Housing and Land Use Committee (2025-2027) - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Will the Disaster Recovery International Affairs and Planning Committee come to order? The time is now 9.05 on July 1st, 2026. If everyone could please silence their cell phones or other noise-making devices, that would help our cause. Members, in accordance with the Sunshine Law, if you're not in the council chamber, please identify by name who, if anyone in the room, is in the room, vehicle, or workspace with you today. Minors do not need to be identified. Also, please see the last page of the agenda for information on meeting connectivity. My name is Tamara Paulton, and I'll be your chair for today's DRIP committee meeting. We have with us this morning, Committee Vice Chair, Nohelani Uu-Hodgins. Aloha kakahiaka.

Aloha. Aloha, Chair. Aloha, everyone. I'm in my personal vehicle in my yard, about to leave my house in a few, but I wanted to say hello to everyone. I think this morning's meeting is going to be quite quick, so I'll see you folks in person soon.

Thank you. Next up, we have Council Member Kawanoe Batangan. Aloha kakaiaka.

Aloha kakaiaka, Chair and members.

And we also have Council Member Tom Cook. Aloha kakaiaka.

Aloha kakaiaka, Chair.

And we have Council Member Gabe Johnson. Aloha kakaiaka.

Aloha and good morning, Chair, Council Members, community members. There's no testifiers at the Lanai'i District Office, and I'm here and ready to work.

Thank you, we also have Council Chair Alice Lee, aloha kakahiaka. Aloha Chair and ohayou gozaimasu. Ohayou gozaimasu. And next up we have Council Member Keani Rollins-Fernandez, aloha kakahiaka and ohayou gozaimasu. Kako. We see her, but we can't hear her, and she looks like she's frozen, so we can come back to her. But we can mark her as present, because we see her, right? Oh, in the air. Oh. We'll come back. Next up, we have a council member.

Oh.

Hello?

Hi. Can you hear me?

Yes. No, we can't though.

I'm alone.

Okay, alone, thank you. Next up, we have Council Member Shane Sinensi. Aloha kakaiaka.

Aloha kakaiaka, Chair.

And member Sugimura looks like she's absent. Okay, next up, this meeting of the Disaster Recovery International Affairs and Planning Committee of the Maui County Council is located on the traditional aina of Kanaka'o'iwi who never ceded their sovereignty to the United States. We recognize that Her Majesty Queen Liliuokalani yielded the Hawaiian Kingdom to the U.S. in duress under threat of violence. to avoid the bloodshed of her people. We further recognize that Hawaii remains an illegally occupied nation state by the US as documented in a 2021 scholarly article for the National Lawyers Guild Review by Andrew Reed, adjunct professor of law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. Generations of Kanaka Maoli and their knowledge systems have sustainably cared for Hawaii and continue to do so. We are grateful to occupy this space and learn the ways in which we can contribute. As a committee, we seek to support the varied strategies that the indigenous peoples of Hawaii are using to protect their land and their communities and commit to dedicating time and resources to working in solidarity. From the Department of Planning, we have Planning Director Jackie Takakura. From the Department of Public Works, we invited Director Jordan Molina. From the Department of Water Supply, we have Deputy Director Kimo Landgraf. From the Department of Fire and Public Safety, I believe we have Oliver Voss. From the Department of Management, we have Jordan Hart. And from Corp Council, we have Deputy Corp Council Michael Hopper. Other resources we have with us today are the church's consultant, Kimberly Willenbrink, as well as the pastor of Lahaina United Methodist Church, John Crew, who has been authorized by the Hawaii District California Pacific Conference Superintendent of the Methodist Churches, Tom Choi, to speak on behalf of the church. Members, without objection, I will designate Ms. Willenbrink and Pastor Crew as resource people under Rule 18A of the Rules of the Council due to their knowledge and expertise as the consultant and pastor for Lahaina Methodist United, sorry, Lahaina United Methodist Church, respectively. Thank you. We also have DRIP Committee staff with us this afternoon. We have Legislative Attorney Carl Nakata, Supervising Committee Secretary Yvette Boutilier, Senior Legislative Analyst James Krueger, and Legislative Analysts Jarrett Pasqua and Ryan Ramirez. And as Clerk, I believe we have Jean Pokipala, Assistant Clerk. We have one item on the agenda for today, DRIP 24. On it we have Bill 94-2026, Changing Zoning from R2 Residential District to P1 Quasi-Public District Conditional Zoning for 3.255 acres at Lahaina Hawaii, Lahaina United Methodist Church. The committee may consider whether to recommend passage of Bill 94-2026 on fresh reading with or without revisions. The committee may also consider the filing of Bill 94-2026 and other related action. Okay. So... The Haina United Methodist Church is one of the churches that had burnt down in August of 2023, and they would like to rebuild. They are in the SMA area. We scheduled this item because when we first introduced it to the Planning Commission, they have exceeded their 120-day timeframe to take up The proposed conditional change in zoning was initiated by me. It was set for review under resolution 25-180 FD1, which the council had adopted September 26, 2025. And since they did not schedule the proposed bill within the timeframe required by Section 8.6 of the County Charter, after Bill 94 was referred to, DRIP Committee letters were sent to the following agencies requesting review and comment, fire and public safety, environmental management, public works, planning, and water supply. The Director of Environmental Management transmitted that he had no comments on the proposal. Additionally, I requested the Office of Recovery to join us because of the proposed Luakini Street extension project that would affect one of the church's parcels. However, there should be minimal impact to the subject parcel. Also members, Ms. Willenbrink transmitted a document to the committee this morning containing the church's deeds and a meets and bounds description of the property. The property description notes that the property is about 3.26 acres. So amendment will be needed to the bill and exhibit A to reflect this change. Please note that while the council will require six votes to pass this bill, only a simple majority vote is needed for the committee to make a recommendation. So at this time, I'd love to recognize Council Member Yukile Sugimura. Aloha kakahiaka and ohayou gozaimasu.

