LIHU‘E — Kaua‘i Planning Commission member Hartwell Blake’s words may have summarized the frustration of some of his fellow commissioners when he said a transient vacation rental in an area zoned agricultural is spot zoning of a resort in the
LIHU‘E — Kaua‘i Planning Commission member Hartwell Blake’s words may have summarized the frustration of some of his fellow commissioners when he said a transient vacation rental in an area zoned agricultural is spot zoning of a resort in the middle of a rural community.
“I don’t see how it benefits the neighborhood to have two TVRs (transient vacation rentals) next to each other,” he said at the last commission meeting Jan. 24. “They are on the same lot, and that bothered me before and that bothers me now.”
The Kaua‘i County Council last year passed a law allowing owners of TVRs on ag lands to apply for a permit as long as the TVR had been operating before March 2008 and met a few other requirements. The new law gave those TVR owners until Aug. 16 to apply for a permit.
County officials said Monday that since Ordinance 904 came into effect, the county Planning Department received 74 applications for a special use permit, but 11 were rejected and 10 were withdrawn.
Five TVR owners who had their applications rejected appealed the department’s decision, but none of the appeals resulted in the department overturning its decision, according to county spokeswoman Mary Daubert.
As of Jan. 24, of the 53 applications accepted by the department, the commission approved 32. Two applications have been denied, and 19 are still pending.
The commission has until mid-March to review and vote on the remaining applications. The next commission meeting is Feb. 14.
On the deciding side of the issue, a string of irregularities in many of the applications have angered some commissioners. On the application side of the issue, hard questioning and denials have prompted lawsuit threats from lawyers representing TVR owners.
Aldo Albertoni, seeking approval for what would be his second TVR in Moloa‘a, told the commission that when he built an adjacent dwelling unit on a Condominium Property Regime lot, he had not heard of this “TVR issue,” nor had ever heard of the term VDA, an acronym for Visitor Destination Area. Both his TVRs are on ag lands.
Albertoni said he “absolutely” applied for a building permit for his ADU and built it with the intention of making it a TVR — on ag land.
Despite reminding commissioners that a non-conforming use permit attaches to the land, rather than to the applicant, attorney Charley Foster said Albertoni was willing to compromise by surrendering the permit for his additional dwelling unit, or ADU, in case he sold or transferred the property.
Commissioners took Albertoni’s proposal and added it to the permit, even though Albertoni back-pedaled after being told the permit would have a condition prohibiting both his TVRs to be rented simultaneously. The commission gave him a permit that allows him to rent either A or B, but not both at the same time.
The Weatherwax Family Trust had a similar case. They were seeking a permit for a second unit, but instead of having the choice to rent A or B at any time, their attorney was told his client had seven days to decide which unit would have a TVR permit.
Later in the day, Commissioner Caven Raco found it “disturbing” that two applicants represented by two different attorneys from two distinct firms had applications which were written almost identically. He was referring to an application by Bruce and Cynthia Fehring being written almost identically to a previous application.
Raco questioned if the department was even reading the applications, which prompted planner Michael Laureta to take offense and answer that he does read all applications.
Dahilig defended his staff, saying they do their reports independently and have no control over the product that comes to them.
“If the applicant chooses to pay a consultant, it’s his choice,” Dahilig said.
Chair Jan Kimura asked the Fehrings’ attorney for the exact number of structures in the lot, but the attorney’s answer was that the number of structures was not relevant, rather if all of them were permitted.
“It’s not illegal to have a yurt in your property if it is permitted,” the attorney said. A yurt is a domed, portable tent.
Kimura then asked if at any time any of the structures had been rented out. Again, the attorney dodged the question.
“I think the relevant question is whether they have been inspected and permitted,” he said.
The Fehrings’ application was deferred.
An issue that haunted planning inspectors was Internet advertising, which TVR owners had been advised to remove as soon as they applied for a permit.
Several TVRs still had online advertisements, but inspectors found out that despite efforts from owners to remove such advertisements, it became nearly impossible. Many websites duplicate and publish advertisement as if they represented those TVRs, if only to boost website traffic. When people call regarding an advertisement they see, an agent says it is no longer available but they have other units, according to Laureta.
At the end of the day the commission reviewed 11 applications, including the decision on Albertoni’s and Weatherwax’s applications, plus four approvals (two applications were consolidated into one) and four deferrals.
Despite tempers nearly flaring between Raco and Laureta and an apparent frustration among some commissioners regarding the applications, Commissioner Camilla Matsumoto said the day’s experience was a positive one because it was sending a message to applicants that it is a very serious process.
