We are owners at Puamana, one of the planned developments that will be negatively affected by the proposed amendments to Chapter 19.32.040 I. We strongly object to the change in that portion of the resolution, 19.32.40, which was enacted to codify the right to engage in transient vacation rentals at Puamana. Built in 1968 as a planned unit development (PUD), Puamana differs from many condominiums built on Maui, especially with regards to open space. With 230 units on 30 acres, which is less than 8 dwelling units per acre, while condominiums usually have a ratio as high as 50 dwelling units per acre. This makes Puamana a special place for owners and visitors.
Section 19.32.040 was recommended by the Maui County Planning Committee in 2012 and Maui County Council approved it in 2013.
This section of the County code applies only to units in Puamana, Kaanapali Plantation and Alaeloa that were built and used for Transient Vacation rental prior to April 20, 1989. It does not allow ANY new visitor accommodations to be built or converted from residential to TVR use. This part of the County code was established in 2013 to clarify the long standing legal TVR uses in these specific projects and helps the planning department when approving building permits and SMA exemptions for remodels and renovations of these 40-60 year old units.
The proposed deletion of this part of the existing code turns the legal TVR use into an “existing non conforming” use and makes any renovations or remodels difficult to get permit approvals. More voices need to be heard as we do not feel this bill has been a collaborative effort
The planning commission should be allowed to give their recommendation and they have not been allowed to do their work. Our industry is highly impacted by this bill and yet, we have not yet been called as a resource group, invited to the table or given the chance to share our concerns and input. We ask that Bill 159 return back to committee to allow the Planning Commission to complete their review.
Thank you for your consideration
Chris & Missy Moody
Puamana, Lahaina
For the last twenty years my wife and I have been owners of a unit in the Puamana development in Lahaina.
I am writing concerning Bill 159, which would affect Puamana owners negatively -- and in my opinion, unfairly. In particular, I strongly oppose the deletion of the language in Maui County Code 19.32.040 I that specifically allows for short term rental uses at Puamana, Kaanapali Plantation and Alaeloa.
Short-term rentals have been occurring at Puamana for a half century. It was thoroughly considered in 2013 whether this was reasonable, and the conclusion was that Puamana short-term rentals are indeed a reasonable activity. I see no reason to think that has changed. Section 19.32.040 applies only to units in Puamana, Kaanapali Plantation and Alaeloa that were built and used for Transient Vacation rental prior to April 20, 1989. It does not allow ANY new visitor accommodations to be built or converted from residential to TVR use
From what I have seen, Puamana renters tend to stay on the Puamana property more than most island visitors are likely to do, consequently causing less of many of the "problems associated with tourism." Furthermore, there will be no growth at Puamana, so there should be no concern about Puamana causing an increase in visitors to Maui.
We feel that the Council in its inappropriate haste has been ignoring voices that deserve to be heard. We request that Bill 159 be returned to committee so that the Planning Commission can complete their analysis.
We need to cap tourist accommodations, including camper vans and RVs, until we have affordable housing for all our residents, and until our infrastructure is expanded to handle the number of tourists already coming here. The pro development interests and their political friends say “we can’t stop people from coming”, but if we cap the number of places they can stay, then we will de facto cap,the number of tourists. No jobs wiil be lost since we’re not eliminating any current hotels or TVRs. We can still grow jobs for natural population expansion, but they should be in agriculture, food processing, university/college programs, and high tech sectors.
These proposed changes would equal tens of millions of dollars in gross revenue lost which will in turn have significant impacts on the vendors, cleaners, maintenance teams and staff that they employ and the accompanied lost tax dollars for the county. Businesses will close, more local employees will lose their jobs and this will not stop arrivals into Maui. Our industry is highly impacted by this bill and yet, we have not yet been called as a resource group, invited to the table or given the chance to share our concerns and input.
This will not fix affordable housing as these units are not affordable to the local community due to special assessments, HOA dues, lack of parking etc.. This will not fix lack of building for the last 20 years!!!
This bill should continue to be vetted in committee and allow the commission to complete their review. More voices need to be heard as we do not feel this bill has been a collaborative effort. The planning commission should be allowed to give their recommendation and they have not been allowed to do their work.
It’s our hope that we can find a balance and way as a county to create the affordable housing needed and manage tourism without the need to take away and negatively impact our locally owned and run small businesses.
Talk to the companies, employees and vendors who support the Maui economy and pay for so many of the needs of Maui residents through taxes.
You may also want to look at the court case Oahu just lost for taking away vested owner rights. Lawsuits will happen on Maui too.
