store and spend my money, or go to the sell my product to get money to go buy the stuff at the store, it's all income related, right? Sox I feel that at some point, as a Council and a Department, we try to see if We can get the law changed to allow the Legislature to acknowledge that as part,of a farm dwelling. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you very much. That is incredibly;well-said and well4 med for"what's going on, I think, in our global state rightnow. I appreciate that, thank you, Director. I yield, Chair. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. Just want to thank Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder for bringing up the issue of,you know, obviously and the intent of maker, I'm sure is also there. But, to help people feed themselves is a huge issue. And to that end, I do want to just comment on Council Member'Onishi's suggestion. I would hate to see us limit this opportunity for lower income households. When you're talking about smaller parcels, you're talking about generally lower income households. Larger parcels generally people with more means. So, if we limit the ability of those on smaller parcels to have this opportunity, I think we'd be going in the wrong direction for this ability to feed themselves and their families with eggs. So, I just hope we can keep that in mind as we continue our discussions around this. Thank you, I yield. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Villegas. Page 17 PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 MS. VILLEGAS: Sure, I have a quick question for you, Director Darrow. This is going to be a very specific. If something is zoned A-5A Urban, and a 10,200 square foot lot, does this apply? MR. DARROW: It does not. Unfortunately, we have quite a bit of conflicting Zoning around the island. We have County zoning that may be Agriculture, where the State Land Use is Urban, or Vice Versa. We may have the County zoning that is Residential, and the State Land Use Agriculture. It allows that person to do what's allowed in those zoning districts. We can't really say, you can do that but not that. What the goal is at some point, and obviously, we have areas where you have very small lots, and it's in the State Land Use Urban. The most appropriate thing to do would be able to zone that area to Residential to be consistent. They're small lots, it's in the State Land Use Urban. And then we have other situations where you have larger lots and they're Agriculture.. We should change the State Land Use to be consistent with the zoning in that sense. But, yeah, we run into this on a very regular basis. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, okay, That's specific scenario that I was hoping this legislation could be a solution'to somebody who is manipulating zoning issues and doing damage through the raising of chickens and roosters. So, yeah,just a side personal note. I'll be in full support today. Let's get moving: I:yield. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: 'Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL:' I just;had the opportunity to look at the Building Code, Section 5-�-22(d); allows for one-story detached accessory structures. It lists several but includes an animal shed,provided that they're located on Residential or Agricultural zoned land; Residential land not to exceed 200 square feet and not greater than 15 feet above finished grade. On Agricultural land, the total floor area does not exceed 1,000 square feet; the building is not located less than 10 feet from the property line or other structures and does not violate the provisions for yards in Chapter 25. These are structures that are exempt per Chapter 5 from requiring a Building permit. That's all. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Council Member Onishi. MR. ONISHL Thank you, Madame Chair. Just on a comment that was made, but if you look at the properties I have the picture of, there's a 10,979 Page 18 PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 square foot lot valued at a little over $500,000. So, I mean, to me it's not where it's a low-income area, but that area is,you know, it's well-to-do to me or average or moderate. Thank you. MR. DARROW: The funny thing is I was trying to think why is he putting these pictures in here for? And I thought you were going to ask, how many roosters can be allowed on each one of these properties? MR. ONISHL No, it's just showing about lot sizes and locations and the smell. MR. DARROW: Thank you. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Seeing no other lights on, all in favor of sending Bill 52, as amended, to Council with a favorable recommendation, please say, "aye." Any opposed? Vote on Bill 52: The motion to recommend passage,of Bill 52, as amended (Approved) to Draft 2 on firstreading was carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Members Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder Kimball, Villegas, and Acting Chair Galimba—7. Noes: Committee Member Onishi — 1. Absent: Committee Member Kierkiewicz— 1. Excused:'None. ACTING CHIC. GALIMBA: Thank you. Let's move on to the next item on the agenda. Bill 63: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 5, OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO DWELLINGS Permits residential dwellings within the industrial-commercial mixed use (MX) zoning district. Reference: Comm. 333 Intr. by: Council Member Onishi Referred to Planning Director and Planning Commissions: June 3, 2025 and Page 19 PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 Comm. 333.3: From Managing Director William V. Brilhante, Jr., dated September 9, 2025, transmitting for Council's consideration and action, recommendation letters from the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions. ; and Comm. 333.4: From Planning Director Jeffrey W. Darrow, dated September 10, 2025, transmitting presentation materials for Bill 63. Motion to Approve: Mr. Onishi moved to recommend passage of Bill 63 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Hustace ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Mr. Onishi. MR. ONISHL Thank you, Madame Chair. Let's have Planning do their presentation first. Go ahead. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Jeff Darrow and Planner III Moses "Moke" Ramos-Kia Tupua came forward to address the members of the Committee.) (Note: At this time,, r. Ramos-Kia Tupua,provided a PowerPoint presentation to the members of the Committee. For viewing of the presentation, see the DVD copy of the proceedings on file in the Clerk's Office, or online at http.