We are owners at Kamaole Sands. We are OPPOSING the Amendment put forth by Councilmember Paltin to HLU Bill 105.
We agree with HLU Bill 105 which was designed to help areas like Lahaina recover from disasters, allowing non-conforming uses to be rebuilt after a disaster if they’ve been destroyed by more than 50%. This is essential for the recovery of properties and businesses affected by events like the August 8th 2023 wildfires.
However, we oppose Councilmember Paltin’s amendment which would make an exception for STRs, preventing them from resuming STR operations after rebuilding. Councilmember Paltin’s amendment raises concerns about the unintended consequences for property owners and local families and workers who rely on STRs for income and economic stability.
We need the ability to be able to continue to use our condo as we wish for STRs otherwise we cannot afford all the expenses to keep the condo. We bought the condo knowing we were protected under the Minatoya List. It is EXTREMELY unfair that it is now being challenged mid-stream and there is consideration to take away our protection. With this current political unrest our condos are worthless. No buyers are interested in purchasing and very few tourist are coming to Maui. Unfortunately, Maui now has a bad name and tourists are taking their money to the outer islands. We believe that if these new Bills go into effect and things continue in the same direction as they currently are that the entire island of Maui will suffer the consequences.
We are truly sorry that this disaster happened on August 8 and are saddened by the whole situation. Our hearts go out to those who lost loved ones and property. However, we are not at fault and should not be penalized because of it.
Mahalo,
Alyson Delbrook & Ronald Chen
Kamaole Sands 6-402
Looking at the long range of the effects of this bill will only be a disaster to Maui. Tourism is what keeps Maui alive and functioning. With STR stopped, tourism will stop. It is total suicide for Maui to go on with this agenda. The workers that support the STR will all loose their jobs, again I say this is a TOTAL DISASTER!!!
As I testified orally, I am Donald Cameron. Our family owns a condo that has been operating as a short term vacation rental since the building was built in 1973 (Hoyochi Nikko in Mahinahina). It is on the Minatoya List.
We're all for rebuilding Lahaina and support the Bill in general, but oppose Councilmember Tamara Paltin’s amendment.
I echo the objection of the AIrBnB and MVRA representatives to Councilmember Tamara Paltin’s amendment to Maui County Code Section 19.500.110:
"Nonconforming transient vacation rental uses that were discontinued for any reason, including because they were within structures that were damaged or destroyed in a disaster, may not be continued."
This exception, that “Nonconforming transient vacation rental uses that were discontinued for any reason, … may not be continued”, is too broad, both in scope and geography, for the intended purpose of the Bill: to assist rebuilding Lahaina Town.
“Discontinued for any reason” would include those units who discontinued short term rentals to rent their units out to Lahaina survivors whose rents were funded by FEMA.
It may, but probably does not include, those short term rental units who stopped renting when the Governor and the Mayor asked tourists not to come to Maui during the rest of August and September, 2023. They didn't stop their use as rental units; guests just cancelled.
In addition, the Bill does not appear to be limited to Lahaina, so it would relate to all short-term rental units in Maui.
This general prohibition of short term rental units would be done prior to the County receiving the economic impact study that it ordered prior to making a final decision whether to ban short term rentals across Maui, including those on the Minatoya list.
It is too broad and premature. Please reject the amendment.
I support the Bill HLU 105, and oppose Paltin's amendment to this bill. I have lived in Lahaina for over 35 years, and both of my children were born here. I am a small business owner and my income is based on Short Term Vacation Rentals. Changing the way my livelihood has been built after all of these years is not right. My unit as Aina Nalu was completely burned down and a fire should not give any council member the right to change the laws. The local business people have suffered enough with the negative social medial and politics that have gone on after the fires. We have seen a drastic decrease in the number of visitors which has already affected our income and the hours our employees work. We should have the right to rebuild our property the way it was prior to the fires and recover financially from what has already been a nightmare for those of us who live here in Lahaina.
