Council bill seeks to ease permit restrictions for ag lot owners
By MICHAEL BRESTOVANSKY Hawaii Tribune-Herald | Sunday, October 6, 2024, 12:05 a.m.

Agricultural landowners could encounter less red tape when trying to make small improvements to their properties, under a County Council proposal.

At Wednesday’s Planning, Land Use and Development Committee meeting, Puna Councilwoman Ashley Kierkiewicz introduced Bill 212, which would exempt greenhouses and other small structures from requiring building permits on agricultural lots.

Currently, permits are not required for “detached one-story accessory structures” used as tool sheds, storage sheds, gazebos, playhouses, animal sheds and the like on residential-zoned land, as long as the structure’s total floor area doesn’t exceed 200 square feet.

Bill 212 would extend that exemption to ag land and expand it, with no permits required for accessory structures up to 1,000 square feet of floor area.

Kierkiewicz told the committee that the bill, among other things, corrects an oversight caused by the current building code. She said a constituent attempted to build a greenhouse on his property without realizing he needed a building permit to do so.

“These structures, greenhouses in particular, are very critical to our food sustainability, and they’re subject to a very bureaucratic building permit process,” Kierkiewicz said. “We are here to encourage people to be more food-resilient.”

Kierkiewicz said greenhouses were previously granted a longstanding permit exemption that was inadvertently removed during a prior update to the building code, and that her bill is merely restoring that policy.

At the same time, the bill also greatly increases the scope of repairs allowed on a property without requiring a permit. Currently, any repair work to a structure that exceeds $7,500 in cost over a 12-month period requires a building permit. Bill 212 would change that limit to $25,000.

“This change recognizes the increasing costs of materials and labor and allows for essential maintenance efforts to occur again without triggering a cumbersome permit process,” Kierkiewicz said.

Public Works Director Steve Pause agreed that “it is very difficult to get anything done” under the $7,500 threshold and said the bill would be a boon for the Planning Department simply by virtue of removing a large number of maintenance project building permit applications from its workload.

Pause also reassured community members that accessory structures cannot be used as residences, so people will not be able to use the bill as a loophole to create cheap housing units.

Some rural property owners testified in favor of the proposal. Amedeo Markoff, president of Mainstreet Pahoa, said the 2018 Kilauea eruption destroyed a lot of Puna’s agricultural land, exacerbating the need for easier greenhouse construction.

“We lost our soil,” Markoff said. “I don’t know if you’ve driven down there lately, but it’s mostly lava now. So, if you want to stimulate agriculture in lower Puna, you need greenhouse farming.”

The committee voted unanimously to forward the bill to the full council with a favorable recommendation.

Email Michael Brestovansky at mbrestovansky@hawaiitribune-herald.com.

Aloha,
I want to ask you if you know a tree service with a bucket truck that I can hire that charges less than $200. an hour.
Thank you 

I have a tiny black kitten that showed up yesterday in in my backyard in HPP. Wondering if there is a site for lost and found pets for our area?? Thank you in advance.

So much to unpack:

Sounds like it "accelerates" their "ability to construct houses."

https://governor.hawaii.gov/newsroom/med...g-process/

Paradise Studio Art Tour: December 7 & 8 – Hawaii Island

In keeping with their mission of bringing artists and patrons together, also supporting, encouraging, and inspiring young artists, The Paradise Studio Tour Artist Collective is hosting their free 18th annual tour Saturday and Sunday, Dec. 7 and 8 from 10am to 4pm in Hawaiian Paradise Park, Keaau.

To date, the collective has donated over $28,000 for art supplies divided between schools in the Puna District: Pahoa High, Keaau High and Hawaii Academy for Arts and Sciences. From the first 2007 2-day tour, artists have donated 10% of their sales.

