HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-06-02 Heather Korotie Testimony
From: Heather Korotie
To: Planning WPC Testimony
Subject: Bill 147 testimony
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 11:24:21 AM
Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission,
My name is Heather Korotie. I have lived in Hawaiʻi County for 16 years and have a
small fruit and vegetable farm in South Kona. I am deeply concerned about the harm
Bill 147 will cause to residents living in State Agricultural and Rural districts, where
hosted rentals, farm‑stays, and similar uses are often how residents keep their farms
and homes financially viable.
Ordinance 25‑50 was adopted as a registration measure for hosted and unhosted
TVRs, not as a new land‑use entitlement system. Bill 147 goes much further by
pushing many hosted rentals in the Rural and State Agricultural Districts into a much
more burdensome Special Permit path, while leaving hosted and unhosted Urban and
resort areas on a simpler registration track.
1. Bill 147 directly harms Rural and Agricultural District
residents
The bill’s heaviest impacts fall on residents in Rural and State Agricultural Districts
who host guests on their own homes and farms. Most residents do not know what
State Land Use District they are in, or that Bill 147 will treat them very differently
from neighbors in Urban or resort zones.
As written, Bill 147 requires that hosts in Ag and Rural districts may only host guests
in the personal dwelling they occupy, not in a separate dwelling on the homesite. For
many families, that is unrealistic: guests are not looking to share a family’s only
kitchen and bathroom amid the chaos of daily life, and most households cannot
reconfigure their homes to meet this standard. This is not a viable business model for
many resident hosts.
On top of that, only residents in Rural and State Agricultural Districts are required to
pursue a State Special Permit in order to continue hosting—an uncertain,
time‑consuming, and expensive quasi‑judicial process—while others can simply
register under Ordinance 25‑50. Residents who are trying to host where they live are
thus subject to many additional requirements and costs, mirroring B&B Special
Permit conditions, without any guarantee of approval.
For many of us, hosting where we live is not an “ideal life” choice; it is an essential
part of the income mix that lets us pay mortgages, support ourselves, maintain
agricultural operations, and stay on our land. If this income is abruptly cut off, many
households will have no easy way to replace it and may become more dependent on
public assistance instead of remaining self‑reliant.
2. Farmers need agritourism and hosted income to make
ends meet
It has never been harder for small farmers to make ends meet given the high cost of
living and the rising costs of farming. At the same time, Hawaiʻi County’s existing
agritourism provisions are outdated and difficult to use, and agritourism activities in
Ag and Rural Districts often require a Special Permit under County rules.
Rather than adding new barriers, the County should be creating an equitable playing
field that lets farmers participate in tourism through farm‑stays and hosted rentals
under clear, fair standards. One approach would be to modernize agritourism rules so
that truly agricultural properties—measured by metrics such as a minimum share of
land in agricultural use and a significant share of household time spent on agriculture
—can host visitors under simpler, predictable criteria.
Statewide data indicate that Agricultural District land accounts for roughly 45–46
percent of Hawaiʻi’s total land area, while Urban land is under 5 percent. Even if only
a portion of hosted rentals are on State Agricultural land, any policy that effectively
removes many of them will fall heavily on farmers and rural communities.
3. Bill 147 is not just “registration” like Ordinance 25‑50
Ordinance 25‑50 has been described publicly as a registration law that distinguishes
between hosted and unhosted TVRs without creating a discretionary permit layer. By
contrast, Bill 147 requires many hosted operators in the State Agricultural and Rural
Districts to obtain a Special Permit under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes 205‑6 to continue
operating.
This is materially different from registration. It forces Rural and Agricultural District
residents into a lengthy, costly, and uncertain land‑use proceeding simply to keep
doing the same hosted activity that their Urban counterparts may continue through
registration alone.
4. Bill 147 favors Urban and resort‑area residents
Residents in Urban and resort areas can continue through a comparatively
straightforward registration path under Ordinance 25‑50, while Agricultural and
Rural District residents who want to offer a rental where they live, face an additional
entitlement process under Bill 147. That creates a district‑based inequality that is hard
to justify, especially when the Agricultural District covers a far larger land base than
Urban land.
In today’s farming economy, farmers need more options—not fewer—to support
themselves. Instead of offering farmers a realistic path, Bill 147 adds hurdles for those
who already live where they host and who are trying to combine farming with
small‑scale, resident‑based tourism.