Ohayou gozaimasu. Thank you very much, I'm sorry I'm late. Looking forward to this important meeting.

Thank you so much. And at this time, if we can have any, if you want, you don't need to, but any opening comments from Pastor Crew and the Lahaina United Methodist Church, if you'd like to make any opening comments.

I'd just like to say mahalo for taking this up and for organizing this meeting and I'm looking forward to share whatever you want to hear. We're looking forward to using this property to benefit the community. We have a lot of space there and we're currently on the property now and holding services there so it's wonderful to be back in Lahaina. Thank you.

Thank you. And any opening comments from Director Takakura from the Department of Planning?

Thank you, Chair Paulton. I apologize our transmittal has not made its way back to the DRIP Committee in response to your request for comments. I can go over that now or I can wait until you want to deliberate or whatever works for you.

I guess we can wait, maybe.

Okay, but the general consensus, we do support this change of zoning, but we do have a few concerns we can discuss today, thank you.

Great, thank you. Any opening comments from Director Molina from Public Works? We can circle, hello?

Hi, good morning.

Good morning. Any opening comments?

Yeah, sorry, we didn't get a chance to review in detail. And there was limited information in your request as to what is the purpose or objective of the zoning change. Just to note that the change to public quasi-public may trigger additional improvements that residential zoning typically does not trigger, and that the property owner should be aware of the various recovery directives, rebuild plans, suspensions of laws, et cetera, that may affect their rebuild as they

Thank you. Okay, and any opening comments from the Deputy Director Landgraf of Water Supply? No opening comments. Any opening comments from Captain Voss?

Morning, Chair. Just wondering if you received our comments that were sent to you. I know they're kind of last minute. Did you get a paragraph from us? If not, I can go over it later.

Chair, I apologize. I don't believe we have FIRE's response yet.

We don't have it yet, but if you wanted to briefly go over them.

Yeah, if you want me to do that right now, I can read it to you. It's only a couple of sentences.

Perfect. Yeah, sure.

So the Fire Prevention Bureau, when we review change in zoning applications for compliance or intended land use, we just look at what is it being used for and how does that land use need to be protected. For the land use that you're proposing for these two lots, it would be a 20 foot wide access road with no parking enforced for anything less than 28 feet on all roads surrounding that. and then the hydrant spacing at 250 feet at 2000 GPM along the frontage of those parcels. That's pretty much our standard. Because I only had a couple of days to review this, we didn't actually verify those conditions, but if those conditions are existing, we have no issues with the rezoning. If those conditions aren't existing, those improvements would need to be made or implemented. For our approval.

Thank you so much. Okay. And Office of Recovery, any opening remarks?

Good morning, Chair and members. Jordan Hart, County of Maui Office of Recovery. I want to thank you for the opportunity to support this project this morning. And as mentioned by the Chair, the property was significantly impacted by the fires. and Office of Recovery is confident that any of the improvement criteria can be addressed at building permit prior to any commercial structures that would be built. That would be structures like a school or a church facility would all trigger these advanced improvements in comparison to residential zoning. Thank you.