We are owners in a planned unit development at Puamana, Lahaina, Maui. We first visited Maui in 1976 and bought our first property here in 1986. We love Maui and we know why folks want to visit here.
We object to the change in that portion of the resolution, 19.32.40, which was enacted to codify the right to engage in transient vacation rentals at Puamana. Built in 1968 as a planned unit development (PUD), Puamana differs from many condominiums built on Maui, especially with regards to open space. With 230 units on 30 acres, which is less than 8 dwelling units per acre, while condominiums usually have a ratio as high as 50 dwelling units per acre. This makes Puamana a special place for owners and visitors.
Section 19.32.040 was recommended by the Maui County Planning Committee in 2012 and Maui County Council approved it in 2013. In 2016 section 19.32.040 was amended to include another PUD called Alealoa, near Napili, which has a similar low density condition as Puamana. Both of these sites, because of the low density and ocean frontage, are desirable rental properties and have property tax rates thar reflect the added value. Removing or amending 19.32.040 would destroy the value added portion of an owners investment in Puamana. Property taxes, Transient Accommodation taxes, General Excise taxes and other Maui County Revenues would all diminish if the ability to have TVR’s at Puamana were removed.
And why would we remove a right that has been in existence since 1968 and was codified numerous times since then? Despite the abundance of open space, which is held in common, Puamana has very little potential to increase visitor counts. SMA setback restrictions, Puamana Community Association rental capacity restrictions and Maui County requirements don’t allow much growth in the total number of visitors.
Again, we respectfully request that you do not change our existing rights contained in Section 19.32.40.
Karen and Michael Learned
48-4 Puamelia Place,
Lahaina, HI 96761
I strongly support this bill to cap tourist accommodations and ban commercial camper van rentals. This bill supports the sentiments of the community and is an important step towards addressing the negative impacts that unchecked tourism has on our island’s natural and cultural resources. The bill will not hinder construction (have you seen the state of our infrastructure?!?) nor take away jobs from the current tourism industry. Thank you for supporting this measure.
We are strongly opposed to the removal of the language in 19.32.040, Subsection I.
This language in this Section was specifically created, and unanimously adopted by the Council in 2013, to protect the Puamana community. Removing this language does not further the Council's goals, and will only result in families like ours selling their property to someone who can afford to not rent it out (i.e., another winter retreat for a non-resident). This will also result in the loss of income to the property managers, handymen, cleaners, and many other local businesses that rely on these properties to make a living here on the island.
For many local businesses such as restaurants, cafes, supermarkets, etc. it would mean the collapse of their existence, because unlike individual tourists, package tourists consume in the hotel complexes.
Thank you for your consideration
Mahalo
I support phasing out tourist accommodations in all zoning areas, except hotel. The lax laws allowing accommodations in so many different zoning categories were written before the internet made it so easy to profit off Maui from a distance. The testimony submitted represents a few residents who own vacation rentals, however, vacation rentals are primarily owned by people from the mainland and Canada. Many of these units would make excellent homes for residents. They are often in great locations within walking distance of stores and beaches.
One comment I often hear from owners is the units are too small to live in. It is all about perspective. Unless they are luxury units or multigeneration housing, houses and apartments are generally smaller in Maui than the mainland. Plantation houses averaged 900-1000 square feet.
Thank you for your time,
Karen Comcowich
Lahaina, HI
Writing on my own behalf.
There are good arguments to slow down tourism. This is for sure.
BUT, the method by which it is slowed, and knowing the unintended consequences first, are both the ways of BEST governance.
We should not shoot first and look down range later.
Making existing operations NON-CONFORMING status is NOT FAIR to those existing property owners who are in operation. This puts their existing livelihoods, at risk.
This proposal would make further, private infrastructure investment less attractive. It may not allow it at all - Even if owners are making improvements or upgrades to what is ALREADY there.
Please vote NO to this resolution / bill.
Thank you for your consideration and your service to the County –
Greg Mebel
It is hard for me to express just how bad this legislation is. No matter what the goal might be, the changes proposed in this legislation are just not logical and would not serve the express purpose of reducing the number of visitors coming to Maui island.
The only positive part of this legislation that I could support is section 19 that repeals ordinance 5316. And that is not because I want more visitor accommodations, but because the moratorium on NEW visitor accommodations contained in ordinance 5316 has been administrated by the planning department in such a way that it has shut down the ability for property owners to get building permits for renovations of their Short term rental permissible units approved. These items might not seem logically linked, but the planning department’s interpretation of, no expansion of short term rental uses extends to something as simple as someone wishing to bump out a wall to the edge of their units roof eve. And that issue needs to be resolved.
