Housing Land Use Committee Meeting on Title 19 Rewrite - June 17, 2026

The Housing Land Use Committee convened on June 17, 2026, to receive a status update on the Maui County Code Title 19 (zoning code) rewrite project from the Planning Department. No actions were taken; the meeting focused on presentation and discussion of the process, schedule, and key issues. Public testimony raised concerns about the incorporation of Native Hawaiian Kuleana land rights and chain-of-title requirements. Committee members asked questions about resources, modular review approach, and community engagement.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Kahala Johnson urged the committee to incorporate a Kuleana overlay district into the rewritten zoning code, which would require identification, mapping, and reporting of reserved native tenant property rights during permitting, rezoning, and other land use approvals. She argued that such rights are legally encumbered on many land titles from the Great Māhele and should be made visible in the zoning framework. In response to clarifying questions, she suggested using existing databases like Kīpuka and processes similar to the burial council to verify legitimate claims.
• Connie Lee Kane Alie Williams testified that the county lacks a clear chain of title for many properties, as the Planning Department relies on tax assessment printouts rather than documents tracing back to royal patents from the Kingdom of Hawaii. She argued that without such chain-of-title proof, applicants cannot demonstrate legal interest in allodial titles, creating liability for the county. She urged that Title 19 require applicants to provide proof of a clear chain of title linking to the original allodial title.
• Leilani Koʻolauloa Johnson (of Waiehu) supported the concerns raised by prior testifiers, describing her experience reviewing county records for Waiehu Beach Road. She noted that county land use decisions often proceed based on preliminary title reports without full historical chain-of-title analysis, which can impact cultural practices, access, and burial protections. She asked the county to acknowledge these issues in the rewrite.
• Jesse Law (testifying via phone) expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of publicly posted agendas in Kahului and Kula and criticized the OCS office for failing to provide accessible information. He did not speak to the Title 19 rewrite directly.

Discussion Items

• Planning Department Presentation: Director Jackie Takakura and Planning Program Manager Scott Forsyth presented the background and process for the Title 19 rewrite. They noted that the current code, first adopted in 1960, is outdated, fragmented, and misaligned with community plans. The rewrite will be conducted in modules (draft code groupings) to allow incremental review. The goal is to have draft chapters introduced later in 2026, with formal adoption of a single ordinance after all modules are reviewed. The department emphasized that no action was being taken on the item and no new code content was presented today.
• Committee Questions:
  • Vice Chair Batangan asked about staffing and resources. Forsyth reported that the plan implementation division has three staff (soon to be two) and that the existing contract is about $690,000, with funds roughly halfway expended. The department has learned from other jurisdictions (e.g., Kauai and Hawaii County) and pivoted to a modular approach to avoid past failures.
  • Councilmember Paltin asked about incorporating conditions from change-in-zoning ordinances into the code to ensure institutional knowledge. The department acknowledged that conditions are currently tracked via land use designation forms but noted that clearer ordinance language would help new planners.
  • Councilmember Johnson asked whether the code could include zones for affordable or workforce housing. The department and consultant (Orion Planning and Design) indicated that this would be explored in later modules (4-7) dealing with district composition, noting that legal constraints on regulating who can occupy housing exist.
  • Councilmember Cook asked about the projected cost and whether the code would grow or shrink. The department stated the current contract is $690,000 and that the code is being reorganized for clarity, but the total size may not decrease.
  • Chair Lee expressed frustration with the complexity of the current code and asked for simplification for the average user. The department promised more graphics, tables of uses, and simplified processes.
  • Councilmember Senancy asked about agricultural zoning updates (Module 5) and whether the Hana Advisory Committee would be involved. The department confirmed they would seek referral to the Hana Advisory Committee for East Maui community input.
  • Councilmember Rawlins Fernandez noted the importance of education about Kuleana land rights and requested a presentation from experts (Professors McKenzie and Beamer) to her committee in July.
  • Councilmember Paltin probed the modular review process, asking what happens if a module is accepted but later changes are needed. The department and corporation counsel indicated that the process is still being refined, and changes might require revisiting earlier modules depending on scope.

Key Outcomes

• No votes were taken and no decisions were made. The meeting was informational only.
• The committee will receive future modules informally for feedback before formal planning commission and council hearings.
• Written testimony is still being accepted.
• The committee will continue to discuss the process in subsequent meetings, with module one draft chapters expected in fall 2026.
• A request for a written answer on whether council changes after planning commission review would require re-referral was noted, with responses to come from planning and corporation counsel.