1. Maui County has not actually issued that many STRH permits, certainly not enough to materially affect - even should all of the permitted properties enter the long-term rental pool - the current housing shortage on Maui.
2. Very few, if any, of the properties that have obtained STRH permits are likely to become part of the long-term rental housing pool. Surveys of their owners has shown this. They will either sit empty when they are not being used by their owners, or they will be sold to people who can afford to leave them sit empty when they are not using them. Again, they will not enter the long-term rental housing pool.
3. STRH-permitted properties have generated significant tax revenue for the county. This revenue will be lost should the bill be passed as amended.
4. STRH-permitted properties employ a significant number of people on Maui. These jobs will be lost should the bill be passed as amended.
Basically, HLU Bill 105 as amended will benefit no one and will obviously and demonstrably hurt the very people it proposes to help. A responsible reading of the situation should lead council members to strike the amendment from this otherwise helpful bill.
I believe there is insufficient evidence that short term rentals negatively impact the housing market. STRs provide an income stream to local residents as well as increasing tax revenues for the county.
I manage 2 vacation rental units one of which is on the minatoya list. To think that studios, small one and two bdrm units would be a big help to "Families" is totally absurd. If the County wants to assist families is acquiring a home, they should look at what THEY allowed in the B & B houses. All those homes in family neighborhoods should not have been allowed, period. Those are better suited to house families. All of the condos on that list have been vacation rentals for years and services not only the tourist but local families that come to Maui to visit. And not to make mentioned all of the jobs lost in the cleaning field, maintenance field etc. The council people that are trying to push this bill really dont have to worry, they get paid no matter what.....Well, as all the taxes are depleted, maybe not. I for one do not want to see taxes increase on us local people just to keep up with their salaries because they make uninformed, prejudicial decisions due to a small group push on affordable rents, which will never be affordable with the increased cost of ownership. THINK HARD before making this decision. This will ruin Maui's economy. Actually it has already started.
I oppose Councilmember Paltin's amendment while expressing support for Bill 105. An economic impact study on STRs should be completed prior to making any decisions to further restrict STRs. A data-driven approach is essential to ensure the best outcome for our community. Local families and businesses affected by the wildfires rely on income from STRs and services related to STRs and could prevent them from rebuilding or resuming their livelihoods and cause additional harm.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer my testimony.
Kevin L. Ross
I have been a condo owner (Minatoya List) in Kihei since 2006. I oppose the ban for numerous reasons, primarily the direct unconstitutional impact on our property rights, which will be met with costly legal challenges. Undoubtedly, a ban of this nature will have a negative impact on tourism and the significant workforce associated with STR’s.
I think this proposal is government over reach, one person should not be able to decide another person's fate with their property rights. while I believe its in the best interest of the community to rebuild, and quickly, I don't think property rights should be taken away from anyone. Everyone should be able to use their property for the reason it was purchased. Single Family, apartment building, STR building etc. There are already enough issues within Maui County permitting, and with the SMA permitting, flood zones etc.. for people and here we go adding another layer? NO, that's not right
I believe there is insufficient evidence that short term rentals negatively impact the housing market. STRs provide an income stream to local residents as well as increasing tax revenues for the county.
Aloha
We have been an LTR property owner in South Kihei for almost 9 years. We have seen the ups and downs of the economy with Covid, etc. during that time. I can tell you firsthand as many of you know that when LTR‘s suffer, Maui suffers. Our business models bring so much Money to Maui and provide so many jobs on Maui. Non-conforming construction in reaction to the fire is a good idea but rezoning areas that have obviously been built to accommodate vacation goers and not fulltime residents is something that must be preserved. I believe that the very vast majority of existing STR’s will become static, vacant assets to the wealthy. Owners would rarely come. Also many current owners will certainly continue to rent their units under the table to avoid repercussions. This would remove a huge amount of tax dollars from Maui‘s economy. Call it an STR uprising. How can authorities possibly enforce these guidelines? Are they going to knock on the doors of every condo and check IDs? I visit often and as I walk down S. Kihei Rd. from my condo to rainbow mall I cannot think of one business along the way that would not be devastated by this change. All of the waiters and service people that I have come to know over the years will be unemployed. Please remove this amendment from the bill.