Thank you. Deputy Corporation Counsel Michael Hopper, do you have any opening remarks?

Thank you, Chair, just a couple. We had not approved the bill as to form and legality. I think we would recommend taking out section one. It sort of has a lengthy purpose section, and in my experience, changes in zoning mainly start with something like section two, three, and then four, which state the zoning is being changed from what to what. The lengthy section one, I don't think we would necessarily be able to approve it as to forming legality at this point. And I think it's sort of extraneous to the purpose of the zoning ordinance. I think that background in history is generally something for either a committee report or to perhaps have in other correspondence, but putting that in the ordinance itself, I think I would advise against and would most likely advise taking out section one. I understand that there is a meets and bounds description available and so that should definitely be added and I think you're planning on doing that for exhibit in exhibit a that's typically what we have an actual meets and bounds description rather than just the TMK. So I think that would be a really good change. And yeah, I think those are my opening comments. And I know we just did discuss the issue to ensure that if there are conditions that the person signing the unilateral agreement would have authority to actually encumber the property because the unilateral agreement is an encumbrance that would run with the land. So whoever is signing that would need to have the authority not only to apply for zoning, but also to encumber the property similar to a mortgage which would run with the land permanently. So we would wanna get those issues, that issue clarified at least before unilateral agreement signing time.

Thank you so much. Staff, do we have anyone waiting to testify?

Thank you, Chair. There's currently no one signed up to testify, but if you'd like, I can do a last call. Yes, please. Thank you. If anyone would like to testify on this matter, please raise your hand on teams or approach the testifier's podium here in the chamber. I'll do a last call now. Three, two, one. Chair, seeing none, no one would like to testify.

Thank you. Members, without objection, I will now close public testimony. Thank you. All right, so let's start out with Ms. Takakura.

