12-11-2006, 04:57 AM
I have a kind of good angel/ bad angel argument in my head on the 2nd dwelling unit (Ohana) issue.
One one hand: A 2nd dwellng unit is an economic advantage in providing secondary income to make a mortagage more affordable. It can make the difference in owning a home or not. And the Ohana aspect is always real. A place for a family member to love quasi- independantly with family support handy. For the elderly, infirm or the single moms that family support is a good.
On the otherhand: The densiy issue. Increasing the density is considered a negative in the subdivisions. I agree with that. I think that proper place for that increased density is in the residential areas of Pahoa or Keaau and that the current code criteria for Ohana dwellings should be maintained with one exception: I think that the setback provisions should be the same for an ohana as for a regular dwelling. So lots of less than 10k SF would not be allowed ohanas.
The hit in this philosophy is on the A1a lots.
One one hand: A 2nd dwellng unit is an economic advantage in providing secondary income to make a mortagage more affordable. It can make the difference in owning a home or not. And the Ohana aspect is always real. A place for a family member to love quasi- independantly with family support handy. For the elderly, infirm or the single moms that family support is a good.
On the otherhand: The densiy issue. Increasing the density is considered a negative in the subdivisions. I agree with that. I think that proper place for that increased density is in the residential areas of Pahoa or Keaau and that the current code criteria for Ohana dwellings should be maintained with one exception: I think that the setback provisions should be the same for an ohana as for a regular dwelling. So lots of less than 10k SF would not be allowed ohanas.
The hit in this philosophy is on the A1a lots.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Punaweb moderator