HomeMy WebLinkAboutKilner, Suzanne
Tsuneda, Kaci
From:Suzanne Kilner <suz.kilner@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 14, 2026 11:26 AM
To:Council Testimony
Cc:Hustace, James; Kimball, Heather
Subject:Bill 147 Testimony – RM Zoning in Established Resort Areas- Suzanne Kilner
I would like to thank the Committee for their time on this important topic. Since Bill 108 in 2018, there
have been thousands of hours of tireless work to refine what was started.
I am a full time resident of Hawaii County and live in the Mauna Lani Resort. I am in James Hustace's
District.
I'm submitting this testimony to raise a specific concern with the proposed RM amendment to Bill No.
147: its effect on RM-zoned parcels located within our County's Resort areas.
STVR's belong in the Resort
Since 2018, the county has been clear that STVRs belong in the Resort. This was established by Bill 108
and enacted as Ordinance 2018-114 - STVRs were allowed in all zoning areas of the Resort. This was
further supported in the economic studies showing the positive economic impact to the County. For all
accounts STVRs in the Resort Nodes have been a success !
STVRs being allowed in Resort Nodes has led to significant increases in property values in the resort nodes which has
dramatically increased property tax revenues to the County. Hawaii County TAT is also very significant from these
areas. These higher valued homes drive a significant portion of the County's tax base allowing taxes to remain lower for
primary full time residents. The County should embrace developments in the resort nodes that subsidize the County
budgets.
Now however, the RM Amendment to Bill 147 RM undoes that for RM in the resort
It specifically excludes RM from the Resort/Resort Node exception, which is written to cover "any
residential district, other than RM."
What remains for RM is a single narrow exception: STVR use survives only where "plan approval for the
dwelling... was issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance" — language and terminology that is
not well defined and seemingly only targets RM (for plan approval) where a 514-B condominium is
present. It ignores other situations where RM in the resort may in fact have a single family residence on
them, and provides for no provision of 421J in the resort. The use of "plan approval" and "dwelling" in the
same section is just plain confusing !
Rather than carving out a long list of exemptions " such as plan approval (defined), 514-B, 421J, and
wonder if we missed anything, why not just have the original language that "STVR / TVR's are allowed in
any residential zoned area in the Resort / Resort Node / Resort area of the General Plan" It's simple,
clean and effective language that gets the job done. It's consistent with what the County has said it has
wanted - STVR in the Resorts.
1
Feedback on the Ammendments overall
In the last planning meeting, there was a comment that "there is not a lot of feedback from the
public". The amendments were issued in late August only days before the early September Planning
session. They have not been well advertised or communicated to date. I would urge this committee and
the council to ensure that the proposed changes are well understood by the public before any
conclusions are drawn around whether the public understands and supports this major change. These
amendments are consequential and there has not been a clean copy of the bill provided for true
consideration and review to understand these changes in their totality.
I urge this committee to work through the implications of these changes and take the time to really
understand them, ensuring these changes match the intent and desires of the broader community.
Suzanne Kilner
2