I certainly understand the desire and the need to create less expensive housing opportunities, but before considering such a radical increase in residential density you need to have a more complete analysis from Fire, Water, Wastewater, Police, Public Works, Traffic and any other agency concerned with public safety offer on how this measure could impact their ability to provide service and safety for the residents of these new potential dwellings.
I think Council needs a visual presentation on how a plans reviewer would evaluate such a development plan that would exceed the current limit of 3 dwellings on a given residential zoned lot or a new subdivision.
I also don’t think that enough consideration has been made about who may purchase and occupy these new dwellings. While the propsed change in the name of the dwellings from single family to Long term residential implies that these dwelling would be occupied by full time residents of Maui, However, Similar to dwellings built in the apartment districts. since 1991, I believe that many of these dwellings may be condominiumized and sold to the second home market. I am aware of scores of people who would like to own a second home on Maui, with no desire or need to rent it short term, who would line up to purchase a smaller residential unit on a residential condominium such as could be created via this measure.
I believe one effect of this measure would be an increase in the land values of destroyed Lahaina homes because a commercial developer who could maximize development on an undeveloped lot.
Bill 104
The idea that as many as 6 dwellings could be constructed on a 10,000 square feet (1/4 acre) lot and 4 of those dwellings potentially be further divided into 3 units is crazy. I see lots of news reports about monster homes on Oahu, that neighbors object to and the combination of these two measures essentially makes such monster development legal for those wishing to maximize development rights on single family homesites.
I recognize that this bill intends to legalize a practice that has been in place for many years, but again challenges the idea of a single family dwelling and I wonder how it influences insurance rates and availability. Are insurance underwriters OK with single family dwellings housing three families or is this essentially now a multifamily dwelling that falls into a different insurance classification.
I do think allowing one kitchenette, in addition to a main kitchen could make sense. And if the area is designated a kitchenette as an area where the preparation of food is allowed, then the components should be rethought outside the current definition of a wet bar. I don’t think that using the current wet-bar definition. The smaller refrigerator was adopted because a wet-bar is typically storing drinks, rather than food. The prohibition of a 220v outlet or gas, was to ensure the use of the area was specifically not for the preparation of food so perhaps these items could be rethought in the definition of a kitchenette. The idea that there could be 2 wet-bars in a dwelling again was facilitating a wet-bar use, the idea of 2 kitchenettes essentially envisions single family dwellings becoming multifamily dwellings, and that change is better left to zoning districts designed for multifamily dwellings.
testimony for Bill 103
I certainly understand the desire and the need to create less expensive housing opportunities, but before considering such a radical increase in residential density you need to have a more complete analysis from Fire, Water, Wastewater, Police, Public Works, Traffic and any other agency concerned with public safety offer on how this measure could impact their ability to provide service and safety for the residents of these new potential dwellings.
I think Council needs a visual presentation on how a plans reviewer would evaluate such a development plan that would exceed the current limit of 3 dwellings on a given residential zoned lot or a new subdivision.
I also don’t think that enough consideration has been made about who may purchase and occupy these new dwellings. While the propsed change in the name of the dwellings from single family to Long term residential implies that these dwelling would be occupied by full time residents of Maui, However, Similar to dwellings built in the apartment districts. since 1991, I believe that many of these dwellings may be condominiumized and sold to the second home market. I am aware of scores of people who would like to own a second home on Maui, with no desire or need to rent it short term, who would line up to purchase a smaller residential unit on a residential condominium such as could be created via this measure.
I believe one effect of this measure would be an increase in the land values of destroyed Lahaina homes because a commercial developer who could maximize development on an undeveloped lot.
Bill 104
The idea that as many as 6 dwellings could be constructed on a 10,000 square feet (1/4 acre) lot and 4 of those dwellings potentially be further divided into 3 units is crazy. I see lots of news reports about monster homes on Oahu, that neighbors object to and the combination of these two measures essentially makes such monster development legal for those wishing to maximize development rights on single family homesites.
I recognize that this bill intends to legalize a practice that has been in place for many years, but again challenges the idea of a single family dwelling and I wonder how it influences insurance rates and availability. Are insurance underwriters OK with single family dwellings housing three families or is this essentially now a multifamily dwelling that falls into a different insurance classification.
I do think allowing one kitchenette, in addition to a main kitchen could make sense. And if the area is designated a kitchenette as an area where the preparation of food is allowed, then the components should be rethought outside the current definition of a wet bar. I don’t think that using the current wet-bar definition. The smaller refrigerator was adopted because a wet-bar is typically storing drinks, rather than food. The prohibition of a 220v outlet or gas, was to ensure the use of the area was specifically not for the preparation of food so perhaps these items could be rethought in the definition of a kitchenette. The idea that there could be 2 wet-bars in a dwelling again was facilitating a wet-bar use, the idea of 2 kitchenettes essentially envisions single family dwellings becoming multifamily dwellings, and that change is better left to zoning districts designed for multifamily dwellings.
Please see attached. Mahalo.