HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0286.032 2024-2026From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brandon Lewis
77-147 Queen Kalama Ave.
Kailua Kona, HI 96740
bran kenfloweryCobgmail com
808-987-0992
Date:11/4/2025
To:
Clerk of the Council
Hawai'i County Council
Brandon Peters
Tuesday, November 4, 2025 11:08 AM
Council Testimony
Testimony for Bill 52. Conflicting with SB 2888 (2022)
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawai'i 96720
Email: counciltestimony(cahawaiicounty gov
Re: Testimony on Bill 52 (Draft 2) — Proposed Ordinance to Amend Chapter 25 (Zoning) to Permit
"Household Henneries"
Dear Council Members,
Aloha — Mahalo for the opportunity to submit testimony on Bill 52 (Draft 2), scheduled for second and/or
final reading by the Hawai'i County Council on November 5 with written testimony due by November 4.1
am submittingthis testimony in opposition to the proposed bill in its current form.
Background / Context
1. The bill would amend Chapter 25 of the Hawai'i County Code to allow what is termed "household
henneries" (female egg -laying poultry) in multiple residential zoning districts (RS, RD, RM, RCX,
and RA) undervarious conditions including limits on number of hens, no roosters, confinement
requirements, setbacks, and prohibition on sale of eggs.
2. The bill is sponsored by Council Member Heather Kimball and is advancing toward final adoption
absent significant public input.
3. At the same time, on the State level, SB 2888 (2022) was enacted to promote cottage -food
production and small-scale food enterprises and highlights the State's interest in local food
security and home -based enterprise.
Conflict of Concern
While I appreciate the underlying intent of Bill 52—to promote local food production, household self-
1 Comm
Ref. To:�
rape n„+o �
sufficiency, and food resilience on Hawaii Island —the draft appears to conflict with or run contrary to
several principles embedded in SB 2888 and other State policy goals. Specifically:
SB 2888 emphasizes the role of small-scale commercial cottage food operations, direct sales to
consumers, and easing regulatory barriers for rural enterprises. However, Bill 52 prohibits the sale
of eggs produced in a household hennery, thus limiting the economic utility of the enterprise and
undermining the incentive framework recognized at the State level.
SB 2888 articulates that the State supports local food production, particularly in rural areas,
recognizing unique challenges. The proposed Bill 52 moves the discussion into dense residential
zoning, which arguably increases potential conflict.
Points of Testimony / Concern
1. Enforcement and Practicality
The draft calls for "fully enclosed area", "coop, cage, hutch, henhouse" etc. But enforcement of
these standards —who monitors, who responds, what fines or remedies —are not clearly
delineated in the draft summary. When nuisance issues arise (eg. excessive birds, roaming,
predators, rats, odor), residents may bear the negative externalities while the County bears
enforcement burden.
2. Economic and Administrative Consistency with State Policy
If SB 2888 encourages small-scale food enterprises, then restricting commercial sale under Bill
52 seems inconsistent. Residents who may wish to produce a modest surplus (sharing, bartering,
modest sale) are prevented from doing so, which may disincentivize participation and limit the
bill's effectiveness in food -resilience terms.
3. Recommendation for Amendment or Deferral
Because of the potential for unintended consequences, I respectfully recommend the Council
consider either:
4.
o Deferringfinal adoption of Bill 52 (Draft 2) to allow further input from resident
stakeholders, zoning/neighborhood associations, planning department staff, and to
conduct a pilot or study of impacts.
o Or amending the bill to strengthen safeguards:
0
• Reconsider the prohibition on sale of eggs: perhaps allow modest direct sale, under
a simple registration and education program, aligning with State goals for food
production and supporting local micro -enterprises.
• Provide for periodic review of the ordinance's efficacy (after 2-3 years) with
reporting back to Council.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while I support the goal of increased household self-reliance, sustainable food production
and local resilience, I believe Bill 52 in its current form poses significant zoning, enforcement and in fact
appears to undercut elements of the State's policy for cottage food production as laid out in SB 2888. For
these reasons, I oppose final adoption of the bill at this stage without further amendment and public
engagement.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I'urge the Hawaii County Council to hear from abroad cross-
section of impacted residents and stakeholders, to amend accordingly, and to adopt an ordinance that
genuinely balances food -resilience with neighborhood livability.
Respectfully submitted,
Brandon S Lewis