I am opposed to the amendment which would not allow previous short term rentals in the Lahaina fire district to operate as legal businesses. Owners of these properties would certainly recognize how unfairly they were being treated. The financial impact of this amendment could mean even greater loss than what they have already suffered.
Please do not vote for the amendment.
Douglas Mitchell
Oppose
BILL 105 (2024), AMENDING SECTION 19.500.110, MAUI COUNTY CODE, REGARDING NONCONFORMITIES (HLU-34).
I am OPPOSED to Bill 105 (2024) amendment to exclude Transient Vacation Rentals.
I could go on and on about why I oppose but simply said when we bought the Maui dream with retirement money. We bought with a legal use of STR not to be just taken away because Maui neglected to provide housing over the years.
Mahalo,
Marcella Anderson
Deleted User
30 days ago
This proposed legislation addressing the reconstruction of non-conforming structures in Maui, particularly following natural disasters, presents several significant risks and drawbacks that could negatively affect the community, the real estate market, and the availability of homes. In legal and policy terms, allowing non-conforming structures to be rebuilt without updating them to meet current zoning or building codes will have long-term repercussions that outweigh the immediate benefits of property owner relief.
Firstly, the preservation of non-conforming structures undermines Maui’s efforts toward modernization and sustainable development. By permitting the reconstruction of buildings that do not comply with current standards, the legislation effectively prolongs the existence of outdated and potentially unsafe infrastructure. Non-conforming structures often fail to meet today's requirements for safety, energy efficiency, and accessibility. In the broader context of responsible urban development, this legislation would hinder Maui's ability to transition to more modern, resilient, and sustainable communities. The long-term consequences of allowing outdated infrastructure to persist will affect the entire community, as essential upgrades will be deferred or obstructed, creating a barrier to progress.
Additionally, the presence of non-conforming structures could have a detrimental impact on property values in Maui. Non-conforming properties often introduce uncertainties regarding their future use, their rights for reconstruction, and their ability to comply with evolving regulatory frameworks. These uncertainties may cause potential buyers to hesitate, leading to reduced property values in areas where non-conforming properties are prevalent. Moreover, the value of conforming properties in these neighborhoods may also decline as buyers perceive the area to be less desirable, given the outdated and possibly deteriorating conditions of non-conforming structures nearby. The proposed legislation would therefore exacerbate the negative influence that non-conforming properties have on the overall real estate market in Maui, reducing home values and discouraging investment.
Furthermore, by permitting the rebuilding of non-conforming structures, the legislation would limit opportunities for much-needed housing development. Non-conforming buildings occupy land that could otherwise be redeveloped for higher-density, affordable housing—an essential component in alleviating Maui's housing crisis. Allowing these buildings to be restored in their non-conforming state restricts the potential for such development, prolonging the shortage of available homes and exacerbating the housing crisis. The failure to incentivize the redevelopment of non-conforming properties into conforming, modern housing solutions prevents Maui from addressing its urgent need for more affordable housing options for local residents.
The potential for exploitation of this legislation also raises concerns. By allowing property owners to rebuild non-conforming structures, the legislation may inadvertently create loopholes that could be exploited. Property owners may attempt to expand or intensify the non-conforming use of their properties under the guise of disaster recovery, potentially leading to increased commercialization in residential areas. Such intensified land use would disrupt community character, undermine zoning regulations, and burden local infrastructure. The possibility of legal loopholes further adds to the risks associated with this legislation, as it could incentivize speculative rebuilding and other undesirable practices.