Eight studio locations are open this year hosting 31 of the collective artists in a variety of media ranging from original fine art paintings, drawings and prints, to jewelry, ceramics, silk fashions, fused and stained glass. All are handcrafted on the Big Island by local artists inspired by the powerful beauty of this amazing place. Free featured demos. For brochure and map go to: www.paradisestudiotour.com.

The 20 acres Hawaii County is considering for park development was deeded to them by the Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association, making Hawaii County Hawaiian Paradise Park lot owners.

All Hawaiian Paradise Park lot owners must pay road maintenance fees. If a Hawaiian Parasise Park Owner owns more than one lot, they must pay a road fee for every lot they own. If a Hawaiian Paradise Park Owner conducts business on their lot(s) which generate greater traffic on Hawaiian Paradise Park roads, then those lot owners are assessed greater road fees. 

The Hawaiian Paradise Park land that Hawaii County owns is between roads 25th and 26th. Every Hawaiian Paradise Park Owner who lives at the upper part of Hawaiian Paradise Park own their roads, but they must still pay Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association the money to maintain their roads. The Hawaii Courts said so. 

So:

Has the County of Hawaii been paying, like every other Hawaiian Paradise Park Owner, their court-ordered share of road maintenance fees?

If not, why not? And when will Hawaii County start paying their court-ordered road maintenance fees?

Lastly, not a question just a correction, the proposed park is not a Hawaiian Paradise Park. The proposed park would be a County park. Everything about it, roads, security, maintenance, etc., should be paid for with Hawaii County money, which all Hawaii County residents pay and for which owners in Hawaiian Paradise Park (and many other Puna subdivisions) currently get very little for. 

Aloha

Coming Wednesday, October 2, 2024, to a morning sky near you!

All that you touch
And all that you see
All that you taste
All you feel
And all that you love
And all that you hate
All you distrust
All you save
And all that you give
And all that you deal
And all that you buy
Beg, borrow or steal
And all you create
And all you destroy
And all that you do
And all that you say
And all that you eat
And everyone you meet
And all that you slight
And everyone you fight
And all that is now
And all that is gone
And all that's to come
And everything under the sun is in tune
But the sun is eclipsed by the moon

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/in/u...o=20241002

Long time Hawaii resident Kris Kristofferson has died on Maui.

Well, I woke up Sunday morning
With no way to hold my head that didn’t hurt
And the beer I had for breakfast wasn’t bad
So I had one more for dessert

He lived many years in Hana, looking east across the Pacific toward Big Island.
Links can be found on every news site.

Your favorite song? (Bobby McGee)
Favorite movie? (Heaven’s Gate)


“They bought the high school computers, wrote checks for fundraisers,” he confides.

While Kris may never return to touring around the world, he often performs with local musicians at unannounced shows on the island. “Tourists would do a double-take,” reports local journalist Tad Bartimus. “I once watched a fellow off a tour bus stare at Kris for 10 minutes, then turn to his wife and say, ‘Naw, that’s not him. What would he be doing out here in this wilderness?’ ”
https://hanamaui.com/inside-country-sing...h-is-good/

Since some of you asked.

HISTORY

HPPOA (formerly Paradise Hui Hanalike) Timeline

1959-1960's

1) David Watumull makes a trade with the Shipman family, swapping a warehouse on Oahu for land on the island of Hawaii that will eventually become Hawaiian Paradise Park
2) David Watumull forms a corporation, Hawaiian Paradise Park Corporation, and petitions the County of Hawaii for a subdivision permit, which the County grants him with ONE stipulation- that roads (and only roads) must be provided.
3) David Watumull breaks his subdivision-offering up into two "Increments." Increment I (the upper portion of Hawaiian Paradise Park) where land owners collectively own their roads (and still presently do). And Increment II, where the Hawaiian Paradise Park Corporation (David Watumull's company, based in Oahu) retained ownership of the roads.
(Roads in Hswaiian Paradise Park are referred to as "easements." A right held by one property owner to make use of the land of another for a limited purpose, as right of passage.)
4) Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners in Increment II, pay David Watumull's company a fee to maintain Increment II roads. This "contract" is part of the Increment II land Owner's deeds. Increment I does not pay David Watumull's company for road fees, as they have no stipulation to do so in their deeds.
5) David Watumull creates a road maintenance company (based on the island of Hawaii) whose job it is to maintain the Increment II roads of Hawaiian Paradise Park.
6) David Watumull sets aside several 20-acre Hawaiian Paradise Park parcels, which his company retains ownership of. Of these parcels, it was thought that some could be set aside for future recreational and educational purposes.