What is worse, is that some of the changes proposed in this legislation would change the legally existing TVR use of some properties into an existing non conforming use. Such a change, administrated as the Planning department is currently administrating the moratorium, would make this matter even worse. One property owner wishing to renovate his unit to facilitate handicap access for his wheelchair bound mother, has told me his renovations have been denied a permit simply because his unit is allowed to make short term rental uses even though he is NOT making any short term rental uses.
Some of the proposed ordinance changes in Resolution 22-70 are not even required to cap visitor accommodations, because they are removing parts of the code that only applies to properties where short term rental uses were established and the buildings were constructed prior to April 20, 1989. And these parts of code could never facilitate any NEW Transient vacation rentals.
Specifically, I am referring to the proposed changes to MCC19.32.040 I. A section of code that was established by the Council unanimously in 2013 and 2014. It was adopted to affirm the long standing legal TVR uses at three specific Planned unit developments; Puamana, Alaeloa and Kaanapali Plantation. I know this history because I was there in every, planning commission meeting, planning committee meeting and County Council meeting when this legislation was promulgated. It is criminal for this Council to ignore the many efforts of that previous Council that sought to bring greater clarity to the code and make the issues with renovation of units easier to administrate.
If this legislation moves forward, the Council must restore the current language in Maui County Code 19.32.040 I
This proposed legislation deletes some TVR uses currently allowed in some business districts and leaves others in place without any explanation. While it might be reasonable to remove some of the permissible TVR uses in some business districts to prevent any new ones from being established, before that can be considered an inventory of existing TVRs in these districts should be produced and a determination of how to administrate their ongoing uses would need to be discussed and codified. And the history of how these uses were originally allowed would be appropriate. I know some of this history, because I was there. But the haphazard elimination of some uses and not others as proposed in this legislation makes no sense.
The idea that hotel use in the hotel district becomes frozen in its current configuration of rooms and building envelopes also make no sense and is potentially illegal. But I am not personally concerned with the hotels owned by big corporations, they have their own lawyers and I expect the County has already heard from them.
The part of this legislation that tries to address mobile visitor accommodations is a subject that needs to be addressed. But what has been proposed in this legislation is not well conceived and could not actually be enforced. So this subject needs to be considered in different stand alone legislation.
The most important issue that this legislation ignores is that Maui’s recent increase in visitor counts is not primarily being driven by more hotel rooms, nor by more short term rentals or Bed and Breakfast homes. It is being driven by the more than 15,000 second homes, that many like to refer to as “illegal TVRs”. But I believe that most of these second homes are not being rented illegally, they are being used by their owners as part-time residences, and used by the owner’s friends and family members. And DBEDT counts each one of these part-time residents, staying in their own homes, as visitors. And that number, as well as that of new Maui residents, is growing much faster than the visitors, who are paying GET and TAT while staying at the legal visitor accommodations that this legislation seeks to cap.
As the owners of several vacation rental units in Puamana, we are concerned that Bill 159 may be passed without the proper review. This bill should continue to be vetted in committee and allow the commission to complete their review. More voices need to be heard as we do not feel this bill has been a collaborative effort. Our industry has not been called as a resource group or given the chance to join the discussion. The planning commission should be allowed to give their recommendation and they have not been allowed to do their work.
In particular, we request that the County Council restore the language proposed for deletion in 19.32.040 I. This section of the County code applies only to units in Puamana, Kaanapali Plantation and Alaeloa that were built and used for Transient Vacation Rentals prior to April 20, 1989. It does not allow ANY new visitor accommodations to be built or converted from residential to TVR use. This part of the County code was established in 2013 to clarify the long standing legal TVR uses in these specific projects and helps the planning department when approving building permits and SMA exemptions for remodels and renovations of these 40-60 year old units.
The proposed deletion of this part of the existing code turns the legal TVR use into an “existing non- conforming use” and makes it difficult to get permit approvals for any renovations or remodels.
We ask that you do not pass bill 159 but allow it to return to committee for further review.
We are a local family that has owned a unit in Puamana for over forty years. The 4th generation in now growing up and able to take part in this wonderful community. The ability to rent the unit as a vacation rental from time to time is critical to keeping the property in the family. Without this income we would likely be forced to sell the property, as the property taxes and fees are simply too much without the additional income. Accordingly, we are strongly opposed to the removal of the language in 19.32.040, Subsection I.
