Hawaii County panel postpones vote on rezoning for proposed 24-unit Kinaole Street development

Hawaii County's Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions on Tuesday postponed consideration of Bill 67, a rezoning request for a 33,180-square-foot parcel at 1198 Kinaole Street in South Hilo that would change the property from single-family residential (RS-10) to general commercial (CG-10). The postponement carries the item to the committee's next meeting on Aug. 5.

The measure, introduced by Council Member Kimball by request and read into the record by the council clerk, would allow the applicant to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and garage and build two two-story buildings totaling 24 residential units. Planning Director Jeff Darrow described the proposal as "two separate two-story buildings, each containing 12 residential units for a total of 24 units," with a mix of one- and two-bedroom units, 40 parking stalls including two handicap-accessible stalls, and a 24-foot driveway with a turnaround area.

Why it matters: changing zoning from RS-10 to CG-10 would authorize a broad set of commercial and residential uses permitted in the county's general commercial district, not just the multifamily housing the developer described. Several council members said they supported the applicant's stated intent to build housing but expressed concern that rezoning to commercial would allow other future uses absent contractual limits. Deputy Corporation Counsel Jean Campbell warned the committee against subtracting uses permitted under the CG-10 district, saying the county could face legal challenge if it rezoned and then tried to prohibit uses that the code allows.

Discussion highlights: Planning staff said the site is within the state land use urban district and that the county's general plan designates the area for high-density uses including general commercial. Director Darrow said the Windward Planning Commission voted on June 10, 2025, to forward a favorable recommendation on the change of zone. Darrow and Deputy Director Michelle Ahn also described a recommended condition, added in coordination with the Office of Housing and Community Development (OHCD), that would give developers partial or full relief from the county's fair-share requirement if OHCD confirms 50% to 100% of the project will be affordable and an affordable-housing agreement is executed.

Developer remarks and financing: Applicant Hank Correa (managing member, identified in the record) said his organization controls a number of rentals and that "easy 80% of local residents" occupy those properties; he told the committee the project would seek to provide rentals at rates consistent with county affordable-housing guidance and said financing for the project is secured and will not rely on government funding. Correa told the committee the $900,000 figure cited in the staff presentation was intended per building.

Council concerns and process questions: Council members pressed staff and the applicant on (1) whether zoning should be limited to multifamily uses, (2) how a 50%--100% affordable threshold in the proposed condition would be determined and enforced, (3) the timeline for the applicant to finalize plans and start construction, and (4) potential traffic impacts from additional units. Director Darrow and OHCD staff said the affordability percentage would be confirmed through an agreement between the applicant and OHCD before final plan approval; Darrow noted developers typically meet with OHCD during plan review and the condition is intended to encourage affordable projects. On traffic, the planning department said the project falls below the county threshold that triggers a traffic-impact analysis and that a later change of use that exceeds the peak-hour-trip threshold would require a traffic study and any required transportation improvements at the applicant's expense.

Formal actions: The committee recorded two formal motions during the item. An initial motion to approve Bill 67 and forward it to full council with a favorable recommendation was made (mover and seconder recorded in the meeting) but was not voted on before members instead moved to postpone. The committee then voted 6-0 to postpone the item to the committee's Aug. 5 meeting; the clerk recorded six ayes and three members excused. The clerk announced the postponement vote result without naming individual yea votes.

What remains unsettled: Committee members asked that planning and OHCD strengthen early coordination so that any affordable-housing commitments are clarified before final approval. Deputy Corporation Counsel recommended against placing use-specific restrictions in the rezoning ordinance because rezoning applies to all uses allowed by the zoning district. The applicant indicated willingness to meet with the council member in whose district the property is located and with OHCD prior to the next hearing.

Next steps: Bill 67 is continued to the committee meeting on Aug. 5 for further consideration and possible action.