Changes to Hawaii County ohana housing regulations are on the verge of passage after Wednesday’s County Council meeting.

Bill 123 is one of several measures discussed by the Council this year aimed at updating rules regarding short-term vacation rentals. The bill began life as a mostly supplemental measure to the more sweeping Bill 121 but has since been amended several times to make substantial changes to how ohana units — which the bill terms “accessory dwelling units” — are developed.

As currently written, Bill 123 repeals several regulations limiting where and how ohana units, or ADUs, are built. In particular, it slashes a host of existing ordinances that require builders to obtain a separate ohana unit permit in addition to a standard building permit before an ADU can be built.

Another major change — which Hamakua Council member Heather Kimball, introducer of the bill, said is one of its main purposes — allows up to three ADUs to be built on a single lot, so long as ADUs are permitted within a given site’s zoning district. Those districts, as listed in the measure, include single- and double-­family residential, agricultural, residential and agricultural, and family agricultural.

In cases where a building site is permitted to have more than one primary dwelling, one ADU would be allowed to be built for each authorized primary unit.

As part of the bill’s interplay with other pending measures regarding short-term vacation rental regulations, Bill 123 also states that only one ohana unit on a given site is permitted for use as an a short-term rental.

The remaining changes in the bill establish building requirements for ohana units: All ADUs must have sewage disposal and potable water supply systems, cannot exceed 1,250 square feet in living area (not counting lanais or garages) and must conform to the zoning district’s yard size requirements.

Much of the Council’s discussion of Bill 123 on Wednesday revolved around another proposed amendment introduced by Kona Council member Holeka Inaba. That amendment would have reduced the maximum allowable ADU density, limiting them to only two per site instead of three.

Kohala Council member Cindy Evans said she agreed with the need for greater housing density in order to resolve the county’s housing crisis, but questioned whether three units per site might be “too much density, too fast.”

Other Council members agreed that the whole concept of the bill revolves around the need for increased density.

“We can have more density in our urban core without becoming Honolulu,” said Hilo Council member Jenn Kagiwada. “It keeps country country, and keeps our neighborhoods our neighborhoods.”

Two nonprofit groups, the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and the Sierra Club of Hawaii, respectively supported and opposed the measure.

While the Grassroot Institute argued in favor of the bill’s ability to streamline the permitting process for ADUs, the Sierra Club submitted a lengthy document enumerating nine reasons to reject the bill, ranging from a lack of consideration of its impact on public infrastructure, to misrepresentations of the bill’s function during previous discussions by the Council and the county planning director.

An individual testifier, Hamakua resident Tawn Keeney, was skeptical about certain aspects of the measure and called for more public discussion about it so that people are more aware of its potential impacts.

“This bill has such profound implications for our ‘lived-in’ environment that this furtherance of public presentation is entirely appropriate,” Keeney wrote. “This pause for consideration by the public in the form of presentation and (perhaps) response by the Community Development Plan Action Committees should serve to ease the sense that this bill is being rushed forward without public understanding.”

The Council voted 6-2 in favor of passing the bill on first reading, with Evans and Kona Council member Rebecca Villegas in opposition. The measure must past one final reading at a future Council meeting to be enrolled to the mayor’s office.