1970's through 1980's

7) More lots have been purchased and "improved" by Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners.
8) Some Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners become unhappy with the state of Hawaiian Paradise Park Roads. They also want electrical lines to be brought farther down, into the subdivision, and they are concerned the park and recreational parcels, which David Watumull still owns, are going to be sold off or commercially developed. They are concerned about the park and recreational parcels being sold off or developed because Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners do not have a contract with David Watumull that requires him to keep, maintain, or develop those lands for Park or reational purposes.
9) A voluntary community association is formed in Hawaiian Paradise Park. This association approaches David Watumull, telling him they would like to establish a community fire department. David Watumull deeds them a portion of property. This voluntary community association never follows through, sells the property, and dissolves.
10) Four Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners get together at a dinner party and form another voluntary community association (nothing to do with the first) which they name Paradise Hui Hanalike. This voluntary community association is a "benevolent charity" that promotes "recreational and social activities." Paradise Hui Hanalike files their charter and bylaws, which state their charitable purposes with the state of Hawaii. Paradise Hui Hanalike is a membership organization that collects voluntary membership dues and has its first meeting in 1972.
11) The Paradise Hui Hanalike membership hires an attorney because they are concerned about the poor state of the Hawaiian Paradise Park Roads, the lack of electricity, and they want to be able to put together an actual club with a golf course, club house, pool, and park. They ask the attorney about suing David Watumull for all of these amenities they want. They also ask the attorney about suing the County of Hawaii, which approved the subdivision and has done nothing about the roads, even though Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners pay County taxes. 
The attorney tells them that David Watumull has no obligation to build them a golf course, a club house, pool, etc. But that David Watumull does have obligations regarding Increment II roads. The attorney also tells them they can try suing the County and that it is possible, though he seems it is unlikely that the County might take over responsibility of the Hawaiian Paradise Park roads.
12) Paradise Hui Hanalike sues David Watumull and the County.
13) David Watumull settles with Paradise Hui Hanalike, giving them control of the road maintenance company and the funds they collect from Increment II land Owner's. David Watumull also deeds several 20-acre parcels to Paradise Hui Hanalike with deed restrictions stating the land cannot be developed for anything but recreational or education purposes (this is in agreement with what Paradise Hui Hanalike wants). David Watumull also agrees to pay for the paving of Paradise Rd and Makuu.
The County of Hawaii offers nothing. And does nothing. As the County of Hawaii courts rule the County is released from any responsibility regarding roads in Hawaiian Paradise Park, "for perpetuity."
14) After getting just about everything they want, Paradise Hui Hanalike begins to worry about their liability. They now have assets that can be used against them and/or taken away from them.
They do not feel it is fair that owners in Increment I do not have to pay road maintenance. They ask owners in Increment I to contribute. Some owners (quite a few) are willing to pay for road maintenance even though they are not members of the Paradise Hui Hanalike club. Other owners do not want to pay a voluntary association at all because they are concerned their road fee money will be used for club business.
15) Paradise Hui Hanalike goes to their atrorney again. This time, to see about forcing Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners in Imcrement I (over 5,000 of them) to contribute toward road maintenance. Paradise Hui Hanalike also asks the attorney if there is a way to make owners become members of Paradise Hui Hanalike.
The attorney states that Paradise Hui Hanalike is not a mandatory association. That when David Watumull put the subdivision together, he did not envision a planned community. And that Paradise Hui Hanalike cannot force Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners to join their club. However, because Paradise Hui Hanalike was given the roads in Increment II, which they must maintain, it is possible they could sue the 5,000 Owners in Increment I to "compel" them to contribute to road maintenance.
16) Paradise Hui Hanalike sues the Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners in Increment I. Many of these owners do not even live on island and have no idea what is going on. Many owners never receive any kind of notification from the Hawaii court or the Hawaii attorneys, informing them of the lawsuit and what it is about. Many Increment I Owners are denied any kind of legal/self representation because of the lack of information.
17) Paradise Hui Hanalike wins the lawsuit against Increment I owners. Paradise Hui Hanalike is given the right to "compel" Increment I owners to pay Road Maintenance Fees to Paradise Hui Hanalike.
Paradise Hui Hanalike is also given the right to attach liens to any Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners property if they do not pay the billed road maintenance fees to Paradise Hui Hanalike. Paradise Hui Hanalike is not allowed to foreclose on Hawaiian Paradise Park Property Owners.
18) A group of Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners file an appeal with the higher court (the Hawaii Supreme Court). These owners feel their rights are being violated. They do not have conditions in their deeds which require them to contribute to road maintenance and they do not understand why they must pay a voluntary community association, especially as they do not wish to be members of the voluntary association. The higher Court then rules that property owners whose property borders subdivision roads have a legal duty to contribute to their maintenance. However, the issue regarding being a voluntary community association and membership are a concern, as owners cannot be forced to be members of a voluntary club if they do not wish to be. The higher court sends the case back to the lower courts to work out an "equitable solution."
19) Paradise Hui Hanalike is in and out of court several times through the 1980's. And while the voluntary community "amends" its bylaws several times, it never amends its charter.