Environmental and aesthetic concerns also emerge from the perpetuation of non-conforming structures. Many non-conforming properties are located in areas that are no longer considered appropriate for certain types of land use, such as flood-prone zones or locations with environmental sensitivity. By allowing these structures to be rebuilt in their non-conforming state, the legislation undermines long-term land-use planning efforts and poses potential environmental risks. In addition, non-conforming structures may not align with modern architectural or community standards, detracting from the aesthetic appeal of Maui’s neighborhoods, particularly in areas that rely heavily on tourism. This could harm the broader image of Maui and potentially impact the local economy by making these areas less attractive to visitors.
Finally, non-conforming properties present significant legal and financial challenges for homeowners and prospective buyers. These properties often come with complications related to financing, insurance, and compliance with local regulations. The uncertainty surrounding their rebuilding rights and future use could deter investment, making them less attractive in the real estate market. Additionally, non-conforming properties that are rebuilt after disasters may face higher insurance premiums or difficulties in obtaining coverage, as insurers view them as higher risk due to their non-compliance with current building codes. This further complicates the financial landscape for property owners and buyers alike.
In conclusion, while the proposed legislation aims to provide relief for property owners affected by disasters, it risks perpetuating the existence of non-conforming structures, which will negatively impact Maui's real estate market, property values, and the availability of housing. The failure to modernize these structures will hinder Maui’s ability to align with its long-term goals for sustainable growth, while also introducing legal and environmental risks. Therefore, it is crucial to reconsider the scope of this legislation to ensure that it supports Maui’s broader objectives of community development, housing availability, and responsible land use.
Aloha, my name is Jackie Keefe and I am writing in support of Bill 105 with Councilmember Paltin's amendment.
Our community has spoken up loud and clear that Lahaina needs to be for residents, and this amendment allows us to prioritize rebuilding for local families. Thank you for your consideration.
I fully support the majority of this bill to rebuild non-conforming structures and believe this is a great need and a big step forward in healing for the community. However I specifically OPPOSE Tamara Paltin’s proposed amendment to Bill 105 (2024) that disallows nonconforming transient vacation rental uses from resuming if they were discontinued for any reason. This amendment is unnecessary as this issue is already being addressed by the mayor’s proposed bill regarding transient vacation rentals. There is also lack of clarity in this amendment, for example, what if a TVR became a long term rental for a survivor? Would this amendment take away their ability to rent short term thus penalizing them for a good deed?
In summary, I only oppose Tamara Paltin’s amendment to this bill.
I am writing to express my strong support for Bill 105, which is critical for the recovery and rebuilding of the Lahaina community after the devasting wildfire. As you may know, many properties in Lahaina had structures and uses that were considered non-conforming before the fire. This wasn’t because property owners disregarded regulations—many of these structures and uses became non-conforming due to enactment of zoning laws, administrative rules and policies that went into effect after structures or uses were built. In other words, what was once compliant became non-conforming simply because the rules changed, not because of any action on the property owner’s part.
Bill 105 is essential because it would allow property owners to rebuild what was lost, restoring the character and functionality of Lahaina town as it was before the disaster. Without this bill, we face the risk of losing Lahaina’s unique identity, making it even harder to recover.
Additionally, the extended timeline is also critical to the rebuilding of Lahaina. Many properties will require a lengthy permitting process, including reviews for Environmental Assessments (HRS Chapter 343), Special Area Management Permits, and Historic District Approvals. If these processes are not expedited or given some flexibility, it could take years before any meaningful rebuilding can begin.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I respectfully urge your support for Bill 105 to help rebuild homes and businesses in Lahaina.
Sincerely,
Leilani Pulmano
Vice President
Pacific Rim Land, Inc.
Aloha!
I support the initial proposals in Bill 105, in its effort to expedite the building process for so many who have lost their homes. However, I cannot support Council member Paltin's amendment to the bill that she has presented.
These amendments seem to be knee jerk reactions to a terrible situation, and require more studies to better understand what the consequences may be from such amendments.
Mahalo for your time.
Testimonies received from HLU Committee
We are owners at Kamaole Sands. We are OPPOSING the Amendment put forth by Councilmember Paltin to HLU Bill 105.