This language in this Section was specifically created, and unanimously adopted by the Council in 2013, to protect the Puamana community. Removing this language does not further the Council's goals, and will only result in families like ours selling their property to someone who can afford to not rent it out (i.e., another winter retreat for a non-resident). This will also result in the loss of income to the property managers, handymen, cleaners, and many other local businesses that rely on these properties to make a living here on the island.
Bill 159 seems to be far more sweeping than needed to effecutate the Council's goals. There are many issues that need to discussed and addressed before such legislation becomes law, particularly when such legislation can have such life altering consequences on our local residents.
Accordingly, we humbly request that the PSLU committee either recommend returning Bill 159 to committee for further review or remove the proposed changes to Section 19.32.040 I. for planned developments. This language was carefully created and vetted in 2013 and should not be removed without a throrough review of its effects and a greater discussion with the affected property owners.
We are owners at Puamana, one of the planned developments that will be negatively affected by the proposed amendments to Chapter 19.32.040 I. Vacation rentals have been operating in Puamana since it was built in the late 1960s and were codified by Maui Council in 2013. Many small businesses such as cleaners, landscapers, maintenance companies depend on those vacation rentals.
We respectfully request that the PSLU committee recommend removing the proposed changes to section 19.32.040 I for planned developments within Resolution 22.70 CD1 FD1 (Bill 159).
My husband and I oppose this bill and are asking that the bill be returned to the committee to allow the Planning Commission to complete their review. We request that the Planning Committee recommend the removal of the proposed changes to section 19.32.040 I for planned developments to the Maui County Council. This section of the county code applies only to units in Puamana, Kaanapali Plantation and Alaeloa that were built and used for Transient Vacation rental prior to April 20, 1989. This part of the county code was established in 2013 to clarify the long standing legal TVR uses in these specific projects and helps the planning department when approving building permits and SMA exemptions for remodels and renovations of these older units. It was created specifically to prevent there ever being any question about the right for units in these communities to be used for short term rentals. It does NOT allow new visitor accommodations to be built or converted from residential to TVR use; they have been used for this purpose since their development in the late sixties/ seventies. The proposed deletion of this part of the existing code turns the legal TVR use into an “existing non conforming” use and makes any renovations or remodels difficult to get permit approvals. The Planning Commission should be allowed to do their work and provide their recommendation.
We do not support this measure. We firmly believe in managed tourism and regenerative tourism. However this measure does not have enough information when it comes to economic repercussions. We do not support changing property uses described in the measure, and we feel the measure could accomplish its goal without changing the use out from under property owners. We would like to see amendments to the language in the bill to allow the existing properties continue their use legally.
I oppose Resolution 22-70.
We do not support this measure. We firmly believe in managed tourism and regenerative tourism. However this measure does not have enough information when it comes to economic repercussions. We do not support changing property uses described in the measure, and we feel the measure could accomplish its goal without changing the use out from under property owners. We would like to see amendments to the language in the bill to allow the existing properties continue their use legally.
there are several places in the department of planning report recommended changes that indicate current TVR use in certain zones will be disallowed moving forward, and existing properties doing this use would be now considered non-conforming.
At the very least the county should be contacting these properties that would be affected.
The economics of loss of jobs and loss of tax revenue would be impacted negatively.
Please do not make conditions on Maui worse by passing this bill.
I appreciate the council's effort but I strongly oppose this bill. While certain efforts to manage over tourism should be looked into, this bill could greatly impact our economy which is heavily dependent on tourism; especially as our economy is likely heading for a pretty significant recession. Right now, I am able to provide a good living for my family by servicing vacation rentals. The authors of this bill are trying to solve an extremely complicated issue, by casting a wide net which could end up creating even worse issues all without guaranteeing any of the actual goals will be met. After reading through this bill the only thing that looks to be guaranteed is negative economic impacts on local service providers, the workforce, and significant tax revenues. Crushing property values in tourist zones won't keep mainland buyers from scooping up the inventory in those areas. They will just buy the condos at a lower price and stay in them a few times a year. As a result, they won't need housekeepers, handyman, carpet cleaners, window cleaners, local property managers, etc. Again, I think more weight needs to be placed on the economic impacts of this decision. Maui has always been a hard place to make a living, please don't make it any harder for us if you cannot guarantee the end-goal. Sometimes it's better to wait on the right decision, then to make things worse. - Kawika Englert
Aloha Chair Paltin, Vice Chair King and Members of the PSLU Committee,
Please find attached ARDA Hawaii's testimony regarding PSLU-2(3). Please let me know if the committee needs any additional information.
Mahalo,
Evan
“I support capping tourist accommodations and banning commercial camper rentals.”
