HLU-22 Reso 26-130 RESOLUTION 26-130, REFERRING TO THE MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSED BILLS TO AMEND THE KIHEI-MAKENA COMMUNITY PLAN AND WEST MAUI COMMUNITY PLAN, AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING FOR PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP KEY (2) 3-9-016:019, K?HEI, HAWAI'I, AND TAX MAP KEYS (2) 4-5-013:002 AND 026, LAHAINA, HAWAI'I, IN THE A-2 APARTMENT DISTRICT (HLU-22)
I oppose Resolution 26-130 as presently written.
The resolution begins the process of changing the community-plan designations and zoning of two specifically identified properties. Because zoning remains with the land after ownership changes, the decision should be based on the history, actual use, and circumstances of each property.
These two properties are not alike.
I have worked in Maui real estate since 1994. Actual use, permitted use, tax classification, community-plan designation, and zoning are different matters. They should not be combined without a clear factual reason.
10 Walaka Street is a residential property.
According to its owner, the property contains three dwellings. He lives in one and rents the other two cottages as short-term rentals. A 2015 Planning Department letter identifies the structures as one dwelling and two guest cottages.
The resolution notes that the property is under single ownership. That describes its present ownership, but it does not describe the property’s land use. Ownership can change, while any new Hotel zoning would remain with the property.
The owner also explains that his purchase price, mortgage, insurance, taxes, and maintenance costs make long-term rental use financially difficult. Those facts explain why he wants to continue short-term renting. They do not change the physical or operational character of the property.
The record describes a residential property with three dwellings, two of which are used as short-term rentals. I do not see evidence that 10 Walaka was constructed or operated as a hotel.
Makai Sunset Inn has a different history.
Before the Lahaina fire, Makai Sunset operated as an actual inn. It accepted nightly reservations from the traveling public and operated under centralized ownership and management. It had a lobby, a front desk, check-in and check-out procedures, housekeeping services, and approximately 20 or 21 guest rooms. It was publicly advertised as an inn and hotel.
Its real-property-tax history reflects Hotel/Resort classification in 2017 and TVR-STRH classification in subsequent years. Tax classification does not establish zoning rights by itself, but it supports the other evidence showing that Makai Sunset was operated as commercial lodging.
Makai Sunset was not a residential condominium in which individual owners separately rented their units. It was a centrally operated small inn.
The building was destroyed in the August 2023 fire. The question now is whether that former hotel should be allowed to reconstruct and, if so, under what zoning, size, shoreline, safety, infrastructure, and public-access conditions.
That is a legitimate land-use question, but it is not the same question presented by 10 Walaka.
Placing both properties in one resolution makes it harder to determine what the Council is approving and why. Makai Sunset’s history as an actual inn should not be used to characterize 10 Walaka as a hotel. Likewise, the issues surrounding residential short-term rentals at 10 Walaka should not determine whether a genuine pre-fire inn may be reconstructed in Lahaina.
The history of the resolution also should be clarified.
The legislative record states that Resolution 26-130 was created on July 27, 2026, with both properties already identified.
On July 29, the owner of 10 Walaka submitted testimony stating that he had recently learned about Council-initiated rezoning after speaking with Councilmember Cook’s office.
On August 4, Makai Cam’s consultant submitted a formal written request asking that the Makai Sunset properties be included, even though those parcels were already named in the resolution.
There may be a straightforward explanation for this sequence, but it is not apparent from the documents presently available to the public.
Before proceeding, the Committee should place the following information in the public record:
1. Who first proposed including each property;
2. When each owner or representative first contacted the Council;
3. What communications and supporting information were provided before July 27;
4. What criteria were used to determine which properties would receive Council-initiated consideration;
5. Whether other property owners made similar requests and how those requests were handled; and
6. Why these two different properties were combined in one resolution.
There is nothing inherently improper about the Council initiating land-use legislation when it determines that doing so serves a public purpose. However, when legislation concerns specific private parcels, the origin of the proposal, the supporting evidence, and the reasons for proceeding should be clearly documented.
Resolution 26-130 should therefore be amended to:
1. Remove 10 Walaka Street from the resolution;
2. Consider Makai Sunset Inn in a separate land-use proceeding based on its actual pre-fire hotel operation;
3. Verify Makai Sunset’s lawful room count, floor area, zoning history, permits, parcel configuration, and reconstruction rights; and
4. Complete the public record concerning how and why each property was included.
The basic distinction is clear: Makai Sunset was a functioning inn before the fire. 10 Walaka is a residential property where two dwellings are operated as short-term rentals.