We agree with HLU Bill 105 which was designed to help areas like Lahaina recover from disasters, allowing non-conforming uses to be rebuilt after a disaster if they’ve been destroyed by more than 50%. This is essential for the recovery of properties and businesses affected by events like the August 8th 2023 wildfires.
However, we oppose Councilmember Paltin’s amendment which would make an exception for STRs, preventing them from resuming STR operations after rebuilding. Councilmember Paltin’s amendment raises concerns about the unintended consequences for property owners and local families and workers who rely on STRs for income and economic stability.
We need the ability to be able to continue to use our condo as we wish for STRs otherwise we cannot afford all the expenses to keep the condo. We bought the condo knowing we were protected under the Minatoya List. It is EXTREMELY unfair that it is now being challenged mid-stream and there is consideration to take away our protection. With this current political unrest our condos are worthless. No buyers are interested in purchasing and very few tourist are coming to Maui. Unfortunately, Maui now has a bad name and tourists are taking their money to the outer islands. We believe that if these new Bills go into effect and things continue in the same direction as they currently are that the entire island of Maui will suffer the consequences.
We are truly sorry that this disaster happened on August 8 and are saddened by the whole situation. Our hearts go out to those who lost loved ones and property. However, we are not at fault and should not be penalized because of it.
Mahalo,
Alyson Delbrook & Ronald Chen
Kamaole Sands 6-402
Looking at the long range of the effects of this bill will only be a disaster to Maui. Tourism is what keeps Maui alive and functioning. With STR stopped, tourism will stop. It is total suicide for Maui to go on with this agenda. The workers that support the STR will all loose their jobs, again I say this is a TOTAL DISASTER!!!
Aloha.
As I testified orally, I am Donald Cameron. Our family owns a condo that has been operating as a short term vacation rental since the building was built in 1973 (Hoyochi Nikko in Mahinahina). It is on the Minatoya List.
We're all for rebuilding Lahaina and support the Bill in general, but oppose Councilmember Tamara Paltin’s amendment.
I echo the objection of the AIrBnB and MVRA representatives to Councilmember Tamara Paltin’s amendment to Maui County Code Section 19.500.110:
"Nonconforming transient vacation rental uses that were discontinued for any reason, including because they were within structures that were damaged or destroyed in a disaster, may not be continued."
This exception, that “Nonconforming transient vacation rental uses that were discontinued for any reason, … may not be continued”, is too broad, both in scope and geography, for the intended purpose of the Bill: to assist rebuilding Lahaina Town.
“Discontinued for any reason” would include those units who discontinued short term rentals to rent their units out to Lahaina survivors whose rents were funded by FEMA.
It may, but probably does not include, those short term rental units who stopped renting when the Governor and the Mayor asked tourists not to come to Maui during the rest of August and September, 2023. They didn't stop their use as rental units; guests just cancelled.
In addition, the Bill does not appear to be limited to Lahaina, so it would relate to all short-term rental units in Maui.
This general prohibition of short term rental units would be done prior to the County receiving the economic impact study that it ordered prior to making a final decision whether to ban short term rentals across Maui, including those on the Minatoya list.
It is too broad and premature. Please reject the amendment.
Mahalo for your consideration.
I support the Bill HLU 105, and oppose Paltin's amendment to this bill. I have lived in Lahaina for over 35 years, and both of my children were born here. I am a small business owner and my income is based on Short Term Vacation Rentals. Changing the way my livelihood has been built after all of these years is not right. My unit as Aina Nalu was completely burned down and a fire should not give any council member the right to change the laws. The local business people have suffered enough with the negative social medial and politics that have gone on after the fires. We have seen a drastic decrease in the number of visitors which has already affected our income and the hours our employees work. We should have the right to rebuild our property the way it was prior to the fires and recover financially from what has already been a nightmare for those of us who live here in Lahaina.
