Maui committee weighs allowing nonconforming buildings in Lahaina to rebuild, debates ban on resurrecting vacation rentals

The Maui County Disaster Recovery, International Affairs and Planning (DRIP) Committee on Feb. 5 took up Bill 105-2024 (CD1), a measure aimed at allowing certain nonconforming structures and uses damaged in the August 2023 Lahaina wildfires to be rebuilt under defined conditions and for a limited extended period.

Chair Tamara Paulton opened the discussion by summarizing the bill's purpose: the measure would permit reconstruction of legally nonconforming buildings damaged or destroyed by a declared emergency, replace references to building and flood-hazard rules with a requirement to comply with Title 16 of the Maui County Code, allow the fire chief in certain cases to impose additional safety-related requirements, and shorten a general reconstruction window from five years to four years while extending a special window for the August 2023 fires until April 1, 2029.

Why it matters: The bill affects property owners across the Lahaina burn zone and other affected areas who held lawful, nonconforming rights before the fires — for example, older structures built before modern zoning or uses that no longer meet current code. It also touches a politically sensitive question about the role of short-term visitor accommodations during recovery, with housing advocates urging priority for long-term residential uses and tourism interests warning that a TVR restriction could harm island residents who rely on short-term rental income.

Key provisions discussed - Scope and timing: CD1 would apply countywide (except Molokai, which opted out for this disaster) to properties affected by the August 2023 fires; the bill sets an overall reconstruction/reestablishment window through April 1, 2029 for that disaster and generally specifies a four-year window from a proclamation for future events. The planning director would retain limited authority to grant a two-year extension in Historic and SMA (Special Management Area) districts for cause. - Code compliance: Instead of referring to the building code and flood-hazard regulations, CD1 requires reconstruction and reestablishment to comply with Title 16 (building, fire and related standards). For residential projects, the bill authorizes the fire chief, in certain instances, to require compliance with chapter 16.25 and 16.26(c) (or portions thereof) where necessary to improve public safety; staff said examples might include fire-rated walls or sprinklers in constrained situations. - Proof and review: The planning director would review evidence that a prior nonconforming use or structure lawfully existed before the disaster; acceptable proof could include building permits, tax records, aerial photos or other documentation, though staff acknowledged cases built before 1960 may be hard to document. - TVR amendment under debate: Chair Paulton proposed (and circulated as an amendment summary form) language that would prohibit a nonconforming transient vacation rental (TVR) from resuming if the use was discontinued for 12 consecutive months or more because the TVR was within a structure damaged or destroyed by an emergency or disaster on Lahaina or Lanai. Supporters framed this as a housing-first policy; opponents said it could penalize local owners who converted units temporarily to long-term housing or who rely on short-term rental income to rebuild.

Public testimony and stakeholder positions - Support for rebuilding flexibility: Kate Blystone, director of the Planning Department, and Greg Post, administrative planning officer, told the committee the department supports the CD1 version and has worked with fire and recovery staff on the revisions. Greg Post noted the department will rely on documentary proof and staff review to determine nonconforming status and said the department plans outreach if the bill passes. - Fire-safety caveats: Fire Captain Oliver Voss said the department’s primary concern is density and setbacks; where nonconforming rebuilds leave inadequate separation between structures, the fire department may require additional measures — for instance, sprinklers or fire-rated construction — to improve public safety. - Legal and policy review: Deputy Corporation Counsel Michael Hopper said the bill and its alternative suggestion forms (ASFs) raise policy questions for the council but presented no fatal legal impediment; he cautioned that the current code’s 12-month discontinuation rule remains a minimum that cannot be reduced and that the council may choose which uses to extend under the new time frame. - Visitor-industry views: John Pele, executive director of the Maui Hotel & Lodging Association, testified in support of Bill 105 and called for balancing historic character and economic recovery. Industry representatives including Alex Folsom and Caitlin Miller (Maui Vacation Rental Association) said they support the bill’s intent to expedite rebuilding but opposed the proposed TVR prohibition, citing lack of clarity about enforcement and the potential impact on owners who have been housing displaced residents. - Owner-occupied and B&B concerns: Tana Swanson, a Lahaina resident who operated a bed-and-breakfast since the 1980s and lost her property, urged an owner-occupied exception so resident-owned guesthouses could rebuild and qualify for financing. Several testifiers, including Tom Crowley, said only a small number of TVR-type nonconforming uses in Lahaina would be affected and warned a broad prohibition could unintentionally harm long-standing local operators. - Community voices for housing: Testifiers such as Kaina Shiki urged the council to prioritize long-term housing for residents and supported phasing out visitor accommodations where doing so meets community needs.

Committee discussion and next steps Committee members and staff discussed technical clarifications (including a typographical error in the agenda language) and how the fire-department authority would be applied. Planning staff said they will publish guidance and work with existing plan-review contractors so applicants who intend to rebuild can understand documentation requirements and potential retrofit costs. Committee members asked planning and public works about intake procedures and whether permit submittals could include a checkbox for applicants opting into Bill 105’s nonconforming review path; staff said they would explore process changes and staffing needs.

No vote was taken. The committee recessed and set a follow-up meeting for Tuesday, Feb. 11, at 9 a.m. to continue consideration and to review any proposed amendment language, additional clarifications and outreach plans before voting on first reading.

Quotable - Chair Tamara Paulton (DRIP Committee): "Nonconforming structures are basically buildings..." (summarizing the policy purpose of the bill to allow lawful pre-existing features to be rebuilt under conditions that improve safety). - John Pele (Executive Director, Maui Hotel & Lodging Association): "The Maui Hotel and Lodging Association supports bill 105 and its effort to stabilize Front Street recovery by providing...an opportunity to restore the historic character of Lahaina." - Tana Swanson (Lahaina resident; bed-and-breakfast operator): "I'm only asking one thing: that you would add...exceptions for those properties that are owner occupied or resident owned." - Tom Crowley (testifier/advocate): "Please pass this measure, but leave out the no TBR thing because it's…just gonna hurt a few people."

What to look for next Committee staff and departments will prepare clarified language for the committee’s recess date, including a cleaner articulation of the fire chief’s authority and any owner-occupied carve-outs for short-term or bed-and-breakfast uses. Planning staff also said they will publicize the bill’s requirements and the documentation homeowners should assemble if they seek to rebuild under a nonconforming claim.

Ending note: The bill seeks to balance competing priorities — speeding recovery, preserving historic character and improving public safety — while the committee works through narrow technical fixes and contested policy choices about short-term rentals.