Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the H3 H4 Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lanai Planning Commission opposes H‑3/H‑4 hotel zoning that could preserve many TVRs
Summary
Commissioners unanimously recommended denial of a Council bill to add H‑3 and H‑4 hotel districts; the item is tied to Bill 9 (Ordinance 5909) and a TIG report that proposed moving many Minatoya‑listed units into new hotel districts. Local advocates and OHA testified on opposite sides.
The Lānaʻi Planning Commission on March 18 recommended denial of a County Council proposal to create new H‑3 and H‑4 hotel zoning districts intended to preserve some transient vacation rentals (TVRs) affected by Ordinance 5909 (Bill 9). The proposal, urged by a Council Temporary Investigative Group (TIG), would create two hotel districts that mirror existing A‑1/A‑2 apartment development standards and would provide a route for eligible parcels to be rezoned into H‑3 or H‑4 at a later time.
Office of Hawaiian Affairs testifier McKenna Woodward urged the Commission to reject the proposal, saying it would “materially under binds the intent of Bill 9” and risk removing apartment‑zoned parcels from Maui’s long‑term housing inventory. In contrast, Caitlin Miller of the Maui Vacation Rental Association said the measure “is not about creating new short term rentals. It is about creating a zoning framework” for properties the TIG identified as long‑standing lawful visitor accommodations. Administrative Planning Officer Gregory Pfost emphasized the item on the table during the hearing was only to create the districts, not to rezone any parcels, and said changes to zonemaps would be a future, separate step.
Commissioners pressed staff on the TIG’s Exhibit‑2 (a recommended list), revenue estimates tied to Bill 9, and how many Minatoya units might be preserved if rezoning proceeds. Pfost said the TIG’s recommended Exhibit‑2 listed about 4,519 of 7,167 Minatoya units (about 63 percent) and quoted Finance estimates ranging from roughly $40 million to $75 million in annual real‑property tax impact plus further GET/TAT effects; Pfost noted an approximate working estimate of $61 million in real‑property tax impact but emphasized uncertainty. Following discussion and public testimony, the Commission voted 5‑0 to recommend denial of the H‑3/H‑4 proposal and asked that Council and departments be explicit about criteria, infrastructure impacts (water, sewer, fire access), and community plan consistency before any rezoning occurs.
