Maui County Housing and Land Use Committee Meeting on July 1, 2026: Rezoning Apartment Districts to H3/H4 Hotel Districts

The Housing and Land Use (HLU) Committee of the Maui County Council convened on July 1, 2026, at 10:38 AM (scheduled for 9:30 AM) to consider two resolutions: Resolution 26-110 and Resolution 26-111. These resolutions would initiate county-led rezoning of certain apartment district (A1/A2) properties to the newly created H3 and H4 hotel districts, and corresponding amendments to the Kihei-Makena and West Maui Community Plans. The committee heard extensive public testimony and deliberation, but took no final action, recessing the meeting to be continued on July 6, 2026, at 11:00 AM.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Planning Department (Greg Post): Identified several inconsistencies in the property lists, including incorrect land use designations for 1444, 1440, and 1470 Halama Street (single-family, not multifamily), missing TMKs for Kahana Outrigger, and a recommendation to retain A1/A2 as compatible uses in the West Maui plan. He noted that some smaller properties (less than four units) may not have documented TVR use prior to September 24, 2020, a key eligibility criterion, and urged owners to provide proof. He also stressed the need for the council to provide clear policy direction to the Maui Planning Commission.

• Property Owners & Associations (Supporting Inclusion): Numerous testifiers urged the committee to include their properties on the rezoning lists, emphasizing long-standing lawful TVR operations, hotel-like characteristics, and economic contributions.

  • John Chasen (Maui Sands 1): Requested inclusion of Maui Sands 1, a leasehold property built in 1966, arguing it is identical to its sister property, Maui Sands 2, which is already on the list. He noted leaseholds expire in 2037, making long-term mortgages difficult.
  • Brian Banks (Small business owner): Supported Resolution 26-111 and requested inclusion of Grand Champions condominiums, which is similar to three other Wailea properties already listed.
  • Rory Frampton (Makai Cam LLC): Sought inclusion of the burned Makai Sunset Inn property (1411 and 1415 Front Street), which operated as a hotel prior to the Lahaina fire.
  • Jeff Ulioka (Maui El Dorado): Supported the rezoning, noting the property was purpose-built for TVR, has a front desk, and employs 14 ILWU workers.
  • Greg Sheehan (Honokai Resort): Testified in support, noting 90% of units are short-term rentals, built in 1970, and a dedicated check-in office. He clarified three units are leasehold with eight years remaining.
  • Andrew Reinhardt (Hale Maui): Requested inclusion of the 11-unit Hale Maui, which has no kitchens and has operated as a de facto hotel since 1988, with TVR tax records back to that year.
  • Steve Collie (Kahana Outrigger): Asked that the fourth building (missing TMK) be added to Resolution 26-110. He noted all four buildings are leasehold, built in 1981, and recently renegotiated ground leases extending to 2041 or 2071.
  • Sunny Cave (Ma'alaea Kai): Supported the rezoning, noting the property is in the sea level rise exposure area and not suitable for affordable housing.
  • Mike Pitlinski (Honokawai Palms): Requested inclusion, stating the property was built as a hotel in 1965 and has mixed use (7 long-term, 22 short-term rentals).
  • Tina Evans (Maui Vista): Supported rezoning, highlighting the property's history as a tennis resort, hotel-style management, and 75% of units being one-bedroom under 600 sq ft.
  • Phil Mills (Hale Ono Loa): Supported Resolution 26-110, describing the 68-unit oceanfront complex as a small resort with a resident manager, pool, and amenities. He clarified the property is now fee simple.
  • Timothy O'Shaughnessy (Koa La Kai): Supported rezoning, citing the 1974 condominium public report that allowed hotel/transient use and noted timeshare units on the property.

• Community Organizations & Residents (Expressing Caution or Opposition):

  • Jordan Ruitas (Lahaina Strong): Expressing conditional support, she opposed adding properties that do not meet hotel-like criteria, particularly in Ma'alaea, and urged a case-by-case approach for leasehold properties. She noted that some properties, like Kanapali Royal and Hale Ono Loa, once had high owner occupancy but now have very few long-term residents.
  • Caitlin Miller (Maui Vacation Rental Association): Encouraged objective criteria focused on long-standing lawful uses, not operational models. She argued that technological changes (e.g., mobile check-in) do not alter land use.
  • Autumn Ness (LCLT): Challenged the assumption that leasehold properties are not mortgageable, citing examples of lenders willing to lend on long-term ground leases. She urged the committee to get opinions from multiple lenders, not just conservative ones.
  • Albert Perez (Maui Tomorrow): Opposed batch rezoning, arguing that each property should be evaluated individually for impacts on neighborhoods and housing. He recommended criteria similar to those in Maui County Code Section 19.65 for short-term rental homes.
  • Tom Crowley (Public): Raised concerns about the notice process for public hearings and urged the council to provide clear direction to the planning commission on why each property meets the criteria for zoning change.
  • Kaina Shiki (Resource): Emphasized climate risk and sea level rise, urging the council to require environmental review, shoreline certification, and hazard mitigation planning for shoreline properties before rezoning.
  • Lauren Rigo (Lahaina Strong): Provided detailed comments on specific properties, advocating for single-owner properties to be separated into a clean list, and opposing rezoning in Ma'alaea due to loss of housing and infrastructure investments.
  • Royal Patent Kingdom Testifier: Opposed all land use decisions, asserting that the county lacks jurisdiction over royal patented lands without consent of descendants.

Discussion Items

• Planning Department Process Clarification: Deputy Director Lillis and Greg Post explained the difference between applicant-initiated and council-initiated zoning changes. For council-initiated changes, no 500-foot radius notification is required, but the planning commission will hold a public hearing with newspaper notice.
• Council Member Questions on Criteria: Members debated whether to separate properties into categories (timeshares, leaseholds, single-owner, etc.) within the resolutions. There was discussion about requiring verification of TVR use prior to September 24, 2020, for smaller properties before forwarding to the planning commission.
• Leasehold and Timeshare Issues: Members raised concerns about including leasehold properties with short remaining lease terms, as they may not be suitable for long-term housing. The possibility of including properties with variances or 100% timeshare (which are not affected by Bill 9) was discussed to simplify zoning consistency.
• Future Process: Chair U'u-Hajans indicated that additional properties from the TIG's Exhibit 2 list would be brought forward in later resolutions. She noted that the committee would send letters to affected property owners requesting meets and bounds and verifying eligibility.

Key Outcomes

• No Final Action Taken: The committee did not vote on either resolution. The meeting was recessed at 4:25 PM and will continue on July 6, 2026, at 11:00 AM, using the same meeting link and location.
• Executive Session Planned: Councilmember Rollins Fernandez requested a closed meeting for legal consultation on Monday, July 6, subject to a six-vote approval.
• Ongoing Verification: The planning department will work with the committee to verify that properties meet the H3/H4 eligibility criteria, including TVR use prior to September 24, 2020. Property owners of smaller units (under 4 units) will be asked to provide proof.
• Written Testimony Continued: The public may still submit written testimony via the e-comment link.
• Potential Amendments: Members discussed separating the single-owner properties into a distinct category or resolution. The chair will work with the corporation counsel on the legality of such amendments.