Thank you, Chair Palten. So your inquiry was asking the department to comment on the proposed change of zoning and discuss any anticipated impact resulting from the proposal. So this is a rezone, a proposed rezone of two parcels from R2 residential to P1 public quasi-public. The department doesn't have any more information on the proposed changes of zoning than that and I'm not sure, what happened to the resolution and why it didn't get transmitted to the Planning Commission. I have to claim innocence because I was not in this position back in September or October. But I do apologize, but we don't have any more information on the proposed changes of zoning, but assumes that there will be no changes of use. So the existing entitlements for the two parcels are the same, and so for the state designation, they're urban. Within the Maui Island Plan, they're urban, and they are outside of any protected areas. So for the West Maui Community Plan, they are public, quasi-public designation. As we mentioned, the zoning is R2 residential. They are in the special management area, and they are in the National Historic Landmark District. So I did a little bit of research and I was looking at aerial imagery and I do see that one of the parcels, which is 245002005, appears to have been the site for the Lahaina United Methodist Church, which was destroyed in the 2023 wildfires. The other parcel, which is 245002006, appears to be the site for the children of the Rainbow Nursery. And some structures on this parcel were destroyed by the fire. Some of the surviving structures based on the aerial imagery look residential in nature. So looking at the proposed zoning, looking at Maui County Code, Section 1931, Public Quasi-Public, permitted uses include churches and nurseries, schools and daycare facilities, And therefore, the proposed changes of zoning would be consistent with the uses prior to the fire. However, if the existing structures on parcel 245002006 are dwelling units, they may need to be considered nonconforming or accessory because residential use is not listed as a permitted use in 1931 of the code. Looking at the community plan designation, public quasi public, this is intended to provide facilities for public use or benefit. Many of the uses in this designation are also allowed in other districts like churches, parks, and schools, but this designation is typically for planned or existing larger scale government, nonprofit, or educational uses. And so the proposed changes of zoning would be consistent with the community plan designation. Now normally when a planning commission reviews an application for a change of zoning, they look at a lot of different things like the history of the property, the proposed uses on the property, any applicable regulations, procedural matters, agency reviews like what Committee Chair Paulton did with the different departments, general plan review, infrastructure, archeological, cultural resources, et cetera. Now, because the parcels are in the special management area, these topics are typically considered during the SMA permit analysis. And during that process, normally, there could be conditions included in the permit approval. However, ministerial permits are such as grading and building permits follow the standard process for departments reviews. So the thing about the SMA right now though is that per HRS 205A, they would be exempt. There is an exemption that lasts until 2029. If that exemption expires and is not extended, then the church would have to go through the full SMA process. However, if they were to be able to submit their application before 2029, it could be a quicker process and not have to go through the public hearing process. However, one thing to consider is that when our staff get the permits, they do look at it for consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act to make sure that any environmental impacts would be managed or mitigated. I do wanna comment though that the department has some concerns regarding exhibits C and three, the conditions of zoning. The department recommends conditions in the SMA use permit, not in the zoning. However, in this case, if it's gonna be an exemption, We might still be able to put them in the SMA, but ideally that would be the better place than in the ordinance. One of the reason being is that conditions will likely be subject to interpretation. And we see that now when we look at an ordinance that is say 20 or 25 years old, and there's a condition on there. And we have to kind of guess what the intent was beyond what the simple wording might be in an ordinance. So sometimes that can be kind of difficult. If there are gonna be uses that are restricted, we recommend listing the permitted uses instead of listing the prohibited uses and identifying if use is added to the zoning code in the future will or will not be allowed. And I'm speaking from experience because we have this issue with other parcels. And there were some proposed prohibited uses that were listed like hospital and treatment plants, but given the size of the parcels, the proposed prohibited uses to me are unlikely. And then considering sea level rise and changes in the environment, there could be a chance that water and wastewater transmission and distribution systems could change, or perhaps a booster pump station might be needed for water or wastewater in this area. And we wouldn't want, someone in the future to say, oh, that's accessory to a water or wastewater treatment facility and therefore you can't do it. So we gotta be really careful with things that we are saying we don't want because of this chance of interpretation. Also, the proposal to prohibit accessory uses may be interpreted as prohibiting uses that are accessory to permitted uses, because sometimes there's some overlap. Again, interpretation, and it gets hard to figure this out, you know, like say 20 years from now or in the future. If the council intends to prohibit or only allow certain uses listed in Chapter 1931, those uses should be clearly stated. And I want to point out that if a use is prohibited, there can be no related accessory use or structure. For example, if a hospital is prohibited, there can be no energy systems, fences, walls, garages, et cetera, related to a hospital. You know, if you're saying you can't do one thing, obviously, because you cannot do that one thing, you cannot do anything accessory to it, right? Because you can't do that one thing. So just want to make that clear. Also a comment that the resolution does not include the land use map, which must be attached to the bill for ordinance. And typically the applicant is responsible for providing the map. And then the department can provide the map number once it is ready. So other than those conditions of zoning, we do support the change because it will align with prior uses and the community plan designation. And so we do support it. And you know, in Maui County Code 19-510, there are criteria for changes of zoning. It's 19-510-040-A-4. The proposed request meets the general plan, yes. The proposed request is consistent with the applicable community plan land use map, yep. Proposed request meets the intent and purpose of the district, yes. The application, if granted, would not adversely affect or interfere with public or private schools and parks, nope. The application, if granted, would not adversely impact the social, cultural, economic, environmental character, nope. In fact, it would probably improve it, right? And the last criteria is if it involves ag district, which is not relevant, so. In a nutshell, it's basically all good, except we do have some concerns about those conditions. Thank you very much, thanks for listening.

Thanks, great opening. Before I open it up to the floor, can I just clarify? So if we don't impose those conditions of zoning, then we don't need a unilateral agreement.

I have to ask Corporation Council, I'm not as familiar with that.

Yes, Chair, and you could check with OCS staff too to confirm this, but if there's no conditions, there wouldn't be anything in the unilateral agreement that would be recorded to run with the land. Of course, the property would be able to do anything in the zoning. There'd be no limits there, but there would be no conditions in post, so there would be no need for a unilateral agreement.

Okay, members, just as a way of background, when we were meeting with the Lahaina United Methodist Church and Pastor Crew, those specific uses were uses I believe that he pointed out that they weren't interested in doing. So personally, I'm okay with removing the conditions in zoning. I have some trust in the church, but I'll leave it to your folks' discretion. Ms. Willenbrink, I think before first reading, we would still want the land use map. Is that something that you would be able to get?

Good morning, Chair and members. Good morning. with the surveyor to get the map. The surveyor is doing this work for free, and so we're working hard with him. That's all I can say about that.

Okay, thank you. Pastor Crew, as to what Director Takakura had said about residential dwellings and what Captain Voss had said about the width and parking situation, you were aware of that before and you're okay with it?

