Committee forwards Bill 168 to council to revert North Kona parcel to double-family and agricultural zoning

The Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions on July 7 voted to forward Bill 168 to the full Hawaii County Council for first reading, a planning-director-initiated repeal that would undo a series of change-of-zone ordinances affecting a 6.55-acre parcel in North Kona.

Planning Director Jeffrey W. Darrow told the committee the repeal would restore the parcel’s legacy zoning: about 3.331 acres reverting from village commercial to double-family residential (RD-3.75) and roughly 3.227 acres reverting from multifamily residential (RM-2.5) to agricultural (AG-5). “This is a planning director initiated repeal of quite a few ordinances stemming all the way back to 1973,” Darrow said, and noted the Leeward Planning Commission had forwarded a favorable recommendation.

Why it matters: reverting the earlier ordinances removes conditions that had been imposed when higher-density uses were allowed. Several council members expressed concern that wiping conditions could eliminate requirements tied to infrastructure, affordable housing or other mitigation measures that accompanied later zoning changes.

Darren Araya, the land-use planning consultant representing the owners, said the applicants do not yet have a finalized development plan. “At this time, the applicant does not have any specific development concepts for this property,” Araya said, but he described a concept under the reverted zoning that would accommodate roughly 38 double-family (duplex) units on the RD portion, with the AG parcel used for agricultural purposes, a single farm dwelling and up to three accessory dwelling units.

Owner Andy Xi, who described himself as a builder, told the committee the owners stepped in after earlier proposals did not proceed. Xi said they will decide final plans once the zoning status is settled. “We have not planned what to build until the zoning is finally up,” he said.

Several council members pressed for specifics. Councilmember Eustace asked why a previously proposed 104-unit senior independent-living project never moved forward; Araya and Xi said the original owners and concepts changed over time and some proposals — including a hotel idea — were never developed. Councilmember Villegas asked whether neighbors participated in the Leeward Planning Commission hearing; Darrow and the applicant said no neighborhood attendees appeared at that hearing.

Water supply, access and plan review: Araya and Darrow told the committee there are 50 water units currently associated with the property — 28 purchased outright and 22 secured through an annual water-commitment fee — which suggests the parcel could support up to 50 units in theory but that site constraints (setbacks, archaeological buffers and the Kuakini wall) and Department of Water Supply review will determine the final allowable number. Darrow said the RD portion’s likely approach would be plan approval for duplex units rather than a subdivision and that public-works comments would shape access and mitigation; he said such review could require enhanced access improvements but would not necessarily mandate major road widening.

Affordable housing and conditions: Councilmember Nava asked whether reverting to legacy zoning would preserve any affordable-housing requirements. Darrow and Araya explained that reversion typically removes conditions tied to later ordinances, and Darrow said the council could consider an amendment before first reading to impose affordable-housing requirements if appropriate. “When we repeal, we strip away everything and come back to its original zoning,” Darrow said; he added that many regulatory approvals (for water, public works and permitting) would still apply when a specific plan is submitted.

Short-term rentals: Asked whether the property could host short-term vacation rentals under the proposed zoning, Darrow said the RD designation would not authorize STVRs at this location; Araya confirmed the applicants are not proposing vacation rentals.

Vote and next step: The committee agreed to proceed and, by voice vote, the Chair reported eight ayes and forwarded Bill 168 to the County Council for first reading; Councilmember Villegas was recorded as excused. The Chair adjourned the meeting at 12:37 p.m.

What’s next: The County Council will consider Bill 168 at its first reading; council members indicated they may review and potentially propose amendments, including affordable-housing conditions, before that hearing.