Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Council amends MCX zoning bill to require use permits for dwellings, passes first reading
Loading...
Summary
The Hawaii County Council amended Bill 63 on first reading to make residential dwellings in industrial-commercial MCX districts subject to a use-permit review rather than a permitted use, and approved the amended bill on first reading after debate over enforcement, inclusionary requirements and community impacts.
The Hawaii County Council voted on Feb. 4, 2026, to pass Bill 63 (draft 2) on first reading after amending the measure to make dwellings in the industrial-commercial mixed-use (MCX) zoning district subject to a use permit rather than a blanket permitted use.
Council member Kimball, the bill sponsor of the amendment, told colleagues that “one size fits all doesn't work with MCX” and that moving the proposal to a use-permit structure lets the department "look at the site, look at the surrounding area, and impose the appropriate conditions" on a case-by-case basis, removing a uniform 200-foot setback previously proposed.
Planning Director Jeff Darrow said the department initially supported permitted residential uses to provide more on‑site workforce housing options, but recommended the use‑permit approach as a compromise: "This is unique in the sense that you're asking for dwellings to come under a use permit," he said, noting use permits allow public hearings before the Windward or Leeward Planning Commissions and create an administrative record for conditions and possible contested cases.
Council members debated how strongly conditions attached to a use permit can address concerns raised by community groups. Council member Villegas and others urged clarity on enforcement and whether planning staff have capacity to follow up on permit conditions; Darrow said enforcement is typically complaint-driven and that revocation of permits would be handled by the relevant planning commission.
Supporters and critics framed the change differently: some saw the amendment as a reasonable safeguard that preserves public input and site-specific conditions; others, including council member Kaguata, said it pulls back the original bill's aim to make it easier to create housing in MCX areas and asked that the underlying zoning be revisited later.
After a roll-call vote, councilors approved the amendment (the clerk recorded the roll call and the amendment carried) and then passed Bill 63, draft 2, as amended on first reading. The clerk announced the motion carried with seven votes in favor, one recorded 'no' and one member absent or excused, as reflected in the meeting record.
What happens next: Bill 63 will return for further consideration at second reading, where councilors may consider additional amendments or clarifying language about affordable housing requirements, accessory uses and enforcement mechanisms.