We do have some residential dwellings on the property, my parsonage where I live, and also there's a duplex where two families are living. We're providing affordable housing. They were in FEMA housing before. So we would like to keep those available. I'm not sure if you can repeat the restrictions on the residential again. Is there anything that?

Director Takakura, did you just say that they would become non-conforming? Yes. And the rules that apply to that is if they burn down, then not necessarily you would be able to rebuild them, but the parsonage is a related use to the church, so that would be allowed, right?

So thank you, Chair. This is an interesting question because the church is on one parcel. And the related uses to the church, say you had a convent or a rectory or a parsonage, that would certainly be directly related to church on the parcel. These dwelling units are on the neighboring parcel, which has the preschool. So technically, they're separate parcels. But because the houses were existing, yeah, we would consider them nonconforming, which we did open up that chapter a little bit to be a little bit more liberal in the last year or two. So they do have a tiny bit more flexibility than they did in the past. But perhaps in the long run, if the church had the time and funds, they could consider a lot consolidation or perhaps that joint use bill might, I'm not sure of the details of that one, but that one might be something that could help this.

Yeah, I believe they were one of the pioneers of the Joint East Bill because of the situation discovered after the fire that they were, same water meter or something like that. They were gonna do the lot tie.

Yeah, the water meter issue was resolved, but we are interested in a lot tie agreement for issues like this. I don't think anybody considered that when they built all these buildings back in the 1960s. But yeah, that's where all of our dwelling is. There was originally a parsonage next to the church when it was built in 1922, and then they built the newer parsonage, and then we had rented that out. That was lost in the fire as well. So yeah, we probably would be interested in doing that. Also, long term, we're interested in someday providing some sort of affordable housing for people in the community. So we can address all that, I guess, when we come to it. But our initial goal is to rebuild the church and the preschool.

Okay, I think we got enough background for the members. We can start out with, you know, maybe four minutes of discussion per member, or questions, whatever you have. Starting off with Committee Vice Chair Nohe Uhu Hodgins.

Thank you, Chair. I really have no questions and I'm very happy to support. I'm happy to remove the conditions if that's what makes it a little bit easier. I do trust that This will be in the continuous use of what was, is what will continue to be. So thank you. I appreciate all the opening comments from everyone. It was a very thorough discussion.

Thank you. Next up, Member Cook.

Thank you, Chair. My first question for Mr. Hart. Currently you mentioned about the utilities and future use What's the current office of recovery is there any current upgrades and modifications to the infrastructure has that phase been completed I

Right now, the only Office of Recovery improvement project immediately abutting that I can speak on is the Lua-Kinney Street extension, which will include utilities. But I wanna clarify that what I was trying to share with that comment is that there's a discussion of the need to provide infrastructure improvements concurrent with the change in zoning. And normally for a developer, that's expected and there's a unilateral agreement and things like that. But this not being a developer, I was just trying to point out that when they come in for their building permits, all of these infrastructure requirements will be triggered. So that would, you know, asking them to do a cash outlay to do infrastructure improvements before they have a project is a real challenge. But if you just basically allow the natural county process to unfold, as soon as they submit for a commercial facility, like I'm calling it commercial because of the building code, a church or a school or, or anything of that nature, all of these commercial level infrastructure improvements will kick in and, and,

They'll automatically apply regardless of this change in zoning just based on the the permit for construction Thank you for that clarification My other question for planning the 2029 exemption from SMA If improvements are built before 2029 Do any improvements become after the fact? I mean, how does that work? Like it's exempt until 2029 and somebody does builds within the parameters of now. Do they get penalized and have to address it later?

Thank you, Council Member Cook. So the SMA exemption category W expires in 2029. So any application coming in between now and that expiration date will be considered exemptions. And so anything after that will have to go through the regular process unless the HRS changes to, say, extend it further. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. That's all my questions, Chair. I'm supportive of this.

Thank you. I think Member Rollins-Fernandez's internet is spotty, so unless she jumps in, I'll move on to Member Johnson.

Okay, thank you, Chair. Just one quick question for Director Takakura. You mentioned lot consolidation would be an option, and you said there was a price tag attached. Could you talk about maybe how much they would have to come up with to do a lot of consolidation?

Council Member Johnson, I'm sorry, I don't know the cost of a lot consolidation, I'm sorry. That is a DPW process in the subdivision, so I don't know the price on that, I'm sorry.

I think Director Molina is on it.