1990's through 2010

20) Paradise Hui Hanalike, the voluntary community association (membership club) becomes a  "parent company" to the "Paradise Hui Hanalike Road Maintenance Committee." The "parent company" collects the club membership dues and engages in club business (the building of the clubhouse, the golf course plans, the social functions). The Paradise Hui Hanalike Road Maintenance Committee collects the road maintenance fees and is tasked with performing the road maintenance work on Hawaiian Paradise Park roads. Again, none of these changes are reflected (amended) in the Paradise Hui Hanalike charter).
21) Bylaws are drawn up showing the responsibilities and limitations of each part of the Paradise Hui Hanalike Corporation. The parent company's responsibilities/limitations are defined in Articles I through X (pages 1-7). The Paradise Hui Hanalike Road Maintenance Committee's responsibilities/limitations are defined in Article XI (pages 7-11). Still no changes to the charter.
These bylaws will eventually create a power struggle between Paradise Hui Hanalike (the club) and Paradise Hui Hanalike Road Maintenance Committee, with each feeling they have power and control to decide where and how road maintenance fee money (which has become A LOT) should be spent.
22) The Paradise Hui Hanalike Club and the Paradise Hui Hanalike Road Maintenance Committee return to court. The Paradise Hui Hanalike (club) objects to the now "infamous" Article XI, as the parent company no longer feels the Road Committee should have their own power to decide where and how to spend road maintenance fees or make road maintenance decisions.
23) Paradise Hui Hanalike (the club) and Paradise Hui Hanalike the Road Maintenance Committee are placed under receivership. During this time, a property manager is tasked with the day to day operations of running the corporation, including road maintenance.
24) The plaintiff, who filed the lawsuit which involved the power struggles betweenParadise Hui Hanalike (the club) and Paradise Hui Hanalike Road Committee, dies.
The receiver petitions the court to end the suit, stating there is no one else who will be stepping in for the deceased plaintiff and that all conditions requested by plaintiff have been met (which they have not).
The receiver and property manager assist Paradise Hui Hanalike (the club) in consolidating with Paradise Hui Hanalike Road Committee. This consolidation now makes Paradise Hui Hanalike the ADMINISTRATOR of Hawaiian Paradise Park road maintenance. Paradise Hui Hanalike, the club, is instructed to manage road funds and the cost of needed maintenance separately from the club. Paradise Hui Hanalike agrees to this, and much to their relief no longer have to deal with a "rogue Committee." (In future, Paradise Hui Hanalike will make sure that it is understood that all committees are only advisory.)
25) Paradise Hui Hanalike changes their name to Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association. They "amend" their bylaws, which their "members" approve. The Court accepts the Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association's amended bylaws but the Court also states (it is documented) that the Court and Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association understand that while Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners CAN be members of the voluntary club (Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association) which will now serve as the administrators for road maintenance work and funds, Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners ARE NOT required to be members of Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association.
26) Paradise Hui Hanalike (now Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association) amends and files a name change with the State Of Hawaii. But they never restate or amend their charter- even though their organization, governance, and purpose has drastically changed.
27) Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association amend their bylaws numerous times 2004 and 2010 being recorded). Unfortunately, the amendments they make are not in keeping with the mandates handed down from the Hawaii Supreme Court- some of these amendments being (but not limited to) the blurring of road maintenance fees for "compensation" with non-road activities and not allowing owners, who do not wish to be members, voting power.

