I have been informed by a very reliable source that the Council has the required votes to pass Bill 2298. This would allow TVRs on lands that are zoned agriculture. Although I am not surprised, I am terribly disappointed. Councilmembers Asing and Kawakami have both voiced their opposition to the bill, mainly due to Chapter 205-5 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. It baffles me how the other 5 members of the Council have chosen to ignore this very important State law. This law is very clear and prohibits any overnight accommodations on ag land. For those of you that disagree or may not be familiar Chapter 205-5, here it is in its entirety:
§205-5 Zoning.
(a) Except as herein provided, the powers granted to counties under section 46-4 shall govern the zoning within the districts, other than in conservation districts. Conservation districts shall be governed by the department of land and natural resources pursuant to chapter 183C.
(b) Within agricultural districts, uses compatible to the activities described in section 205‑2 as determined by the commission shall be permitted; provided that accessory agricultural uses and services described in sections 205‑2 and 205‑4.5 may be further defined by each county by zoning ordinance. Each county shall adopt ordinances setting forth procedures and requirements, including provisions for enforcement, penalties, and administrative oversight, for the review and permitting of agricultural tourism uses and activities as an accessory use on a working farm, or farming operation as defined in section 165‑2; provided that agricultural tourism activities shall not be permissible in the absence of a bona fide farming operation. Ordinances shall include but not be limited to:
(1) Requirements for access to a farm, including road width, road surface, and parking;
(2) Requirements and restrictions for accessory facilities connected with the farming operation, including gift shops and restaurants; provided that overnight accommodations shall not be permitted;
(3) Activities that may be offered by the farming operation for visitors;
(4) Days and hours of operation; and
(5) Automatic termination of the accessory use upon the cessation of the farming operation.Each county may require an environmental assessment under chapter 343 as a condition to any agricultural tourism use and activity. Other uses may be allowed by special permits issued pursuant to this chapter. The minimum lot size in agricultural districts shall be determined by each county by zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, or other lawful means; provided that the minimum lot size for any agricultural use shall not be less than one acre, except as provided herein. If the county finds that unreasonable economic hardship to the owner or lessee of land cannot otherwise be prevented or where land utilization is improved, the county may allow lot sizes of less than the minimum lot size as specified by law for lots created by a consolidation of existing lots within an agricultural district and the resubdivision thereof; provided that the consolidation and resubdivision do not result in an increase in the number of lots over the number existing prior to consolidation; and provided further that in no event shall a lot which is equal to or exceeds the minimum lot size of one acre be less than that minimum after the consolidation and resubdivision action. The county may also allow lot sizes of less than the minimum lot size as specified by law for lots created or used for plantation community subdivisions as defined in section 205-4.5(a)(12), for public, private, and quasi-public utility purposes, and for lots resulting from the subdivision of abandoned roadways and railroad easements.
(c) Unless authorized by special permit issued pursuant to this chapter, only the following uses shall be permitted within rural districts:
(1) Low density residential uses;
(2) Agricultural uses;
(3) Golf courses, golf driving ranges, and golf-related facilities; and
(4) Public, quasi-public, and public utility facilities.
In addition, the minimum lot size for any low density residential use shall be one-half acre and there shall be but one dwelling house per one-half acre, except as provided for in section 205-2. [L 1963, c 205, pt of §2; Supp, §98H-5; HRS §205-5; am L 1969, c 232, §1; am L 1977, c 140, §2; am L 1978, c 165, §1; am L 1991, c 281, §4; am L 1994, c 270, §2; am L 2005, c 205, §4; am L 2006, c 237, §5 and c 250, §3]
You be the judge. It is clear to me and many others. Why our local legislators are trying to legalize an illegal activity is beyond me. Maybe the pressure from the real estate community is too much for them to handle. If you feel that the County should leave the State law alone, let your Councilmembers know. Call or email them right away. Time is of the essence.
Those 5 dummies need to lobby the legislature to change the law! They think they are above the law. Good for nothings!
ReplyDeleteWe don't think it's the pressure per se; it's more like how much or with what were they paid off with? It's as simple as that, don't you agree? THEY have been getting away with it without any consequenses, why stop now? We have laws that consistantly protects the guilty & the rich is the way it boils down to.
ReplyDeleteThis council is proving to be one of the worst ever. What's wrong with them?
ReplyDeleteThey think they know better than the public. just shows their arrogance. With Furfaro & his "I" problem, Bynum & Kawahara whining, God help us.
ReplyDelete