We are owners at Puamana, one of the planned developments that will be negatively affected by the proposed amendments to Chapter 19.32.040 I. We strongly object to the change in that portion of the resolution, 19.32.40, which was enacted to codify the right to engage in transient vacation rentals at Puamana. Built in 1968 as a planned unit development (PUD), Puamana differs from many condominiums built on Maui, especially with regards to open space. With 230 units on 30 acres, which is less than 8 dwelling units per acre, while condominiums usually have a ratio as high as 50 dwelling units per acre. This makes Puamana a special place for owners and visitors.
Section 19.32.040 was recommended by the Maui County Planning Committee in 2012 and Maui County Council approved it in 2013.
This section of the County code applies only to units in Puamana, Kaanapali Plantation and Alaeloa that were built and used for Transient Vacation rental prior to April 20, 1989. It does not allow ANY new visitor accommodations to be built or converted from residential to TVR use. This part of the County code was established in 2013 to clarify the long standing legal TVR uses in these specific projects and helps the planning department when approving building permits and SMA exemptions for remodels and renovations of these 40-60 year old units.
The proposed deletion of this part of the existing code turns the legal TVR use into an “existing non conforming” use and makes any renovations or remodels difficult to get permit approvals. More voices need to be heard as we do not feel this bill has been a collaborative effort
The planning commission should be allowed to give their recommendation and they have not been allowed to do their work. Our industry is highly impacted by this bill and yet, we have not yet been called as a resource group, invited to the table or given the chance to share our concerns and input. We ask that Bill 159 return back to committee to allow the Planning Commission to complete their review.
Thank you for your consideration
Chris & Missy Moody
Puamana, Lahaina
For the last twenty years my wife and I have been owners of a unit in the Puamana development in Lahaina.
I am writing concerning Bill 159, which would affect Puamana owners negatively -- and in my opinion, unfairly. In particular, I strongly oppose the deletion of the language in Maui County Code 19.32.040 I that specifically allows for short term rental uses at Puamana, Kaanapali Plantation and Alaeloa.
Short-term rentals have been occurring at Puamana for a half century. It was thoroughly considered in 2013 whether this was reasonable, and the conclusion was that Puamana short-term rentals are indeed a reasonable activity. I see no reason to think that has changed. Section 19.32.040 applies only to units in Puamana, Kaanapali Plantation and Alaeloa that were built and used for Transient Vacation rental prior to April 20, 1989. It does not allow ANY new visitor accommodations to be built or converted from residential to TVR use
From what I have seen, Puamana renters tend to stay on the Puamana property more than most island visitors are likely to do, consequently causing less of many of the "problems associated with tourism." Furthermore, there will be no growth at Puamana, so there should be no concern about Puamana causing an increase in visitors to Maui.
We feel that the Council in its inappropriate haste has been ignoring voices that deserve to be heard. We request that Bill 159 be returned to committee so that the Planning Commission can complete their analysis.
Mahalo.
We need to cap tourist accommodations, including camper vans and RVs, until we have affordable housing for all our residents, and until our infrastructure is expanded to handle the number of tourists already coming here. The pro development interests and their political friends say “we can’t stop people from coming”, but if we cap the number of places they can stay, then we will de facto cap,the number of tourists. No jobs wiil be lost since we’re not eliminating any current hotels or TVRs. We can still grow jobs for natural population expansion, but they should be in agriculture, food processing, university/college programs, and high tech sectors.
These proposed changes would equal tens of millions of dollars in gross revenue lost which will in turn have significant impacts on the vendors, cleaners, maintenance teams and staff that they employ and the accompanied lost tax dollars for the county. Businesses will close, more local employees will lose their jobs and this will not stop arrivals into Maui. Our industry is highly impacted by this bill and yet, we have not yet been called as a resource group, invited to the table or given the chance to share our concerns and input.
This will not fix affordable housing as these units are not affordable to the local community due to special assessments, HOA dues, lack of parking etc.. This will not fix lack of building for the last 20 years!!!
This bill should continue to be vetted in committee and allow the commission to complete their review. More voices need to be heard as we do not feel this bill has been a collaborative effort. The planning commission should be allowed to give their recommendation and they have not been allowed to do their work.
It’s our hope that we can find a balance and way as a county to create the affordable housing needed and manage tourism without the need to take away and negatively impact our locally owned and run small businesses.
Talk to the companies, employees and vendors who support the Maui economy and pay for so many of the needs of Maui residents through taxes.
You may also want to look at the court case Oahu just lost for taking away vested owner rights. Lawsuits will happen on Maui too.
