Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-04-02 PL-CCI-2024-000003 Bill 121 Sundar Subramanyam & Meena Subramanyam Testimony From: Subramanvam To: WPCtestimonv Subject: Bill 121 Testimony Date: Tuesday,April 2,2024 4:36:54 AM Attachments: Sundar and Meena Subramanyam Bill 121 Testimonv.odf Dear Chairperson Lin and Members of the Windward Planning Commission, We, Sundar and Meena Subramanyam, owners of the property located at 76-853 Pakalakala PI., Kailua Kona, HI, 96740, submit the attached testimony expressing support for the amendment#1 by the Planning Director regarding Bill 121. Sincerely, Sundar Subramanyam, Ph.D., Esq. Meena Subramanyam, Ph.D. April 2, 2024 Chairperson Lin; Windward Planning Commission Members RE: Bill 121 Testimony Dear Chairperson Lin and Members of the Windward Planning Commission, We, Sundar and Meena Subramanyam, owners of the property located at 76-853 Pakalakala Pl, Kailua Kona, HI, 96740, come before you to express our strong support for the amendment 91 by the Planning Director regarding Bill 121. This amendment, which revises the definition of "transient" to encapsulate rentals of thirty consecutive days or less, resonates with the operational realities we have experienced in renting our property within the 31 to 179-day range. It offers a balanced approach to managing already existing short-term vacation rentals, recognizing the nuances of the local rental market and the need for clear, consistent regulations. The Planning Department's experience in regulating short-term vacation rentals underlines the practicality of this amendment. Aligning the definition of"transient" and"transient accommodations" with these well-established practices acknowledges the existing ecosystem and mitigates the risk of unintended consequences for homeowners and the community at large. As property owners engaged in renting our home under the terms defined by current regulations since 2016 when we acquired the property as an investment, the potential reclassification of our ability to rent our home without a clear path for adaptation or compensation presents a significant concern and would potentially cause numerous unintended consequences, which could ultimately lead to a deprivation of our vested rights as residential homeowners. The end result of such impacts could also lead to potential litigation. It is therefore, imperative that any regulatory changes include provisions to either grandfather existing practices or offer just compensation under existing Hawaii and U.S. law to those affected. This approach not only ensures fairness, but also respects the investments and planning made by homeowners based on existing law and current legal frameworks. In this regard, Hawaii courts have repeatedly held that under the United States and Hawaii Constitutions,preexisting and lawful uses of property are generally considered to be vested rights that zoning ordinances may not abolish, and prohibit zoning changes that eliminate prior lawful uses without grandfathering in nonconforming uses l'2'3; and enforcing a zoning ordinance such as Bill 121 on such homeowners likely violates the Takings Clause.i ' See e.g.HAWAII LEGAL SHORT-TERMRENTAL ALLIANCE v. City and County of Honolulu,Dist.Court,D. Hawaii 2022 at 18. relevant provisions of HRS § 464(a)unambiguously states"Neither this section nor any We therefore, appeal to the Honorable Chairperson and esteemed Members of the Windward Planning Commission to advocate for the adoption of the Planning Director's amendment#1 by the County Council. By doing so, you will not only be supporting a regulatory environment that is both fair and conducive to the sustained vitality of our local communities and the broader tourism economy, but also will be consistent with requirements under current Hawaii and U.S. Law. Thank you for considering our testimony and for your dedication to the well-being of our community. Sincerely, Sundar Subramanyam, Ph.D., Esq. Meena Subramanyam, Ph.D. ordinance enacted pursuant to this section shall prohibit the continued lawful use of any building or premises for any ...purpose for which the building or premises is used at the time this section or the ordinance takes effect.",and that "[s]tated plainly and unambiguously,this statute prohibits counties from passing zoning ordinances which discontinue any previously lawful uses." See also Haw.Legal Short-Term Rental All. v. City of Honolulu,Decided Dec 21,2023 permanently enjoining the enforcement of Ordinance 22-7 enacted by the city of Honolulu seeking to increases the minimum permissible rental period for residential properties on Oahu from 30 days to 90 days,with no provision,beyond a six-month phase out period,to accommodate existing 30 to 89 day rentals is preempted by HRS §464(a). 2 Waikiki Marketplace Inv.Co.v.Chair of Zoning Bd.of Appeals of the City&County of Honolulu,949 P.2d 183, 193(Haw.App. 1997)(explaining that HRS § 46-4(a)prohibits zoning changes that eliminate prior lawful uses without grandfathering in nonconforming uses);Robert D.Ferris Trust v.Planning Comm'n of Kauai,378 P.3d 1023, 1028(Haw.App.2016)(stating that HRS §46-4(a)'s "statutory protection of lawfully existing uses ... 'is grounded in[state and federal] constitutional law"')(quoting Waikiki Marketplace,949 P.2d at 193-94). s"The statutory protection of lawfully existing uses and structures "prior to the effective date of a zoning restriction is grounded in constitutional law."Waikiki Marketplace Inv.Co.v.Chair of Zoning Bd.of Appeals of City&Cty. of Honolulu,86 Hawai'i 343,353,949 P.2d 183, 193(1997)(citing 8A McQuillin Municipal Corporations§§ 25.180-25.180.20,at 8-9(3d ed. 1994)).Under the United States and Hawaii Constitutions, "preexisting lawful uses of property are generally considered to be vested rights that zoning ordinances may not abrogate."Waikiki Marketplace,86 Hawai'i at 353-54,949 P.2d at 193-94".