Yeah, okay, thanks for that. Director Molina, did you hear my question? I can ask again if you like.

Yeah, got the question. I mean, those kinds of survey services can run from $5,000 to $10,000, in this case for a small two lot subdivision that could be expected pricing.

Okay, around $5,000 to $10,000. I just needed a rough ballpark figure. So how does the church feel about that? Is that something you would consider moving forward on? So you could just do that if you get, the money I thought might be, if it's in the hundreds, thousands, we might have a different conversation, but what say you?

Yeah, I mean, I think it would, I mean, of course, I have to get approval from the council, our church council, but I believe so. Yeah, I think that would be something that, we would be interested in doing to help alleviate some of the issues that we're having with that. And I think we might have, that number sounds familiar, so I think I might have heard that before. So it's not a surprise.

Is that insurmountable for a church? I know churches aren't wealthy. I'm sorry if I can be so bluntly. But is that okay with you guys? Is that something you can handle?

You know, we operate on donations, so that would be something that other people, the donors, we can mention that. I'm actually... We've had a lot of support from people in the community. And so I believe and I have faith that we could probably raise that if we needed to.

Okay, those were my questions. Full support, thank you, Chair.

It looks like Ms. Willenbrink wants to respond to your question as well. Ms. Willenbrink?

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I just wanted to mention, as you noted, that we were in... early on stages uh in the process of putting forward uh with the help of the office of recovery staff or uh office of management i don't know a joint use uh bill which is now um out there i think um council member cook may have uh put that forward and we are in full support of that in fact i think pastor john already testified in support of that at the planning commission stage that that bill would eliminate some of the lengthy time that it takes to do a consolidation and the price tag for that. But either way, we will pursue one of those avenues. Thank you.

I look forward to hearing more from that.

Thank you. Mr. Hart, did you have anything you wanted to add?

Thank you, Chair. I don't want to overcomplicate things, but I just wanted to point out that the council could allow through the creation of this ordinance, the opportunity to operate accessory uses on an alternate parcel because they're going through creating zoning right now. Thank you.

Chair Lee, your opportunity? No questions, I support it, thanks. Member Sugimura, your opportunity. Thank you.

So I support this, and blessings, really, for all that your church and your members are going through. And thank you, Member Paulton, for what you do to make this happen. I wanna go back to what Corp Council said, and maybe this is a question for you, that based upon the recommendations from Corp Council, are you gonna ask that the documents be updated for first reading in Council, or how are we gonna incorporate

Yeah, we can do that. I mean, strike section one, we can add on the meets and bounds. We'll need to wait for the land zoning map before we can put it up to first reading. But we can do all of that once the discussion ends and we start making motions.

Okay, that's all I wanted to ask. Thank you.

Okay, Member Batonga, for your opportunity.

Thank you, Chair. So my questions were in line with what members Seymour had asked. So in order to get it to form in the galley, we need section one. We were missing the meet and bounds. The last question I had was on the conditions of zoning, especially now that we're being told that we could allow for those accessory dwellings on the neighboring parcel. Because my understanding of what Corporation Council was saying was that the conditions of zoning would need to be taken up as an encumbrance on the land, and I thought there was some issue with that. So I thought the prescription was to remove them. If we're now bringing them back into question, I wanna know mechanically what the proposal for the body is.

Either Mr. Hart or Mr. Hopper, if we allow the ability to have accessory dwellings on a neighboring parcel, would that require a unilateral agreement?

Chair, I'm not sure what we're talking about here. You can establish a different zoning district if that's what you would want, but as far as conditions of zoning to allow things that are not allowed in the zoning district or that are broader, I don't think we can do that. The zoning conditions are to mitigate impacts. Generally, they would be narrower. If you're looking at a new zoning where you're going to say, we're going to have it be zoned residential or something like that, um, or keep it residential or do something else that would make it easier. You could do that. Some of that might have to go back to the planning commission if it's a zoning district you never looked at. But, um, I'm not sure how you would have conditions that would interpret the code. I don't think you can necessarily, um, do that through a zoning condition.

So that makes sense to me. Can I ask?

What was the recommendation to allow for the accessory uses? So it's not, it wasn't talking about a condition of zoning. It was basically stating that the use is permitted in the ordinance. So the property owner is not recording anything. Council's declaring to the world that we say this property has public quasi public plus accessory uses on alternate parcel.

Oh, I see. Sorry, I must have just misunderstood what you were saying earlier then. So we would still be proposing to eliminate exhibit C, the conditions of zoning, and then we would expand the allowed uses in the ordinance itself to include those accessory uses.

