HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-05-01 Bill 121-123 John McMahon From: Jim McMahon
To: WPCtestimony
Subject: Public Testimony-Windward Planning Commission-Bills 121-123
Date: Wednesday,May 1,2024 1:04:49 PM
Dear Chairperson and the Windward Planning Commision, please accept the following
written testimony in regards to proposed HCC bills 121-123.
Testimony
I support these bills in general. But I believe they do not go far enough to limit the
impact of TAs on our residential and agricultural communities for the following
reasons:
1.
They continue to allow the expansion of TAs, both hosted and unhosted, in
residential and agricultural zoned areas. Most visitor accommodations should be
confined to areas and zoning best suited for their needs. This would confine
most TAs to commercial, hotel, and resort areas where there are the highest
concentrations of restaurants, shopping, entertainment, public safety resources,
etc. Limited public transportation options means these visitors will be car-
dependent and thus increasing the burden on our public and shared private
roads.
As a personal example, I live in an Ag. zoned property that is bisected by a
private road easement serving several parcels hosting TAs in addition to other
unpermitted uses. This single lane long driveway isn't built to handle the
increased traffic from these operations. The burden to us is increased road
maintenance cost, noise, trespassing, theft, more invasive plants and insects,
safety issues from this unregulated traffic and our farming operations, and
simply the bother of having to deal with lost visitors.
2.
Only allow these uses in fully permitted buildings. Unfortunately, even in the
land of Aloha, simply having TA operators sign an affidavit with very limited
consequences for perjury is really not much of an incentive to do the right
thing. Operators should be required to prove they meet the building and health
department rules before receiving a permit. I believe this is already the
requirement on the neighboring islands and most other jurisdictions with a
functioning TA permit system. Many existing TA operators are heavily exploiting
the lack of build code enforcement. Additionally, parts of the TA industry and
property owners are already finding loopholes in existing legislation similar to
what is proposed in these bills.
3.
If we allow for more TA activity outside of their originally intended zones then it
increases the pressure to allow for other non-confirming uses as well. If
someone decides they want to derive additional income from their property,
why should they be restricted from only offering TAs? Certainly other forms of
related commercial activity should also be allowed. Perhaps some property
owners would prefer to offer other services such as auto repair, recycling
centers, etc. Such uses today are only legally available via the more restrictive
special user permitting process. My point is that we could be on a slippery slope
towards the complete loss of zoning use restrictions.
In conclusion these proposed bills are steps in the right direction. But they do not go
far enough in my opinion to address the current and future challenges of the
expanding and rapidly diversifying TA industry.
Best Regards
Jim McMahon