John Kevan
Aloha Maui Planning Commission members:
We are owners in a planned unit development at Puamana, Lahaina, Maui. We first visited Maui in 1976 and bought our first property here in 1986. We love Maui and we know why folks want to visit here.
We object to the change in that portion of the resolution, 19.32.40, which was enacted to codify the right to engage in transient vacation rentals at Puamana. Built in 1968 as a planned unit development (PUD), Puamana differs from many condominiums built on Maui, especially with regards to open space. With 230 units on 30 acres, which is less than 8 dwelling units per acre, while condominiums usually have a ratio as high as 50 dwelling units per acre. This makes Puamana a special place for owners and visitors.
Section 19.32.040 was recommended by the Maui County Planning Committee in 2012 and Maui County Council approved it in 2013. In 2016 section 19.32.040 was amended to include another PUD called Alealoa, near Napili, which has a similar low density condition as Puamana. Both of these sites, because of the low density and ocean frontage, are desirable rental properties and have property tax rates thar reflect the added value. Removing or amending 19.32.040 would destroy the value added portion of an owners investment in Puamana. Property taxes, Transient Accommodation taxes, General Excise taxes and other Maui County Revenues would all diminish if the ability to have TVR’s at Puamana were removed.
And why would we remove a right that has been in existence since 1968 and was codified numerous times since then? Despite the abundance of open space, which is held in common, Puamana has very little potential to increase visitor counts. SMA setback restrictions, Puamana Community Association rental capacity restrictions and Maui County requirements don’t allow much growth in the total number of visitors.
Again, we respectfully request that you do not change our existing rights contained in Section 19.32.40.
Karen and Michael Learned
48-4 Puamelia Place,
Lahaina, HI 96761
I strongly support this bill to cap tourist accommodations and ban commercial camper van rentals. This bill supports the sentiments of the community and is an important step towards addressing the negative impacts that unchecked tourism has on our island’s natural and cultural resources. The bill will not hinder construction (have you seen the state of our infrastructure?!?) nor take away jobs from the current tourism industry. Thank you for supporting this measure.
Lauren Blickley
Pā`ia
We are strongly opposed to the removal of the language in 19.32.040, Subsection I.
This language in this Section was specifically created, and unanimously adopted by the Council in 2013, to protect the Puamana community. Removing this language does not further the Council's goals, and will only result in families like ours selling their property to someone who can afford to not rent it out (i.e., another winter retreat for a non-resident). This will also result in the loss of income to the property managers, handymen, cleaners, and many other local businesses that rely on these properties to make a living here on the island.
For many local businesses such as restaurants, cafes, supermarkets, etc. it would mean the collapse of their existence, because unlike individual tourists, package tourists consume in the hotel complexes.
Thank you for your consideration
Mahalo
I support phasing out tourist accommodations in all zoning areas, except hotel. The lax laws allowing accommodations in so many different zoning categories were written before the internet made it so easy to profit off Maui from a distance. The testimony submitted represents a few residents who own vacation rentals, however, vacation rentals are primarily owned by people from the mainland and Canada. Many of these units would make excellent homes for residents. They are often in great locations within walking distance of stores and beaches.
One comment I often hear from owners is the units are too small to live in. It is all about perspective. Unless they are luxury units or multigeneration housing, houses and apartments are generally smaller in Maui than the mainland. Plantation houses averaged 900-1000 square feet.
Thank you for your time,
Karen Comcowich
Lahaina, HI
Writing on my own behalf.
Testimony on:
Resolution 22-70
PSLU Committee
10/19/22
Aloha Committee members and Council members,
I am OPPOSED to the resolution / bill as written.
There are good arguments to slow down tourism. This is for sure.
BUT, the method by which it is slowed, and knowing the unintended consequences first, are both the ways of BEST governance.
We should not shoot first and look down range later.
Making existing operations NON-CONFORMING status is NOT FAIR to those existing property owners who are in operation. This puts their existing livelihoods, at risk.
This proposal would make further, private infrastructure investment less attractive. It may not allow it at all - Even if owners are making improvements or upgrades to what is ALREADY there.
Please vote NO to this resolution / bill.
Thank you for your consideration and your service to the County –
Greg Mebel
It is hard for me to express just how bad this legislation is. No matter what the goal might be, the changes proposed in this legislation are just not logical and would not serve the express purpose of reducing the number of visitors coming to Maui island.
The only positive part of this legislation that I could support is section 19 that repeals ordinance 5316. And that is not because I want more visitor accommodations, but because the moratorium on NEW visitor accommodations contained in ordinance 5316 has been administrated by the planning department in such a way that it has shut down the ability for property owners to get building permits for renovations of their Short term rental permissible units approved. These items might not seem logically linked, but the planning department’s interpretation of, no expansion of short term rental uses extends to something as simple as someone wishing to bump out a wall to the edge of their units roof eve. And that issue needs to be resolved.