Here are some data points to consider:
1. Maui County has not actually issued that many STRH permits, certainly not enough to materially affect - even should all of the permitted properties enter the long-term rental pool - the current housing shortage on Maui.
2. Very few, if any, of the properties that have obtained STRH permits are likely to become part of the long-term rental housing pool. Surveys of their owners has shown this. They will either sit empty when they are not being used by their owners, or they will be sold to people who can afford to leave them sit empty when they are not using them. Again, they will not enter the long-term rental housing pool.
3. STRH-permitted properties have generated significant tax revenue for the county. This revenue will be lost should the bill be passed as amended.
4. STRH-permitted properties employ a significant number of people on Maui. These jobs will be lost should the bill be passed as amended.
Basically, HLU Bill 105 as amended will benefit no one and will obviously and demonstrably hurt the very people it proposes to help. A responsible reading of the situation should lead council members to strike the amendment from this otherwise helpful bill.
I believe there is insufficient evidence that short term rentals negatively impact the housing market. STRs provide an income stream to local residents as well as increasing tax revenues for the county.
I manage 2 vacation rental units one of which is on the minatoya list. To think that studios, small one and two bdrm units would be a big help to "Families" is totally absurd. If the County wants to assist families is acquiring a home, they should look at what THEY allowed in the B & B houses. All those homes in family neighborhoods should not have been allowed, period. Those are better suited to house families. All of the condos on that list have been vacation rentals for years and services not only the tourist but local families that come to Maui to visit. And not to make mentioned all of the jobs lost in the cleaning field, maintenance field etc. The council people that are trying to push this bill really dont have to worry, they get paid no matter what.....Well, as all the taxes are depleted, maybe not. I for one do not want to see taxes increase on us local people just to keep up with their salaries because they make uninformed, prejudicial decisions due to a small group push on affordable rents, which will never be affordable with the increased cost of ownership. THINK HARD before making this decision. This will ruin Maui's economy. Actually it has already started.
I oppose Councilmember Paltin's amendment while expressing support for Bill 105. An economic impact study on STRs should be completed prior to making any decisions to further restrict STRs. A data-driven approach is essential to ensure the best outcome for our community. Local families and businesses affected by the wildfires rely on income from STRs and services related to STRs and could prevent them from rebuilding or resuming their livelihoods and cause additional harm.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer my testimony.
Kevin L. Ross
I have been a condo owner (Minatoya List) in Kihei since 2006. I oppose the ban for numerous reasons, primarily the direct unconstitutional impact on our property rights, which will be met with costly legal challenges. Undoubtedly, a ban of this nature will have a negative impact on tourism and the significant workforce associated with STR’s.
I think this proposal is government over reach, one person should not be able to decide another person's fate with their property rights. while I believe its in the best interest of the community to rebuild, and quickly, I don't think property rights should be taken away from anyone. Everyone should be able to use their property for the reason it was purchased. Single Family, apartment building, STR building etc. There are already enough issues within Maui County permitting, and with the SMA permitting, flood zones etc.. for people and here we go adding another layer? NO, that's not right
I believe there is insufficient evidence that short term rentals negatively impact the housing market. STRs provide an income stream to local residents as well as increasing tax revenues for the county.
Aloha
We have been an LTR property owner in South Kihei for almost 9 years. We have seen the ups and downs of the economy with Covid, etc. during that time. I can tell you firsthand as many of you know that when LTR‘s suffer, Maui suffers. Our business models bring so much Money to Maui and provide so many jobs on Maui. Non-conforming construction in reaction to the fire is a good idea but rezoning areas that have obviously been built to accommodate vacation goers and not fulltime residents is something that must be preserved. I believe that the very vast majority of existing STR’s will become static, vacant assets to the wealthy. Owners would rarely come. Also many current owners will certainly continue to rent their units under the table to avoid repercussions. This would remove a huge amount of tax dollars from Maui‘s economy. Call it an STR uprising. How can authorities possibly enforce these guidelines? Are they going to knock on the doors of every condo and check IDs? I visit often and as I walk down S. Kihei Rd. from my condo to rainbow mall I cannot think of one business along the way that would not be devastated by this change. All of the waiters and service people that I have come to know over the years will be unemployed. Please remove this amendment from the bill.