//hawaiicountygranicus.com. A copy of the presentation is made part of the record, see Comm. 333.4). ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Go ahead, Council Member Onishi. MR. ONISHL Okay,thank you, Madame Chair. Thank you very much. You guys did a great job. And at the Planning Commission, you also did a great,presentation. And I was really surprised, because that was like one of my flisttime every going in front of the Planning Commission. Because in the past,we never did, right? To hear, especially what the Windward Commissioners mentioned about how totally they were in support of it, and that they'd see that vision of how housing is a problem; traffic is a problem, right? Just the family being together is another problem too. So, you know, I really appreciate all their hard work and all your hard work. I mean, it was awesome. But, so, how all this started was that back when I was on the previous Council, we allowed through emergency proclamation, allowing I guess, a homeless shelter at the old industrial area in Kona. And so, when that triggered it, I figured, why aren't we allowing families also to live in the Page 20 PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 area? So, that way it could be more convenient for them. But then at the time, the Council didn't allow it. They wouldn't support it. Then earlier this year, we allowed hospitals, rest homes for seniors, and so forth. So, I'm going like wait now, the argument in the past was about safety for families and so forth. But now we're allowing our kupunas to live in this Mixed Commercial area, right? So, it's like, now I think is the time. And then I talked to the Director, and he also mentioned,yeah, I think it's time, right? So, that's why we have this Bill 63 in front of us„and I'm hoping that you folks understand that this is to help our families; helping with the housing; helping with especially traffic, right? People traveling, o far, and the time that they spend in traffic getting to their locations of work, So, this is in front of us. We did also work it out with Civil befenseiXiith.their concerns: And that's why with that buffer, that should help out' and they're also in support of that. And so, I'm just asking for your support: Thank you. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Hustace. MR. HUSTACE: Council Member, based on,the recommendation, do you have an amendment for this one then? MR. ONISHI: No, we don't. Director, maybe you can answer that. MR DARROW So, typically, similar to the hen bill, if the Director requests an amendment, and the commissions forward a recommendation along with thatamendment, then the Council would consider that at the hearing. So, it appears this would be the appropriate time to introduce that amendment. MR. ONISHL Okay, so I don't have that amendment. MR. HUSTACE: I'm happy to submit. MR ONISHL I will do that at the next meeting. MR. HUSTACE: Okay, thank you. Thank you for bringing this forward and thank you for the conversations with the Planning Commissions. I'm definitely in support of trying to break up the Euclidean zoning in some of our communities and allow for more opportunities. So, thank you, Council Member. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Kagiwada. Page 21 PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Yes, thank you for bringing this forward. I'm also generally in support. I wanted to ask the Planning Director about the recommended density for the Double-Family Duplex and the Multiple Family, and Single-Family. A lot of locations are starting to do greater density for especially, for Multi-Family and especially in these Mixed-Use areas. I'm just wondering how we arrived at these numbers, and would we consider doing greater density here? MR. DARROW: We utilize the same numbers that we have in all of our Commercial zonings. So, that was how we came to that. Our Village- Commercial; our Neighborhood-Commercial, and,our General-Commercial. They all have that 1,250 square feet, which is relatively„high density; 1.25. Typically, you don't see that high of a density in Multip Q-Family Residential zonings. You'll see higher density in the Resort zonings. But in Commercial-General zoning areas you can have high density LUPAG (Land Use Allocation Guide) designation which can allow that Higher density. But typically, we'll see 1.5'or 2.0. This is a pretty good high density, that again, is across the board in all the other Commercial zonings. MS. KAGIWADA: I know the zoning is Mixed,Use. But does it allow for say, an old Commercial-Use building to then have some residential component to it. And would that still be the same density requirements here? MR DARROW: That's one of the main thrusts of this bill, to allow that ability to have Residential uses where you work, where you play, and where you live. So,that's one of the thugs Council Member Onishi said. You know,people have to drive facto go to work. It would be so nice to be able to live, you know, in your work place and just be able to do that. The density is so high that that shouldn't be an issue, whatsoever. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, if you're repurposing Commercial space for Residential use, or partially, like say, it's still going to be partially Commercial and partially Residential, you could do that. MR. DARROW: Yeah, sure. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, thank you. Thank you so much for bringing this forward. I support. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: So,yes, seeing no other lights, thank you also Council Onishi, for bringing this forward. I'm assuming you want to move forward without the amendment, and you're going to be bringing the amendment in at the next meeting. Page 22 PCPLUED-18 October 7,2025 MR. ONISHL That's correct. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Okay. So, all in favor of sending Bill 63 to the Council with a favorable recommendation,please say, "aye." Any opposed? Vote on Bill 63: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 63 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kmball ,Qnishi, and Acting Chair Galimba=7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Kierkiewicz and Villegas —2. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: That brings to the end of the agenda, and we are adjourned at 10.25 a.m. Mahalo nui. MR. DARROW: Thank you all. ADJOURN- There being no further business, Acting Chair Galimba adjourned the MENT: meeting at;10:25 a.m. Approved: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair (Date) Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development AK/dt Page 23