What is worse, is that some of the changes proposed in this legislation would change the legally existing TVR use of some properties into an existing non conforming use. Such a change, administrated as the Planning department is currently administrating the moratorium, would make this matter even worse. One property owner wishing to renovate his unit to facilitate handicap access for his wheelchair bound mother, has told me his renovations have been denied a permit simply because his unit is allowed to make short term rental uses even though he is NOT making any short term rental uses.
Some of the proposed ordinance changes in Resolution 22-70 are not even required to cap visitor accommodations, because they are removing parts of the code that only applies to properties where short term rental uses were established and the buildings were constructed prior to April 20, 1989. And these parts of code could never facilitate any NEW Transient vacation rentals.
Specifically, I am referring to the proposed changes to MCC19.32.040 I. A section of code that was established by the Council unanimously in 2013 and 2014. It was adopted to affirm the long standing legal TVR uses at three specific Planned unit developments; Puamana, Alaeloa and Kaanapali Plantation. I know this history because I was there in every, planning commission meeting, planning committee meeting and County Council meeting when this legislation was promulgated. It is criminal for this Council to ignore the many efforts of that previous Council that sought to bring greater clarity to the code and make the issues with renovation of units easier to administrate.
If this legislation moves forward, the Council must restore the current language in Maui County Code 19.32.040 I
This proposed legislation deletes some TVR uses currently allowed in some business districts and leaves others in place without any explanation. While it might be reasonable to remove some of the permissible TVR uses in some business districts to prevent any new ones from being established, before that can be considered an inventory of existing TVRs in these districts should be produced and a determination of how to administrate their ongoing uses would need to be discussed and codified. And the history of how these uses were originally allowed would be appropriate. I know some of this history, because I was there. But the haphazard elimination of some uses and not others as proposed in this legislation makes no sense.
The idea that hotel use in the hotel district becomes frozen in its current configuration of rooms and building envelopes also make no sense and is potentially illegal. But I am not personally concerned with the hotels owned by big corporations, they have their own lawyers and I expect the County has already heard from them.
The part of this legislation that tries to address mobile visitor accommodations is a subject that needs to be addressed. But what has been proposed in this legislation is not well conceived and could not actually be enforced. So this subject needs to be considered in different stand alone legislation.
The most important issue that this legislation ignores is that Maui’s recent increase in visitor counts is not primarily being driven by more hotel rooms, nor by more short term rentals or Bed and Breakfast homes. It is being driven by the more than 15,000 second homes, that many like to refer to as “illegal TVRs”. But I believe that most of these second homes are not being rented illegally, they are being used by their owners as part-time residences, and used by the owner’s friends and family members. And DBEDT counts each one of these part-time residents, staying in their own homes, as visitors. And that number, as well as that of new Maui residents, is growing much faster than the visitors, who are paying GET and TAT while staying at the legal visitor accommodations that this legislation seeks to cap.
Dear PLSU Committee Members,
As the owners of several vacation rental units in Puamana, we are concerned that Bill 159 may be passed without the proper review. This bill should continue to be vetted in committee and allow the commission to complete their review. More voices need to be heard as we do not feel this bill has been a collaborative effort. Our industry has not been called as a resource group or given the chance to join the discussion. The planning commission should be allowed to give their recommendation and they have not been allowed to do their work.
In particular, we request that the County Council restore the language proposed for deletion in 19.32.040 I. This section of the County code applies only to units in Puamana, Kaanapali Plantation and Alaeloa that were built and used for Transient Vacation Rentals prior to April 20, 1989. It does not allow ANY new visitor accommodations to be built or converted from residential to TVR use. This part of the County code was established in 2013 to clarify the long standing legal TVR uses in these specific projects and helps the planning department when approving building permits and SMA exemptions for remodels and renovations of these 40-60 year old units.
The proposed deletion of this part of the existing code turns the legal TVR use into an “existing non- conforming use” and makes it difficult to get permit approvals for any renovations or remodels.
We ask that you do not pass bill 159 but allow it to return to committee for further review.
Mahalo for your consideration.
We are a local family that has owned a unit in Puamana for over forty years. The 4th generation in now growing up and able to take part in this wonderful community. The ability to rent the unit as a vacation rental from time to time is critical to keeping the property in the family. Without this income we would likely be forced to sell the property, as the property taxes and fees are simply too much without the additional income. Accordingly, we are strongly opposed to the removal of the language in 19.32.040, Subsection I.