Jim Jewell
Haleakala Shores
I am opposed to the amendment which would not allow previous short term rentals in the Lahaina fire district to operate as legal businesses. Owners of these properties would certainly recognize how unfairly they were being treated. The financial impact of this amendment could mean even greater loss than what they have already suffered.
Please do not vote for the amendment.
Douglas Mitchell
Oppose
BILL 105 (2024), AMENDING SECTION 19.500.110, MAUI COUNTY CODE, REGARDING NONCONFORMITIES (HLU-34).
I am OPPOSED to Bill 105 (2024) amendment to exclude Transient Vacation Rentals.
I could go on and on about why I oppose but simply said when we bought the Maui dream with retirement money. We bought with a legal use of STR not to be just taken away because Maui neglected to provide housing over the years.
Mahalo,
Marcella Anderson
This proposed legislation addressing the reconstruction of non-conforming structures in Maui, particularly following natural disasters, presents several significant risks and drawbacks that could negatively affect the community, the real estate market, and the availability of homes. In legal and policy terms, allowing non-conforming structures to be rebuilt without updating them to meet current zoning or building codes will have long-term repercussions that outweigh the immediate benefits of property owner relief.
Firstly, the preservation of non-conforming structures undermines Maui’s efforts toward modernization and sustainable development. By permitting the reconstruction of buildings that do not comply with current standards, the legislation effectively prolongs the existence of outdated and potentially unsafe infrastructure. Non-conforming structures often fail to meet today's requirements for safety, energy efficiency, and accessibility. In the broader context of responsible urban development, this legislation would hinder Maui's ability to transition to more modern, resilient, and sustainable communities. The long-term consequences of allowing outdated infrastructure to persist will affect the entire community, as essential upgrades will be deferred or obstructed, creating a barrier to progress.
Additionally, the presence of non-conforming structures could have a detrimental impact on property values in Maui. Non-conforming properties often introduce uncertainties regarding their future use, their rights for reconstruction, and their ability to comply with evolving regulatory frameworks. These uncertainties may cause potential buyers to hesitate, leading to reduced property values in areas where non-conforming properties are prevalent. Moreover, the value of conforming properties in these neighborhoods may also decline as buyers perceive the area to be less desirable, given the outdated and possibly deteriorating conditions of non-conforming structures nearby. The proposed legislation would therefore exacerbate the negative influence that non-conforming properties have on the overall real estate market in Maui, reducing home values and discouraging investment.
Furthermore, by permitting the rebuilding of non-conforming structures, the legislation would limit opportunities for much-needed housing development. Non-conforming buildings occupy land that could otherwise be redeveloped for higher-density, affordable housing—an essential component in alleviating Maui's housing crisis. Allowing these buildings to be restored in their non-conforming state restricts the potential for such development, prolonging the shortage of available homes and exacerbating the housing crisis. The failure to incentivize the redevelopment of non-conforming properties into conforming, modern housing solutions prevents Maui from addressing its urgent need for more affordable housing options for local residents.
The potential for exploitation of this legislation also raises concerns. By allowing property owners to rebuild non-conforming structures, the legislation may inadvertently create loopholes that could be exploited. Property owners may attempt to expand or intensify the non-conforming use of their properties under the guise of disaster recovery, potentially leading to increased commercialization in residential areas. Such intensified land use would disrupt community character, undermine zoning regulations, and burden local infrastructure. The possibility of legal loopholes further adds to the risks associated with this legislation, as it could incentivize speculative rebuilding and other undesirable practices.
