HLU-4(1) TEMPORARY INVESTIGATIVE GROUP ON POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR TRANSIENT VACATION RENTAL USES IN THE APARTMENT DISTRICTS; DISCUSSION ON RESOLUTION 25-230, REFERRING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS A PROPOSED BILL TO ESTABLISH THE H-3 AND H-4 HOTEL DISTRICTS (HLU-4(1))
We support Member Cook’s 25-230 resolution as it is “clean.”
We oppose Member Paltin’s amendment in its entirety, including passing the County’s financial obligation to maintain shoreline areas onto owners. If, however, the County wishes to halt their shoreline service obligations, then shoreline ownership should pass cleanly to the Minatoya complex owners. If this amendment passes, would the County no longer be able to have any authority to set any laws or rules as to shoreline properties. Is this Member Paltin’s intent?
Re Paltin’s parking proposal, there are a number of parking spaces which are deeded to the units. Is the County prepared to pay for those deeded spaces to turn them over for public use?
The appropriate course is to pause this resolution and take the time to do it correctly. Bill 9 is already approved, and the litigation will not succeed if the Council and administration proceed with clarity, integrity, and transparency.
I support Resolution 25-230 but do not support Member Paltin's proposed amendment because the amendment includes a significant pivot from the TIG's October 14, 2025 recommendations. Notably, Member Paltin was a member of the TIG and committed to supporting implementation of the TIG's recommendations. I will quote the the TIG's recommended action (that Member Paltin was involved in creating) regarding Recommendation 1 to avoid confusion:
"The TIG recommends introduction of a resolution urging the Department of Planning to introduce legislation establishing H-3 and H-4 Hotel Districts in Section 19.14, Maui County Code, that are like-for-like with the A-1 and A-2 Apartment Districts, respectively, except that TVR uses would be outright permitted."
The A-1 and A-2 districts do not contain any of the requirements Member Paltin is proposing. Specifically, the Code does not require that A-1 and A-2 district within the sea level rise hazard zone dedicate 10% of total parking to public parking or that these properties waive any legal rights regarding managed retreat. Thus, Member Paltin's amendment proposes inclusion of requirements that are not "like for like" with the requirements for the A-1 and A-2 districts.
The TIG unanimously agreed on the recommendations contained in the October 14, 2025 report. Member Paltin specifically told the public that she supported the TIG recommendations that even went so far as to say that the bill that would create the H3 and H4 zoning designations already had 4 votes because everyone on the TIG committed to supporting that legislation.
Member Paltin's bait and switch politicking is what erodes public trust in elected officials. Resolution 25-230 track's the TIG's recommendation. Please pass resolution 25-230 "clean" without Member Paltin's amendment.
We support Member Cook’s 25-230 resolution as it is “clean.”
We oppose Member Paltin’s amendment in its entirety, including passing the County’s financial obligation to maintain shoreline areas onto owners. If, however, the County wishes to halt their shoreline service obligations, then shoreline ownership should pass cleanly to the Minatoya complex owners. If this amendment passes, would the County no longer be able to have any authority to set any laws or rules as to shoreline properties. Is this Member Paltin’s intent?
Re Paltin’s parking proposal, there are a number of parking spaces which are deeded to the units. Is the County prepared to pay for those deeded spaces to turn them over for public use?
The appropriate course is to pause this resolution and take the time to do it correctly. Bill 9 is already approved, and the litigation will not succeed if the Council and administration proceed with clarity, integrity, and transparency.
Jolee Bindo
Waikapu
I support Resolution 25-230 but do not support Member Paltin's proposed amendment because the amendment includes a significant pivot from the TIG's October 14, 2025 recommendations. Notably, Member Paltin was a member of the TIG and committed to supporting implementation of the TIG's recommendations. I will quote the the TIG's recommended action (that Member Paltin was involved in creating) regarding Recommendation 1 to avoid confusion:
"The TIG recommends introduction of a resolution urging the Department of Planning to introduce legislation establishing H-3 and H-4 Hotel Districts in Section 19.14, Maui County Code, that are like-for-like with the A-1 and A-2 Apartment Districts, respectively, except that TVR uses would be outright permitted."
The A-1 and A-2 districts do not contain any of the requirements Member Paltin is proposing. Specifically, the Code does not require that A-1 and A-2 district within the sea level rise hazard zone dedicate 10% of total parking to public parking or that these properties waive any legal rights regarding managed retreat. Thus, Member Paltin's amendment proposes inclusion of requirements that are not "like for like" with the requirements for the A-1 and A-2 districts.
The TIG unanimously agreed on the recommendations contained in the October 14, 2025 report. Member Paltin specifically told the public that she supported the TIG recommendations that even went so far as to say that the bill that would create the H3 and H4 zoning designations already had 4 votes because everyone on the TIG committed to supporting that legislation.
Member Paltin's bait and switch politicking is what erodes public trust in elected officials. Resolution 25-230 track's the TIG's recommendation. Please pass resolution 25-230 "clean" without Member Paltin's amendment.