HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-07-13 Paul Byron TestimonyFrom: Paul Byron
To: Planning LPC Testimony
Subject: Written Testimony Bill 147
Date: Monday, July 13, 2026 3:32:26 PM
Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Commission,
My name is Paul Byron. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for working through what is a complicated issue at the intersection of family‑farm‑based agriculture and
agritourism. I have lived in South Kona with my family for 16 years, where we run a small farm, operate a farm stay, and live on the same property we care for every day. I am deeply
concerned that, as written, Bill 147 would unintentionally harm residents in the State Agricultural District who rely on our homes and farms—the very places where we live—to
support ourselves financially.
For my family, this is not abstract. If Bill 147 moves forward as written, it would negatively
affect us financially and fundamentally alter our family’s path for years to come. We are only one family, and I ask the Commission to consider not just our situation, but the broader impact
on the farming community and on the many residents who happen to live in the State Agricultural District.
Roughly 45% of Hawaiʻi Island and tens of thousands of parcels fall within the State Agricultural District. I am very interested in how the Commission is thinking about the impact
on this largest district of our island’s residents. Can you please address this impact in the question‑and‑answer period of the hearing? Do we know how many of these parcels have
operating farms and either current farm‑stay operators or farmers who might want to diversify and stabilize their income through farm‑based hosting?
Hawaiʻi County’s zoning code already recognizes both bed and breakfast establishments and agricultural tourism as distinct land‑use concepts. At the same time, recent court decisions
provide important legal context. In the Rosehill case, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court held that farm dwellings in the State Agricultural District may not be used as short‑term vacation rentals
when that use is untethered from agricultural purposes, because transient vacation stays undermine the district’s purpose. In contrast, the Neal matter involved an owner‑occupied,
hosted rental on an active farm in Captain Cook, which Hawaiʻi County’s Board of Appeals treated differently from unhosted STVRs and viewed as consistent with agricultural use at the
time. Together, these decisions highlight a distinction between unhosted vacation rentals in farm dwellings—which clearly conflict with State law—and carefully regulated, hosted
farm‑stays that are demonstrably part of an integrated farm plan and agritourism strategy.courts.state.
Ordinance 25‑50 was intended to create a registration and enforcement system for transient vacation rentals and hosted rentals, but Bill 147 goes much further by reshaping the broader
regulatory framework for transient accommodations. As proposed, it forces hosted rentals in the State Agricultural District on parcels created after 1976 into a costly, uncertain, and
lengthy Special Permit process to be treated as a B&B, while other resident hosts are allowed a simpler registration path to be treated as a B&B. Bill 147 thus creates categories of
resident‑hosted accommodations based largely on State Land Use District labels, even though many of these areas no longer function the way those labels suggest. In practice, many large
agricultural parcels were subdivided over the past several decades into small lots that now
operate as rural neighborhoods with scattered small family farms, not large‑scale agricultural enterprises. Yet Bill 147 still treats residents on those lots as though they are situated on large
agricultural lands that can easily absorb a more burdensome permitting structure.
For many families on Ag land, hosting on the property where we live is simply a way to make
ends meet—we would not do it for any other reason. Farm income alone is often only a fraction of what is needed to support a family, and farm stays are what allow us to pay our
mortgage, keep up with higher property taxes that have already increased because we are hosting, keep farming through losses, and remain self‑reliant instead of relying on public
assistance. Imposing a quasi‑judicial Special Permit process on top of registration, in practice only for farmers and others in the State Agricultural District, burdens this segment of our
population. I do not believe the County intends to make things harder and less supportive for farmers; the County’s stated goal is to promote agriculture. That is exactly what happens when
legitimate farm‑stays are allowed on operating farms—they help families stay on the land and keep farming.
The County zoning code defines a bed and breakfast establishment as overnight accommodations in permitted single‑family dwellings and/or guest houses for up to ten guests,
and it separately defines agricultural tourism as visitor‑related commercial activities designed to promote agricultural activities on a working farm, ranch, or agricultural products processing
facility. Those existing code concepts point to a more sensible solution than forcing small farm residents into a process that may be prohibitively expensive and uncertain. A revised
agritourism framework—less cumbersome than the current Special Permit pathway used for B&Bs in the Ag district—could allow legitimate farm‑stays to continue through clear
standards such as active farm use, real agricultural dedication, and objective compliance requirements around income, farm plans, and visitor limits.
I also believe this bill unintentionally hurts the actual B&B industry by effectively classifying all hosted rentals as B&Bs. It takes substantial money and time for B&Bs to be created via the
Special Permit process on Ag and Rural land, and it seems unfair to this business sector to have two very different paths to becoming a “B&B” that require very different levels of
investment and effort.
Finally, I ask that you not extend quiet hours to begin at 10 p.m. A one‑size‑fits‑all restriction
like that would be difficult to enforce fairly in rural communities and does not reflect how many residents actually live.
In summary, I respectfully ask the Commission to consider the following:
Defer the bill until the State and County have an agritourism framework that recognizes
and allows educational agritourism and farm‑stays through accessible requirements and processes that protect agriculture while also protecting residents’ ability to support
themselves financially.
Revise Bill 147 so that resident hosts in the State Agricultural and Rural districts have a
realistic and equitable path by aligning any Special Permit requirements as closely as possible with the same streamlined registration framework and rules that apply to other
resident hosts seeking B&B status.
Defer the bill until outdated State Land Use District boundaries are corrected so parcels
are not kept in the State Agricultural District when they would more appropriately be
treated as Rural lands for this purpose.
Reconsider making all hosted rentals “B&Bs,” and reserve that designation for Special
Permit holders who have invested serious time and money to establish this type of business, while allowing other resident‑hosted rentals to remain in a registration‑based
framework.
If this bill moves forward as written, the harm will fall disproportionately on residents living
on small farms and in rural areas. That is the opposite of what should happen at a time of high living costs, fragile supply chains, and repeated public concern about supporting local
agriculture and local families.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Paul Byron