Environmental and aesthetic concerns also emerge from the perpetuation of non-conforming structures. Many non-conforming properties are located in areas that are no longer considered appropriate for certain types of land use, such as flood-prone zones or locations with environmental sensitivity. By allowing these structures to be rebuilt in their non-conforming state, the legislation undermines long-term land-use planning efforts and poses potential environmental risks. In addition, non-conforming structures may not align with modern architectural or community standards, detracting from the aesthetic appeal of Maui’s neighborhoods, particularly in areas that rely heavily on tourism. This could harm the broader image of Maui and potentially impact the local economy by making these areas less attractive to visitors.
Finally, non-conforming properties present significant legal and financial challenges for homeowners and prospective buyers. These properties often come with complications related to financing, insurance, and compliance with local regulations. The uncertainty surrounding their rebuilding rights and future use could deter investment, making them less attractive in the real estate market. Additionally, non-conforming properties that are rebuilt after disasters may face higher insurance premiums or difficulties in obtaining coverage, as insurers view them as higher risk due to their non-compliance with current building codes. This further complicates the financial landscape for property owners and buyers alike.
In conclusion, while the proposed legislation aims to provide relief for property owners affected by disasters, it risks perpetuating the existence of non-conforming structures, which will negatively impact Maui's real estate market, property values, and the availability of housing. The failure to modernize these structures will hinder Maui’s ability to align with its long-term goals for sustainable growth, while also introducing legal and environmental risks. Therefore, it is crucial to reconsider the scope of this legislation to ensure that it supports Maui’s broader objectives of community development, housing availability, and responsible land use.
Tryson Kaiama
Aloha, my name is Jackie Keefe and I am writing in support of Bill 105 with Councilmember Paltin's amendment.
Our community has spoken up loud and clear that Lahaina needs to be for residents, and this amendment allows us to prioritize rebuilding for local families. Thank you for your consideration.
I fully support the majority of this bill to rebuild non-conforming structures and believe this is a great need and a big step forward in healing for the community. However I specifically OPPOSE Tamara Paltin’s proposed amendment to Bill 105 (2024) that disallows nonconforming transient vacation rental uses from resuming if they were discontinued for any reason. This amendment is unnecessary as this issue is already being addressed by the mayor’s proposed bill regarding transient vacation rentals. There is also lack of clarity in this amendment, for example, what if a TVR became a long term rental for a survivor? Would this amendment take away their ability to rent short term thus penalizing them for a good deed?
In summary, I only oppose Tamara Paltin’s amendment to this bill.
Dear Chair Kama:
I am writing to express my strong support for Bill 105, which is critical for the recovery and rebuilding of the Lahaina community after the devasting wildfire. As you may know, many properties in Lahaina had structures and uses that were considered non-conforming before the fire. This wasn’t because property owners disregarded regulations—many of these structures and uses became non-conforming due to enactment of zoning laws, administrative rules and policies that went into effect after structures or uses were built. In other words, what was once compliant became non-conforming simply because the rules changed, not because of any action on the property owner’s part.
Bill 105 is essential because it would allow property owners to rebuild what was lost, restoring the character and functionality of Lahaina town as it was before the disaster. Without this bill, we face the risk of losing Lahaina’s unique identity, making it even harder to recover.
Additionally, the extended timeline is also critical to the rebuilding of Lahaina. Many properties will require a lengthy permitting process, including reviews for Environmental Assessments (HRS Chapter 343), Special Area Management Permits, and Historic District Approvals. If these processes are not expedited or given some flexibility, it could take years before any meaningful rebuilding can begin.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I respectfully urge your support for Bill 105 to help rebuild homes and businesses in Lahaina.
Sincerely,
Leilani Pulmano
Vice President
Pacific Rim Land, Inc.
Aloha!
I support the initial proposals in Bill 105, in its effort to expedite the building process for so many who have lost their homes. However, I cannot support Council member Paltin's amendment to the bill that she has presented.
These amendments seem to be knee jerk reactions to a terrible situation, and require more studies to better understand what the consequences may be from such amendments.
Mahalo for your time.