Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-03-29 PL-CCI-2024-000004 Bill 122 Claudia Rohr Testimony From: Claudia Rohr To: WPCtestimonv Subject: Testimony in Opposition to Bill 122 for an Ordinance amending the Zoning Code Date: Tuesday,April 2,2024 10:09:03 AM Aloha Chair and Planning Commissioners- I oppose Bill 122, for an ordinance repealing Bed and Breakfasts as a permitted use in the Zoning Code. The purpose of Bill 122 is to eliminate an existing, effective regulatory framework for hosted transient accommodations rentals which includes a public hearing and is substantially more comprehensive than the regulatory framework proposed by Bill 121. Bill 122 is an arbitrary government zoning action which has no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare required by HRS §46-4 County zoning. It cannot be said it is even an effective work reduction action ("a way to help sort of alleviate the demand for additional work by the Planning Department") See transcript of January 23, 2023 meeting of Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Development, Page 33: hApS7Hrecords.hawaii county,gov/weblink/DocView.as dbid=0&id=1073059&page=1&cr=1 Section 25-4-7. Bed and breakfast establishments, and related sections should stand in place because they will still regulate existing permitted bed and breakfasts. The Council has made it clear that existing permitted bed and breakfasts are not subject to Bill 121 registration requirements, and the permit continues to run with the land (although there is no clear language to that effect in either Bill). My concern is that the public and the Planning Department is going to misinterpret Bills 121 and 122 otherwise. The Planning Department suggested an amendment to Bill 121 to state existing permitted bed and breakfasts are legal (not exempt). The regulations regulating existing permitted bed and breakfasts will be lost. Please consider what the County Council members stated about Bill 122: MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. This is part of the whole conversation around TAR's. Basically, what we're looking at without this repeal is four different mechanisms by which people can register a transient accommodation. On balance, registering as a TAR, as an operator-hosted or an owner-hosted, should be simpler than the bed-and- breakfast process. And I think some of our folks out here talked about they had to get all the permits put together, they had to go through the Planning Commission. It is a one-and-done process, but it is much more complicated than what we're looking at for the TAR registration. So, since we're already doing the hosted and the operator-hosted under the TAR, like let's just get rid of bed-and- breakfast and not have four things. Just do three. With that said,I will reiterate in case people missed it. If you have an existing bed-and-breakfast permit, that is an entitlement on your property that you will continue to have. And if there were any conditions issued to you at the time that you received that bed-and-breakfast permit, those are the conditions that apply to you. You will not have to do anything else. You will not have to register as a TAR. In fact, your property value will probably increase because you have an entitlement that is no longer available. With that said,just to mess everybody up and throw a huge wrench into the works, one other opportunity here is to push operator-owners, owner-hosted, push them all to B&B (bed and breakfast). You can imagine how that's going to come up for the Planning Commission process, but that was another option that we've discussed. They're over here going, "Why did you mention that?" Sorry. But that's the truth. I mean that is another option, stick them all there, but I think we proposed it in this way because it is going to be, once it's established and set, much easier for people to manage. MS. EVANS: Thank you. I personally believe there's a difference between owner-operated and bed-and-breakfast. I think bed-and-breakfast is truly a business model that has been around for a long time. And if you look at the way the Code reads today, it's really about, you know, regulating breakfast meals, it's regulating parking, it's regulating exterior signage, it's having to go to the Commission, have a process so that the neighborhood knows it. I personally like the bed-and-breakfast model and so I'd like to keep it separate. For that reason, I'll be voting no. Thank you. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. I actually share the same sentiments as Council Member Evans. You know, I worked in land planning for a long time, and I did like the strokes of going through the Commission, getting conditions of approval, requiring parking, requiring ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance. You know, I'm going to support this going to the Planning Commission, but I really think there continues to be a space for bed-and-breakfast and really legitimizing them specifically if they come with conditions of approval whether it's through the use permit process or the special permit process. And when we, just like Housing, when we're looking for a suite of options, this one really brings all the amenities that come with a visitor industry. And so, we'll let the Planning Department and the Commissions vet this one and balance that against what we have in Bill 121. But I'm just saying this out loud for our Deputy Darrow, and I've seen why we have the series of bills the way we do. Those are my thoughts. I yield. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. I feel the same way. I don't want to lose this as an option. I do feel it serves a key purpose. There's also some history and legacy associated with it that I think is a part of a visitor experience and a hosting experience. You know,prior to digital hosting platforms that blew the doors off this industry, a bed-and-breakfast was something that might be advertised in your local little newspaper or a flyer you'd get, maybe even on the internet. But ironically part of the demise to these hosted spaces has been how broadly it's now publicized because it requires government then to have this accountability because we have all this disparity and equity, and our real estate prices, and rental everything's, and housing, all these different things. But going back to the fundamental joy of discovering a bed-and-breakfast in a little town you love to visit, and maybe you booked, you called them for a reservation, right. You didn't book it through a what-not. So, my heart breaks at the thought of losing that because I think that's part of what we want to cherish, and we want to keep here on the Big Island. And if anything, that's where I would love to see us returning more back to because that is that authentic connectivity of a hosting experience versus just everything's online, digital, no accountability, no real relationship. It's just an investment, it makes money. You know, I feel like that's why we're in this place right now, because we've gone so far away from what a bed-and-breakfast historically was and has been as an experience. So, I would like to keep the bed-and-breakfast option. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I really appreciate comments from my colleagues. I'm wanting to send this to commission just to hear what they have to say. You know, we had put this forward because in our discussions with the Planning Department there was a lot of consideration around B&B's being very similar to owner-hosted. And so, this was a way to help sort of alleviate the demand for additional work by Planning Department. But again, I would love for the Planning Commissions to weigh in here. You know, I'm looking at the B&B definition, there's a maximum of ten people that can stay at a B&B at any one time for overnight accommodation and it has to be less than a period of 30 days. So, there are some nuances and special experiences that people have offered up. So, I would like for there to be additional public discussion before we take this into consideration as a legislative body. But I do just want to emphasize because I did have some constituents, you know, write in, "I have a B&B, will I lose it?" You're grandfathered in. Again, this entitlement runs with the land. MS. KIMBALL: Can I speak to that? Yeah. Actually, that was something that came up in the deliberations about having some language in the Code that referred to the B&B program that would no longer exist, and it was the recommendation of the Clerk that our Code, as it's current form, is what's going on right now. It should be contemporary, whereas if permits existed from previous Code, that lives in that old Code. But the current Code shouldn't refer to a program that doesn't exist moving forward. So, that's why it's just fully eliminated even though existing permits would be honored. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. With that, I'm in support of moving it to the Commissions as well. Though I do think similar to some of the real property tax bills that we pass-I hear what you're saying in terms of having the Code be current, but some of these things that are being eliminated are current day rules that govern bed-and-breakfast. So,I'm thinking another approach to this might be to simply put into Code that we won't be allowing further applications just so that everything that governs the bed-and-breakfast currently would continue to stand and we wouldn't be looking at a Code that might be missing those governing rules. (emphasis added) See transcript of January 23, 2023 meeting of PolicyCommittee on Planning, Land Use, and Development, Pages 29-34. hApS7Hrecords.hawaii county,uov/weblink/DocView.aspx? dbid=0&id=1073059&12age=1&cr=1 The public should not have to spend their time continuously testifying. Please just pass Bill 122 back with an unfavorable recommendation or suggesting an amendment to the Code that the County will not be allowing further applications for bed and breakfasts use permits and special permits, for the reasons set out above. Thank you for your time and service. Claudia Rohr, 21-year owner/operator of At the Beach with Friends Bed and Breakfast 369 Nene St., Hilo, Hawaii