The Council should evaluate each property according to what it actually is and require a separate public record and decision for each one.
Mahalo,
Edward Codelia
Kula, Maui
Vacation rentals on Walaka Street? Research the area. All residential and a-1 and a-2.
Aloha Chair and Members:
I oppose Resolution 26-130 as presently written.
The resolution begins the process of changing the community-plan designations and zoning of two specifically identified properties. Because zoning remains with the land after ownership changes, the decision should be based on the history, actual use, and circumstances of each property.
These two properties are not alike.
I have worked in Maui real estate since 1994. Actual use, permitted use, tax classification, community-plan designation, and zoning are different matters. They should not be combined without a clear factual reason.
10 Walaka Street is a residential property.
According to its owner, the property contains three dwellings. He lives in one and rents the other two cottages as short-term rentals. A 2015 Planning Department letter identifies the structures as one dwelling and two guest cottages.
The resolution notes that the property is under single ownership. That describes its present ownership, but it does not describe the property’s land use. Ownership can change, while any new Hotel zoning would remain with the property.
The owner also explains that his purchase price, mortgage, insurance, taxes, and maintenance costs make long-term rental use financially difficult. Those facts explain why he wants to continue short-term renting. They do not change the physical or operational character of the property.
The record describes a residential property with three dwellings, two of which are used as short-term rentals. I do not see evidence that 10 Walaka was constructed or operated as a hotel.
Makai Sunset Inn has a different history.
Before the Lahaina fire, Makai Sunset operated as an actual inn. It accepted nightly reservations from the traveling public and operated under centralized ownership and management. It had a lobby, a front desk, check-in and check-out procedures, housekeeping services, and approximately 20 or 21 guest rooms. It was publicly advertised as an inn and hotel.
Its real-property-tax history reflects Hotel/Resort classification in 2017 and TVR-STRH classification in subsequent years. Tax classification does not establish zoning rights by itself, but it supports the other evidence showing that Makai Sunset was operated as commercial lodging.
Makai Sunset was not a residential condominium in which individual owners separately rented their units. It was a centrally operated small inn.
The building was destroyed in the August 2023 fire. The question now is whether that former hotel should be allowed to reconstruct and, if so, under what zoning, size, shoreline, safety, infrastructure, and public-access conditions.
That is a legitimate land-use question, but it is not the same question presented by 10 Walaka.
Placing both properties in one resolution makes it harder to determine what the Council is approving and why. Makai Sunset’s history as an actual inn should not be used to characterize 10 Walaka as a hotel. Likewise, the issues surrounding residential short-term rentals at 10 Walaka should not determine whether a genuine pre-fire inn may be reconstructed in Lahaina.
The history of the resolution also should be clarified.
The legislative record states that Resolution 26-130 was created on July 27, 2026, with both properties already identified.
On July 29, the owner of 10 Walaka submitted testimony stating that he had recently learned about Council-initiated rezoning after speaking with Councilmember Cook’s office.
On August 4, Makai Cam’s consultant submitted a formal written request asking that the Makai Sunset properties be included, even though those parcels were already named in the resolution.
There may be a straightforward explanation for this sequence, but it is not apparent from the documents presently available to the public.
Before proceeding, the Committee should place the following information in the public record:
1. Who first proposed including each property;
2. When each owner or representative first contacted the Council;
3. What communications and supporting information were provided before July 27;
4. What criteria were used to determine which properties would receive Council-initiated consideration;
5. Whether other property owners made similar requests and how those requests were handled; and
6. Why these two different properties were combined in one resolution.
There is nothing inherently improper about the Council initiating land-use legislation when it determines that doing so serves a public purpose. However, when legislation concerns specific private parcels, the origin of the proposal, the supporting evidence, and the reasons for proceeding should be clearly documented.
Resolution 26-130 should therefore be amended to:
1. Remove 10 Walaka Street from the resolution;
2. Consider Makai Sunset Inn in a separate land-use proceeding based on its actual pre-fire hotel operation;
3. Verify Makai Sunset’s lawful room count, floor area, zoning history, permits, parcel configuration, and reconstruction rights; and
4. Complete the public record concerning how and why each property was included.
The basic distinction is clear: Makai Sunset was a functioning inn before the fire. 10 Walaka is a residential property where two dwellings are operated as short-term rentals.
The Council should evaluate each property according to what it actually is and require a separate public record and decision for each one.
Mahalo,
Edward Codelia
Kula, Maui