On a neighboring parcel.

Because it's two parcels. It's two parcels, right? Yeah. So... Sorry, so my understanding is that for one of the parcels, we would just include that. It doesn't have to be, you just specify which parcel you want that used to be allowed for, right?

Mr. Hart?

Here's what I would say is that you presume this church will operate for a long period of time and that this kind of thing will happen and zoning enforcement will be like, oh, well, the church is over here, you can't have this, you know, commercial kitchen over here. So anyway, if you just basically say that the accessory uses can occur on either parcel, then it's good.

Okay. And a corporation council, you'd be willing to sign off on form and legality if the committee chose to add that, um, flexibility.

I don't think so. Um, the, the, I'm trying to figure out what's going on here. If you're talking about changing, like the definition in the code of an accessory use? I mean, you can decide through changes in zoning.

No, I don't think that they're trying to change the code. I think they're trying to change the allowed uses for these two TMKs through this change in zoning. So it would be public, quasi-public, and then for one of those TMKs, there'd be additional uses, correct? Yeah. I don't think I've seen that before where you... I've never heard of that either, but...

You're talking about changing a zoning to something and then also allowing uses that aren't allowed in that district stating that that that zoning district allows additional uses. I don't think I've seen that before. That's a different zoning district. Like you couldn't.

To clarify, it's two different parcels, I think, and if the church is on one parcel and the parsonage, which is an accessory use to the church, is on the other parcel, it's saying that the accessory uses to the church can be on a separate parcel, but the whole thing would be zone public quasi public. So since it's two parcels, and the church is on one parcel and the preschool is on another parcel, but it's all owned by the Methodist Church. We wanna let the accessory dwelling, or sorry, accessory uses to either a church or preschool be on one or the other parcels. So it's allowing accessory uses to public, quasi-public on both parcels regardless of what is built on which parcel. Is that? DIFFERENT IN YOUR OPINION?

WELL, I MEAN, THE CODE DEFINES WHAT AN ACCESSORY USE IS. IF WE'RE GOING TO BE REDEFINING THAT CODE SAYING ACCESSORY USES INCLUDE NEIGHBORING LOTS, THEN THAT'S, TO ME, THAT IS A CODE TITLE 1904 DEFINITIONAL CHANGE RATHER THAN DOING IT IN A PARTICULAR ORDINANCE. IN THE ORDINANCE YOU CAN DECIDE WHAT USES ARE ALLOWED GENERALLY. but if the code says here's an accessory use, how it works, I don't know, one of the parcels could get sold to somebody else and then.

So I guess, Chair, I would agree with Corporation Council's interpretation of this one and would prefer for the lot consolidation option rather than to allow accessory uses to be on a separate parcel.

Okay.

But thank you, Chair. Sure.

Member Sinensi, your opportunity.

I think Director Takakura, she can go ahead.

I'm sorry to interrupt, Chair Paulton, but I wanted to remind you that the joint use bill is, we're working on getting that back to the county council, so if the joint use bill passes, perhaps that might resolve the issue, depending on what direction you folks take. And I don't remember the status of the, you know, we have three different planning commissions, yeah, but anyways, that's on its way, so perhaps that will resolve it.

Oh, great point, yeah, so this situation here is one to remember when we take up the joint use bill in terms of how it applies practically. Okay, was that everything, Director Takakura? Yes, thank you. Okay, go ahead, Member Sinens.

Thank you, Chair, just for clarification, so if we do delete Exhibit C, then we wouldn't need the unilateral agreement?

Correct.

Okay. And then, uh, the video heart mentioned that if the church waited, uh, for, uh, infrastructure improvements on Lua Keeney and then they, um, uh, submit their application, then that would be a benefit for the church. Can you explain that one again?

Chair, to clarify, there are infrastructure improvements proposed with Lewakini Street, and whether or not they're a direct benefit to this project, there'd have to be an analysis of that. But there may be things that upsize or increase that they could tap into. I'm not prepared to technically speak on that here.

Okay. And then, uh, deputy, but those improvements might go beyond the, uh, 2029 deadline for the SMA application or, or to accept them from the, from the SMA.

Yeah, I don't think that they should. tie their project planning to that county roadway extension project. If it works out, that's nice, but they should... That was your recommendation. There was a question about whether or not there was infrastructure upgrades being proposed by Office of Recovery in the vicinity, and I was basically just stating that that's the one that I can speak to now on the radar.