The result of history.

28) Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association (Paradise Hui Hanalike) is still a voluntary club. Unfortunately, and for reasons unknown (maybe because there was so much road fee money) the voluntary club stopped soliciting and collecting membership dues.
29) The parcels deeded to Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association do not belong to Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners. The parcels belong to the voluntary club, which is supposed to have voluntary members that have a common vision in how they wish to utilize that land (which used to be education and parks). Any improvements the voluntary club makes to their land is whatever the voluntary club AND its members decide, as long as those decisions adhere to the deed restrictions and are financed with voluntary club membership dues. However, ANY Hawaiian Paradise Park OWNER may challenge the voluntary club and its members if the deed restrictions are broken (This is stated in the parcel deeds).
30) Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association owns some of the roads in Hawaiian Paradise Park (Increment II, the main roads). But they do not own all of the roads outright. Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association JOINTLY owns other roads in Hawaiian Paradise Parks with more than 5,000 Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners. Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners in Increment I are servient owners of the easements in their districts, the SAME as Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association.
31) No Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners, no matter which Increment they own property in, have stipulations in their deeds which encumber them to pay for anything more than joint road maintenance of Hawaiian Paradise Park roads.
So, Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners, while "compelled" to pay Road Maintenance Fees to Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association and allowed to vote on matters pertaining to how these fees are spent/managed, are not required to be members of the ADMINISTRATIVE corporation and voluntary club (Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association) which collects their road fee money, are not required to contribute to any other activities (non-road) the voluntary club and its members wish to fund.

The above is the history as it is documented and can be researched and read by anyone who wishes to take the time and effort to do so. So, please do not just take my word for it. Do your own investigating. While some documents may not be as readily accessible as others, there are still copies out there. In fact, Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association should have some, if not all, of this information on file and in their climate-controlled storage facility.

