Posts: 8,464
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
At our Growth management meeting on Nov. 30 the 2nd dwelling unit in Puna came up with these potential points:
1. Disallow 2nd dwelling units (Ohana) on Ag lots of less than 3 acres.
2. Encourage more small dewlling units (multifamily and detached) in intended higher density areas like Pahoa.
3. Encourage increased workforce housing on working farms and ag lands.
Please add thoughts or opinions on 2nd dwelling units
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 526
Threads: 11
Joined: Oct 2006
One problem is that housing is long term and an agricultural effort may not be. If the workforce housing is built and the farmer flakes, what's next? Rentals?
Posts: 8,464
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
I agree. That is a problem. But what regulation won't be circumvented, legally or illegally, by someone somewhere.
I think that if an error in judgement is to be made it should be in favor of agriculture in lieu of against illegal rentals. We already have tons of illegal rentals.
All the current regulations and any new ones resulting from CDP recommendations will all be completely useless without consistant and evenhanded enforcement.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 180
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2006
Virtually anything done requires enforcement. I think we have to assume that it will be there - although currently the COH is weak in that area. Without such an assumption - there is no point in going further.
Posts: 8,464
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
I agree with that thought as well. I have serious doubts about the county's enforcement intentions or abilities. I have seen nothing from the county history to give me confidence on enforcement.
What can we do as a working group to deliver the message that code enforcement is not a low priority? It is critical.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 8,464
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
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.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 180
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2006
My concern here is that if you allow Ohana dwellings in subdivisions where the road network is already inadequate you are exaserbating a problem. While the income and family aspects of Ohana are great - on a community level the potential additional traffic load is not sustainable.
Posts: 526
Threads: 11
Joined: Oct 2006
If the Ohana Permits list that Larry Brown supplied is accurate, the few permits shown indicate that populace ignores the code and that enforcement is nonexistent. It's hard to assume that enforcement will somehow start to occur.
If we want enforcement do we want tell the county simply to be cops and hit the illegals hard or is it possible we can develop some other approach? This is the identical problem with nonpermitted houses.
Posts: 145
Threads: 13
Joined: Oct 2006
Ohana housing doesn't necessarily mean that density will be doubled.
A 3/2 house can have one person in it, or 12.
People are infinately creative, Puna is a case in point.
In my experience, enforcement is more of a concept here.
I think people living in unpermitted structures should be left alone.
Enforcement should begin on new activity... beginning 2007. That includes activites that require a county license... auto repair, etc.
If a person owns a one bedroom home and lives on one acre, they should be permitted to build a structure for another person to occupy.
Posts: 526
Threads: 11
Joined: Oct 2006
If a person occupies a 7500 square foot lot they can build an ohana dwelling; per the zoning code:
""Ohana dwelling" means a second dwelling unit permitted to be built as a separate or an attached unit on a building site, but does not include a guest house or a farm dwelling." (section 25-1-5 p80)
"Ohana dwellings shall be permitted on a building site within the RS, RA, FA and A districts; (section 25-6-30)"
So right now that includes most of the zones that people live in including rather small ones. An ohana in an Ag zone (nearly everywhere in Puna) is also supposed to meet agricultural requirements so as to qualify as a "farm dwelling."
There is also a "guest house" definition, maximum 500 square feet, used only for sleeping and without cooking facilities. A guest house can even be used for a bed and breakfast place. Can't have both an ohana and a guest house (section 25-6-36).
So the options are pretty open for a second dwelling if one wanted to get a permit.
Edited by - peteadams on 12/16/2006 10:22:37