This language in this Section was specifically created, and unanimously adopted by the Council in 2013, to protect the Puamana community. Removing this language does not further the Council's goals, and will only result in families like ours selling their property to someone who can afford to not rent it out (i.e., another winter retreat for a non-resident). This will also result in the loss of income to the property managers, handymen, cleaners, and many other local businesses that rely on these properties to make a living here on the island.
Bill 159 seems to be far more sweeping than needed to effecutate the Council's goals. There are many issues that need to discussed and addressed before such legislation becomes law, particularly when such legislation can have such life altering consequences on our local residents.
Accordingly, we humbly request that the PSLU committee either recommend returning Bill 159 to committee for further review or remove the proposed changes to Section 19.32.040 I. for planned developments. This language was carefully created and vetted in 2013 and should not be removed without a throrough review of its effects and a greater discussion with the affected property owners.
Mahalo.
We are owners at Puamana, one of the planned developments that will be negatively affected by the proposed amendments to Chapter 19.32.040 I. Vacation rentals have been operating in Puamana since it was built in the late 1960s and were codified by Maui Council in 2013. Many small businesses such as cleaners, landscapers, maintenance companies depend on those vacation rentals.
We respectfully request that the PSLU committee recommend removing the proposed changes to section 19.32.040 I for planned developments within Resolution 22.70 CD1 FD1 (Bill 159).
My husband and I oppose this bill and are asking that the bill be returned to the committee to allow the Planning Commission to complete their review. We request that the Planning Committee recommend the removal of the proposed changes to section 19.32.040 I for planned developments to the Maui County Council. This section of the county code applies only to units in Puamana, Kaanapali Plantation and Alaeloa that were built and used for Transient Vacation rental prior to April 20, 1989. This part of the county code was established in 2013 to clarify the long standing legal TVR uses in these specific projects and helps the planning department when approving building permits and SMA exemptions for remodels and renovations of these older units. It was created specifically to prevent there ever being any question about the right for units in these communities to be used for short term rentals. It does NOT allow new visitor accommodations to be built or converted from residential to TVR use; they have been used for this purpose since their development in the late sixties/ seventies. The proposed deletion of this part of the existing code turns the legal TVR use into an “existing non conforming” use and makes any renovations or remodels difficult to get permit approvals. The Planning Commission should be allowed to do their work and provide their recommendation.
We do not support this measure. We firmly believe in managed tourism and regenerative tourism. However this measure does not have enough information when it comes to economic repercussions. We do not support changing property uses described in the measure, and we feel the measure could accomplish its goal without changing the use out from under property owners. We would like to see amendments to the language in the bill to allow the existing properties continue their use legally.
I oppose Resolution 22-70.
We do not support this measure. We firmly believe in managed tourism and regenerative tourism. However this measure does not have enough information when it comes to economic repercussions. We do not support changing property uses described in the measure, and we feel the measure could accomplish its goal without changing the use out from under property owners. We would like to see amendments to the language in the bill to allow the existing properties continue their use legally.
there are several places in the department of planning report recommended changes that indicate current TVR use in certain zones will be disallowed moving forward, and existing properties doing this use would be now considered non-conforming.
At the very least the county should be contacting these properties that would be affected.
The economics of loss of jobs and loss of tax revenue would be impacted negatively.
Please do not make conditions on Maui worse by passing this bill.
I appreciate the council's effort but I strongly oppose this bill. While certain efforts to manage over tourism should be looked into, this bill could greatly impact our economy which is heavily dependent on tourism; especially as our economy is likely heading for a pretty significant recession. Right now, I am able to provide a good living for my family by servicing vacation rentals. The authors of this bill are trying to solve an extremely complicated issue, by casting a wide net which could end up creating even worse issues all without guaranteeing any of the actual goals will be met. After reading through this bill the only thing that looks to be guaranteed is negative economic impacts on local service providers, the workforce, and significant tax revenues. Crushing property values in tourist zones won't keep mainland buyers from scooping up the inventory in those areas. They will just buy the condos at a lower price and stay in them a few times a year. As a result, they won't need housekeepers, handyman, carpet cleaners, window cleaners, local property managers, etc. Again, I think more weight needs to be placed on the economic impacts of this decision. Maui has always been a hard place to make a living, please don't make it any harder for us if you cannot guarantee the end-goal. Sometimes it's better to wait on the right decision, then to make things worse. - Kawika Englert
Absolutely in support of this cap. Great work. It is critical.
Mahalo, Faith Chase