Hawaii County planning committee delays vote on general plan after hours of testimony and legal concerns

The Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use and Economic Development postponed consideration of Bill 66 — the proposed County General Plan — to its May 4 meeting after extended public testimony and legal concerns about the process.

Chair Ashley Kirkwitz opened the meeting and said she planned to refine the proposal in consultation with planning staff and bring public outreach to community meetings outside the formal venue. Dozens of residents and stakeholders took the podium or joined by Zoom to urge opposing positions: some urged adoption of the 2045 plan as a necessary, comprehensive update, while others urged adoption of the shorter 2026 draft or additional islandwide hearings.

Why it matters: the general plan is the county’s long-range land-use guide. Testimony showed sharp disagreement about whether the 2045 draft contains necessary detail on climate, infrastructure and enforcement or whether the 2026 draft is a clearer, more enforceable distillation of community priorities. That split shapes future zoning, infrastructure priorities and the county’s approach to issues such as data centers, wastewater and community development plans.

Multiple speakers raised process and legal questions. Attorney and testifier Aaron Zeman told the committee he had filed a temporary restraining order challenging the process around Bill 66 and asked council members to pause any vote until a court reviews the matter and the public can see the exact changes the planning department advanced. Corporation counsel Renee Shaw explained the legal tension between the council’s charter authority to amend and the 2005 general-plan amendment procedures, saying that if an amendment is “substantial” the interim rules set out additional public review steps.

Several former and current planning professionals urged caution or a different path. Chris Ewen, a former planning director who worked on the 2005 plan, said the 2026 draft “downgrades the role of the general plan maps” and removes useful specificity; he urged keeping the 2045 approach. Conversely, other long-time residents and speakers argued that the 2045 draft is too vague and expansive and that a shorter, clearer 2026 document would be more enforceable and easier for the county to implement.

Council members and planning staff discussed how to handle map corrections and member-submitted mapping changes. Planning program manager Bethany Morrison said maps are a guidance tool rather than parcel-level zoning, but acknowledged that apparent mapping anomalies exist and recommended submitting proposed changes as individual amendments so each can be considered on its merits.

After debate about timing and process, Council member James Eustace moved — and a colleague seconded — to postpone Bill 66 to the committee’s May 4 meeting. The motion passed with seven aye votes; two council members were excused. Chair Kirkwitz said she would continue public engagement in parallel with departmental and commission review.

The committee did not adopt substantive changes to the general plan at this meeting; instead, members signaled they will continue to refine amendment procedures, explore mapping corrections, and coordinate public meetings so residents can compare the 2045 and 2026 drafts directly.

Next steps: Bill 66 will return to committee on May 4 for further consideration, with council members and staff preparing amendment language, mapping clarifications and outreach plans. The pending court filing means legal counsel and staff will monitor whether a judicial stay or other direction affects the schedule.