5. Two classes of B&Bs and inequitable treatment
Bill 147 defines hosted rentals as bed‑and‑breakfasts, yet the public has consistently
said B&Bs should be treated as a distinct category of owner‑occupied, hosted rentals.
Traditionally, B&B Special Permits have involved a significant up‑front investment
and a permit that runs with the land.
Under Bill 147, if all hosted rentals become “B&Bs” but only those in Agricultural and
Rural Districts must pursue a Special Permit—often taking years and potentially
costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to achieve full compliance—the process
becomes inequitable based solely on district. Hosts in Ag and Rural districts face a
highly cumbersome pathway, while Urban and commercial‑area hosts follow a
registration process without comparable burdens.
This raises basic fairness questions. How can both types of B&Bs compete in the
marketplace under such dramatically different regulatory costs and risks? Won’t this
disproportionately disadvantage hosts in Ag and Rural districts?
Any final legislation should respect the long‑standing distinction between
owner‑occupied bed‑and‑breakfasts and other short‑term rentals, a distinction
reflected in earlier County proposals and guidance.
6. Many Hawaiʻi County parcels no longer belong in the
State Agricultural District
Sixty‑five years ago, the State Agricultural District was created as part of Hawaiʻi’s
original statewide land‑use law, which divided all land into urban, agriculture, and
conservation districts. Since then, Hawaiʻi County has allowed extensive subdivision
of large agricultural parcels into much smaller lots, including many under two acres,
that now function in practice as rural‑residential neighborhoods rather than working
farms.
Yet these properties remain in the highly restrictive State Agricultural District, and
residents are effectively penalized because the State and County have not updated the
district boundaries or coordinated to correct these outdated classifications. Bill 147
amplifies those older mapping errors by tying much harsher hosting rules to the State
Agricultural designation instead of to actual land use on the ground.
7. Special Permit demands are uniquely onerous for Ag
and Rural residents
A Special Permit under HRS 205‑6 is not comparable to submitting a registration
form and paying a fee. It can involve public hearings, multiple levels of review, and
extensive preparation costs. For long‑time rural residents in older homes or modest
farm dwellings, it is often out of reach.
When conditions like full code compliance with Planning, DPW, and the Dept of
Health, “recognized” bedrooms, and wastewater system upgrades are imposed during
Special Permit review, the practical effect is pricing many small hosted operators out
of legality rather than offering them a realistic path to compliance.
8. An uneven playing field for Agricultural District hosted
rentals
Hosted and unhosted rentals in Urban and resort areas operating under a simpler
administrative path would have a clear advantage over Agricultural District residents
who must absorb the cost, delay, and uncertainty of a Special Permit process. That
result undermines the resident‑based, lower‑impact form of hosting that earlier
County efforts, like Ordinance 25‑50, said they were trying to preserve for
primary‑residence hosts.
Bill 147 also limits hosts in the Agricultural District to renting only the dwelling they
personally occupy—a requirement that no other hosted or unhosted rental category
faces—further skewing the playing field against Ag‑district hosts.
9. Operational standards that do not reflect resident
priorities
Bill 147 as written would also adjust operational standards, such as quiet hours.
Changing quiet hours to start later in the evening does not seem to be in the best
interest of many residents, especially in rural neighborhoods where people often
prefer quieter evenings and where 9 p.m. quiet hours have worked better than a 10
p.m. standard.
10. Bill 147 should be made fair or deferred
At a minimum, hosted rentals should have a comparable path across districts so that
residents in Agricultural, Rural, and Urban areas are not treated as though the same
owner‑occupied activity is fundamentally different merely because of State Land Use
District classification. If parcels are going to be penalized based on district, the
County and State must also take responsibility for correcting outdated State
Agricultural District boundaries first before implementing this Bill.
If the County believes Agricultural District hosting needs tailored standards, then Bill
147 should be paused until a dedicated agricultural‑tourism or farm‑stay framework
is established—one that supports legitimate resident hosts instead of forcing them
into an expensive, quasi‑judicial Special Permit structure that undermines farmers
trying to make ends meet.
To summarize, Bill 147 should either be revised so that resident hosts in the State
Agricultural and Rural Districts have a realistic, equitable path to continue operating
—by aligning any required Special Permit process more closely with the registration
framework—or it should be deferred until the County adopts a framework that
genuinely fits farm‑stays, hosted rentals, and owner‑occupied bed and breakfasts, and
updates State Land Use Districts to reflect the actual pattern of land use in 2026.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for considering my testimony.
~Heather Korotie, co-owner/operator at The Mango Farm in S Kona