HB189 amends Hawaii’s land use law for agricultural districts to require each county to adopt ordinances governing the review and permitting of agricultural tourism as an accessory and secondary use on working farms and farming operations. The bill directs counties to set procedures and requirements for these uses, including enforcement, penalties, and administrative oversight, and lists topics the ordinances must address such as farm access, parking, road conditions, visitor activities, operating hours, and restrictions on related facilities like gift shops and restaurants.
The bill also adds two substantive limits on agricultural tourism. First, the principal agricultural use must already exist before any land use or building permit is issued for the accessory or secondary use. Second, agricultural tourism may occur only on land where productive agricultural use is occurring, defined as land taxed as agricultural and current on real property tax obligations. Counties may also require an environmental assessment under chapter 343, and the bill preserves existing county authority over minimum lot sizes and certain exceptions in agricultural districts.
Impact
HB189 would amend section 205-5 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, expanding county-level zoning authority and imposing statewide baseline requirements for agricultural tourism in agricultural districts. It would affect farmers, farm operators, counties, and land-use permitting processes by conditioning agricultural tourism on an existing working farm, limiting it to land in active productive agricultural use, and allowing counties to regulate associated infrastructure and visitor services. The bill does not broadly change agricultural district rules, but it tightens the legal framework for tourism-related uses tied to farming operations.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a regulatory clarification rather than a controversial policy shift. The absence of committee transcripts or recorded votes suggests there is no documented public debate in the provided materials, but the bill’s structure indicates support for preserving agriculture as the primary land use while allowing counties to manage tourism impacts. Overall, the sentiment appears cautious and protective of farm integrity, with an emphasis on ensuring agricultural tourism remains genuinely tied to active farming.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the added restrictions on when agricultural tourism may be permitted and the degree of county discretion in implementing them. Farm operators or tourism-related businesses may view the requirements that the principal agricultural use preexist permits and that land be in productive agricultural use as limiting development opportunities. Counties may also differ on how strictly to define access, parking, visitor activities, and whether to require environmental assessments. Supporters are likely to favor these provisions as safeguards against non-agricultural commercial uses masquerading as farm tourism, while opponents may see them as burdensome or overly restrictive.