Okay, just to be clear.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

Thank you. So I think everybody's had an opportunity. Does anyone have need for a second opportunity? Member Rollins texted that she didn't have any questions. So at this time, I'd like to entertain a motion to recommend passage of Bill 94-2026 on first reading. So moved. Second. Moved by Member Cook, seconded by Member Johnson. The Chair will entertain a motion to amend Bill 94 by one, amending all references to 3.255 acres and changing that to 3.26 acres. So moved. Sorry, not done, it's a multi-step motion to amend. Two, replacing Exhibit A of Bill 94 with the property description attached to the church's deed. And three, incorporating non-substantive revisions for clarity and consistency and style. And probably four, strike Section one and strike, I think it's exhibit C. and all the conditions of zoning. Okay, now I'm ready. Moved by Member Cook, seconded by Member Johnson. And this is the recommendations that we heard during discussion. Any discussion on the amendment?

Can we have it, can you? Can you repeat that amendment? Yeah, sure. Can you send it to us in writing?

I was writing some of it but didn't catch all of it.

Sure, we're amending all references to 3.255 acres and we're replacing it with 3.26 acres since we received the meets and bounds on the deed by Ms. Willenbrink. We're replacing Exhibit A of Bill 94 with the property description attached to the church's deed, which contains the meets and bounds. We're striking Section 1 as requested by Corporation Council Hopper, and we're removing the conditions of zoning as recommended by the Director of Planning, Taka Cora. Any further discussion on that amendment? Member Sugimura, then Member Rollins for that.

I just want Corp Council to say yes.

Deputy Hopper, will you give us your blessing there?

Some of those items are policy, so the conditions, that's not a legal issue for me, but yes, if you want to delete them, I think that's acceptable. There may be other amendments because, for example, the section three deals with conditions of zoning, so that'll probably come out too, so if we could have the authority to make other non-substantive consistent revisions, but other than that, I believe that sounds correct.

Thank you, yeah, I neglected. We did incorporated non-substantive revisions for clarity, consistency, and style as to legislative intent.

Chair. Yes. Staff's understanding is that planning would like for the bill to also include a land zoning map, so we'll be awaiting that and making reference to that, attaching it as an exhibit to the bill when it's received.

Yeah, does that need to be in the form of an amendment?

I think if you just fold that into your motion, it's fine.

Okay, any objection to a friendly amendment to fold into the motion that we will be including a land zoning map and making reference to that in time for a fresh reading?

No objections.

Okay, so friendly amendment to that. Does that satisfy you?

That's good, and can I also hear from Planning and especially Office of Recovery, because so much is going on. So I wanna make sure that they're fine,

Sure, can we have your blessing, Director Tapuquara and Executive Assistant Hart.

Thank you very much for considering our concerns. Thank you. Okay, so you're fine. Office of Recovery is super important.

No, I think that it's great. Thank you very much. We support what's going on. I really wanna thank the Council for also supporting it. Everybody can see that this is a really positive thing and the assistance is needed. So thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Member Rollins-Fernandez?

I apologize, I just made this claim where I'm alone in my vehicle, ready to vote in support, mahalo.

Thank you. Okay, so we're on the amendment. I'm not gonna do a roll call. All in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, you have nine ayes, zero noes. Motion carries. You are back to the main motion as amended.

Okay, awesome. Back to the main motion as amended. For my discussion, I just wanna say what a wonderful community partner Lahaina United Methodist Church has been. As you know, this year the primary election falls on the third anniversary of the wildfires, and I believe they have offered, because we can't use the Civic Center because of the primary election, that will be the central hub for the anniversary remembrance, and they have also partnered with the Healing Journey Economic Recovery Commission and are hosting the Pau'upili Third Saturday. So it's such an honor to be able to work with a community partner that really embraces our community and steps up to provide support and assistance to the Healing Journey Economic Recovery Commission. Does anyone else have any discussion before we take the final vote? All right, okay, so this is on the main motion. All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Aye.

Chair, you have nine ayes, zero noes. Main motion passes.

Awesome, okay, so now we're basically just waiting for the land use zoning map and the committee report, and then we'll move on to fresh reading. We don't need a unilateral agreement, so that should make things a little bit easier. And this concludes today's Disaster Recovery International Affairs and Planning Committee meeting. Thank you very much. The time is now 10 a.m. Thank you for being efficient, and this meeting is adjourned.