09-08-2010, 03:58 PM
I do understand what your saying. Hawaii County zoning is typical of many zonings. They have limited use in many types but an almost open door use in others. Traditionally it started out as residential for residential, agricultural for agricultural, commercial for commercial, industrial for industrial and resorts for resorts. But over time, there was a need to commingle use types to meet changes in community development.
Resort zoning was this catchall for large scale development where multiple uses from various zoning types converged. When resorts started selling ownership shares in units, that required zoning adjustments to accommodate this new practice, otherwise you couldn't legally have CondoTels. Just like non agricultural uses such as pure single family residential, was allowed on AG zoned land. If that was not the case, all AG zoned land would be required to be used for AG purposes and single family homes would be illegal.
But, as you said, "any use outside the designation of the zoning shouldn’t be permissible unless pre existing to the zone designation". Well, single family residential is a by-right permitted use of "V" zoning. Although "V" zoning has the name resort, it was intended as a mixed use zoning.
I think we take the name attached to the zoning as the sole intention of the zoning. But that is not the reality. Go to Honolulu and you have an apartment building with stores on the first floor. Is that residential or commercial? Although it is defined under residential, that particular residential zoning also allows for commercial. Although Hawaii County zoning is "Resort", that's not an indicator of the sole and only use of that property.
NYC on the other hand attempted to define zoning to cover all bases and they have upwards of 10 dozen zone types, Hawaii County has 16.
An easier way to deal with this is ignore the labels residential, commercial agricultural, etc attached to the zone type and go by the permitted use. That would mean resorts should be looked at not as resorts or hotels, but a mixed use to include resorts and hotels, commercial and residential, recreation and entertainment. After all many single family dwellings are not on residential zoned property but all three commercial zoning, shouldn't we be complaining about that as well?
I can tell you this, if people want changes to “V: zoning to match the resort label, you wouldn’t imagine the hurt it would cause those very same people if the same standard was applied to agricultural, residential and commercial zoning. People need to be very careful when shooting arrows because the target may be on their own backs.
Resort zoning was this catchall for large scale development where multiple uses from various zoning types converged. When resorts started selling ownership shares in units, that required zoning adjustments to accommodate this new practice, otherwise you couldn't legally have CondoTels. Just like non agricultural uses such as pure single family residential, was allowed on AG zoned land. If that was not the case, all AG zoned land would be required to be used for AG purposes and single family homes would be illegal.
But, as you said, "any use outside the designation of the zoning shouldn’t be permissible unless pre existing to the zone designation". Well, single family residential is a by-right permitted use of "V" zoning. Although "V" zoning has the name resort, it was intended as a mixed use zoning.
I think we take the name attached to the zoning as the sole intention of the zoning. But that is not the reality. Go to Honolulu and you have an apartment building with stores on the first floor. Is that residential or commercial? Although it is defined under residential, that particular residential zoning also allows for commercial. Although Hawaii County zoning is "Resort", that's not an indicator of the sole and only use of that property.
NYC on the other hand attempted to define zoning to cover all bases and they have upwards of 10 dozen zone types, Hawaii County has 16.
An easier way to deal with this is ignore the labels residential, commercial agricultural, etc attached to the zone type and go by the permitted use. That would mean resorts should be looked at not as resorts or hotels, but a mixed use to include resorts and hotels, commercial and residential, recreation and entertainment. After all many single family dwellings are not on residential zoned property but all three commercial zoning, shouldn't we be complaining about that as well?
I can tell you this, if people want changes to “V: zoning to match the resort label, you wouldn’t imagine the hurt it would cause those very same people if the same standard was applied to agricultural, residential and commercial zoning. People need to be very careful when shooting arrows because the target may be on their own backs.