Aloha, HPP Family.
And please remember, Kindness is Key-
Patricia

https://bigislandnow.com/2024/09/25/hawa...n-rentals/

Hawaiʻi Supreme Court justices on Tuesday unanimously held in Rosehill v. State of Hawaiʻi, Land Use Commission that farm dwellings in an agricultural district cannot be used as short-term vacation rentals.
Screenshot from the March 2018 Hawaiʻi Appleseed “Hawaiʻi Vacation Rentals: Impact on Housing & Hawaiʻi’s Economy” report.
“Using agricultural lands for genuine agricultural purposes and ensuring that housing is allocated for our residents are two of the most crucial issues facing our state today,” said Hawaiʻi Gov. Josh Green. “I commend the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court for making the right decision for the people of Hawaiʻi.”
The state’s high court in making its decision also ruled that courts must generally defer to agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws, expressly disagreeing with a controversial 2024 U.S. Supreme Court case that overruled the 40-year-old Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council case.
Hawaiʻi County has banned short-term vacation rentals in an agricultural district since 2019 after the approval of an amendment to its zoning code.
The change was made in an attempt to further regulate short-term rentals by requiring owners to register and obtain noncoforming use certificates from the Hawaiʻi County Planning Department.
Under the ordinance, nonconforming use certificates for rentals in ag districts are only issued where a lot existed before June 4, 1976.
The amendment also laid out punishments, including criminal prosecution and administrative penalties, for anyone operating a short-term vacation rental without a nonconforming use certificate.
The county and several Big Island land owners, who became the Rosehill petitioners, in 2020 asked the state Land Use Commission for an opinion about the ban’s legality under state law.
The Rosehill petitioners, all of whom own lots created after the June 4, 1976, cutoff, sought nonconforming use certificates after the code change went into effect and were denied.
They agreed to stay appeals of the denials to the Hawaiʻi County Board of Appeals while the Land Use Commission took up the matter.

The commission granted the county’s petition, finding that farm dwelling use and short-term vacation rental use are not compatible; farm dwellings cannot be used as short-term vacation rentals.


Therefore, a short-term vacation rental is not a permitted use of a farm dwelling in an agricultural district.
It also said the Rosehill petition was “speculative and hypothetical.”
Rosehill petitioners, not satisfied with the answer, appealead to Circuit Court, where the commission’s decision was reversed. The court ruled that farm dwelling use and short-term vacation rental use are “not incompatible.”
The Land Use Commission then appealed the Circuit Court’s ruling to the Intermediate Court of Appeals.
While the case was pending there, the state high court ruled in another case that declaratory orders made by the Land Use Commission have the same status for judicial review as orders in contested cases.

That meant the Rosehill petitioners should have appealed directly to the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court instead of the lower court after the commission’s decision.
The petitioners then applied for the case to be transferred up to the high court, which was granted.
In the end, Hawaiʻi Supreme Court justices vacated the Circuit Court’s 2022 judgement because the lower court lacked jurisdiction.
Hawai‘i Supreme Court. (File image)
They also overturned the lower court’s order reversing the Land Use Commission’s 2021 declaratory order.
“The Rosehill petitioners have failed to show that the [Land Use Commission] acted arbitrarily or capriciously in granting the county’s petition while denying the Rosehill petition,” wrote Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald in the high court’s opinion.
Justices agreed with the commission that a farm dwelling cannot be used as a short-term vacation rental because “short-term vacation rentals undermine” agricultural purposes and also affirmed the commission’s declaratory order on its merits.
“This was a win for preserving agricultural lands in Hawaiʻi. Short-term vacation rentals are transient accommodations effectively for vacation or tourist use and do not belong in the agricultural district,” said Special Deputy Attorney General Doug Chin, a former Hawaiʻi attorney general and current partner at Starn O’Toole Marcus & Fisher who argued the case before the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court. “That was the [Land Use Commission’s] finding when a dozen Hawaiʻi island landowners applied to rent out their farm dwellings as short-term vacation rentals. The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court unanimously upheld the [Land Use Commission’s] thoughtful and well-reasoned decision.”
In making its decision, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court also expressly deferred to the commission’s interpretation of ambiguous Hawaiʻi law, stating: “In Hawaiʻi, we defer to those agencies with the naʻauao [knowledge/wisdom] on particular subject matters to get complex issues right.”
Justices in their decision disagreed as well with reasoning behind the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled longstanding principles of federal judicial deference to agency interpretation of statutes.
“[Tuesday’s] decision makes clear that deference to administrative agencies is a principle with continued vitality in Hawaiʻi,” said Hawaiʻi Attorney General Anne Lopez. “This decision reaffirms the importance of agency expertise under Hawaiʻi law.”