Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0739.320 2016-2018 pfPc- October ig [03 15, 2018 Richard Ingram Laurie Leveque-Ingram 75-5809 Kini Loop Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Karen EoffCCP CD 0 - c' � SCJ Hawaii County Council E. West Hawaii Civic Center, Bldg. A orf cr-G 74-5044 Ane Keohokaloe Hwy. —a sswo em. Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 a Subject: Proposed Bill 108, Draft 5 Dear Ms Eoff, My wife I have been coming to Kailua for 40 years. We purchased our home 5 years ago. When we purchased our home, we made sure we purchased it in a residential neighborhood that was devoid of CC and Rs so in the event we chose to rent our home as a vacation rental, we could. We pay all of the various taxes in a timely manner, have our license for a vacation rental and have strict rules in our rental contracts regarding noise, smoking, number of guests and quiet times. We invested significantly improving our home to make it attractive for visitors to the island. All of those dollars were poured into the local economy. The County of Hawaii should assure that the subject of vacation rentals is legislated in a manner that is fair to all citizens. The law, as written, g segregates a ainst the owners and tenants of vacation rentals by creating restrictions that do not apply to other citizens in their neighborhood.The "good neighbor policy" is riddled with language that is ambiguous, contains statements that are subjective in nature and creates situations that segregate.The law is clearly aimed to put a stop to any new and eliminate existing vacation rentals in residential 1 Comm. No.1311'31.0 Ref.To: P IPG Ref. Date UC I 1 Z01 � ,. • neighborhoods by placing the power unfairly in the hands of neighbors of vacation rentals that oppose their use. We raise several questions about the law in the subsequent text of this correspondence. Suggestions and discussion are offered that requests your thoughtful consideration: Bill 108, 25.4.1 (c) (2) (B) Good Neighbor Policy, states: Sound that is audible beyond the property boundaries during non-quiet hours shall not be more excessive than would be otherwise associated with a residential neighborhood. We live next door to homes on large lots with bountiful plantings, mostly hedges and lawns. The hedges are trimmed often by crews using 2-cycle high powered hedge trimmers. Mowers are running. A blower may be running simultaneously as well. Across the street resides a very large family that has a moped shop, testing of mopeds occurs up and down the street full throttle at various times during the day.There are people with Harleys, big diesel pick-ups, kids with their music on walking to school and there are the dogs—perched on their balconies- barking at everything that moves. Sometimes it is noisy in the neighborhood, very noisy. All of the noise is expected. It is a neighborhood. Under the proposed law, when a neighbor complains about my guest's noise, what will be the measure of the noise and who will determine the measure? Is my neighbor able to wage a complaint about my guest's noise coming from their crying keiki? Does that compare to their leaf blower or hedge trimmer? Or my guest's young children playing in the pool? Does that compare to moped testing? Or my guest's conversation on the lanai? Is that equivalent to one? or two? of my neighbor's barking dogs? There have already been unjustified complaints about crying keiki, lanai conversations, and pool play from my neighbor in the past. Should the neighbors of vacation rentals really have a right to complain when the noise would truly not be deemed "more excessive than what would be otherwise associated with a residential neighborhood"just because it may be different noise than they are creating? Unless the noise is monitored with a meter to measure the decibel level and the ambient noise level of the neighborhood is predetermined by a professional study over time, then all statements about noise will be subjective. We contend that if the bill is passed as written, the noise issue will be used by the neighbors in a manner that discriminates against the home owners that choose to rent their homes as vacation rentals. The proposed bill creates a tool for neighbors that are already against vacation rentals to complain indiscriminately. It requires the owner or his agent to appear at the house even if the complaint was completely erroneous. If this law is passed and a governmental structure is put in place that requires the planning department to consider complaints about noise that may be wholly subjective, then any decision rendered by the • planning department will be subject to challenge. We recommend that the proposed bill be modified so that noise complaints be rightly made directly to law enforcement. If those noise complaints are real and verified by law enforcement, then and only then, should they be considered as a violation that may influence the renewal of a permit to operate a vacation rental. Having law enforcement involved should ensure the rights of all and avoid the influence of neighborhood groups that do not wish to have vacation rentals in their neighborhood. Bill 108, 25-4-.1. (c) (2) (C), states: Police reports or verified neighbor complaints of noise and other disturbances relating to the short-term vacation rental operations. What is a verified neighbor complaint? Who will verify the neighbor complaint? How will the complaint be verified? If it is to be verified by another neighbor that will clearly not work in our neighborhood. We, as owners, have already experienced harassment. An aggressive atmosphere against vacation rentals in our neighborhood already exists. Prior complaints to us have been based on fictional circumstances and exaggerations. My wife and I have been insulted in person and in writing. Our neighbors have been clearly unreasonable but will have, under the law as written, the ability to continue their harassment of us. Enforcement of laws is, again, a place for law enforcement. If a law is violated, then the law enforcement should be there to observe or verify—not the neighbors. The proposed bill appears to be silent on much of the actual mechanics of how violations of these rules will be acted on. How many violations are allowed before your renewal is denied? If you or your agent is 5 minutes past the 3-hour time deadline to appear at your vacation rental is that violation alone cause for removing your right to have a vacation rental? The proposed law is too vague regarding what specifically leads to denial of your right to rent out your home. It places considerable power in the hands of the planning director, power if not fairly adjudicated, could lead to considerable legal challenge on both sides of the issue. Bill 108 25-4- .1. (b) (4) (D) The proposed bill requires owners to notify all owners of record and lessees within 300 feet of , any portion of the rental property that a vacation rental exists. Will the planning department provide the owners of vacation rentals a list of all the adjacent owners so that, when the owner verifies that a notice has been sent,the owners and planning department can be confident that all adjacent property owners have been contacted? The planning department would be vastly better equipped to provide an accurate list of adjacent owners than the owners themselves. Also, 300 feet is excessive and unnecessary. In our home's particular case we will be having to 3 notify people that are a full block away that front on adjacent streets because the very back of their lots are just less than 300 feet from the front of our lot. A notification radius of 200 feet would be more appropriate. A final question—do the rules prescribed for vacation rentals within the proposed law apply when the owner, their family members or guests that are not paying guests are staying at the home? Do signs have to remain in place when we are at our home? Will neighbor complaints apply during the periods where the home is in use by us or our family members. Our home is rented out less that half of the year—so this circumstance applies more that it does not. Bill 108 appears to be silent on the issue. We urge you to advise the council to not adopt this policy as written and carefully consider a revised policy that is fair to all. Sincerely, Richard Ingram Laurie Leveque-Ingram 4