Opinion ID: 2993776
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Zoning Board of Appeals 12

Text: Surfrider Foundation, Hawaii’s Thousand Friends, Ka Iwi Coalition, and KAHEA--The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance (collectively, Surfrider) filed a petition (Petition) to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) challenging the Director’s findings and conclusion that Kyo-ya’s request for a variance from the Coastal Height Setback met the requirements for issuance of a variance as set forth by the City Charter. 13 In 11 According to Kyo-ya, the Director’s condition effectively reduced the height of the Project by approximately six floors. 12 The ZBA held a hearing to decide motions to intervene filed by numerous parties at which the ZBA granted intervenor status to Kyo-ya, 20,000 Friends of Labor, Hawaii’s Thousand Friends, Ka Iwi Coalition, Surfrider Foundation, and KAHEA--The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance. 13 Kyo-ya filed a motion to dismiss Surfrider’s appeal, arguing that Surfrider’s appeal was substantively and procedurally insufficient under RCCCH § 6-1516. (continued . . .) 18 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER its position statement, Surfrider argued that the Director’s conclusion that the Project satisfied the three requirements of RCCCH § 6-1517 was based on erroneous findings of material facts. Surfrider maintained that Kyo-ya did not meet the first requirement for issuance of a variance because “the record indicates that [Kyo-ya] would not be deprived of reasonable use of the property if the variance is denied.” Surfrider contended that the “property is already occupied by a non-conforming, 8- story hotel building that can be fully renovated without the need for a variance under the [LUO],” that Kyo-ya was not entitled to achieve all of the applicable maximum development standards in the LUO, and that the 1965 Beach Agreement had not been realized. (continued . . .) RCCCH § 6-1516 provides, in relevant part, as follows: Section 6-1516. Zoning Board of Appeals – . . . An appeal shall be sustained only if the board finds that the director’s action was based on an erroneous finding of a material fact, or that the director had acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner or had manifestly abused discretion. The ZBA granted in part, and denied in part Kyo-ya’s motion. The ZBA found that Surfrider “asserted in [its] Petition that the Director’s action in partially approving the Variance Application was based upon one or more erroneous findings of material fact” but that Surfrider “did not allege or argue in the Petition that any aspect of the Director’s action . . . was arbitrary or capricious or a manifest abuse of the Director’s discretion.” 19 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Surfrider argued that Kyo-ya failed to meet the second requirement because the property is not particularly unique and is typical of the general conditions of ocean-front property in that part of Waikiki.” Thus, Surfrider maintained that the reasonableness of the neighborhood zoning is in fact drawn into question by the variance request. Surfrider argued the third requirement was also not met because “the request, if approved, will alter the essential character of the locality and is contrary to the intent and purpose of the zoning code.” Surfrider pointed out that the Director’s findings “did not even address whether the project is contrary to the intent and purpose of the WSD, whose objectives center on maintaining Waikiki’s unique Hawaiian identity and reducing the apparent height of buildings.” Kyo-ya, the Director, and 20,000 Friends of Labor (Friends of Labor) each filed a position statement with the ZBA. Kyo-ya argued that Surfrider “fail[ed] to allege a single finding of material fact to have been in error let alone ‘clearly erroneous.’” Kyo-ya maintained that the Director specified the particular evidence that supported his granting of the variance and properly concluded that all three requirements for a zoning variance had been satisfied. 20 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER As to the first variance requirement, Kyo-ya contended that it would be denied reasonable use of its property if it were not allowed to encroach into the Coastal Height Setback. Kyo-ya asserted that the 1965 Beach Agreement conferred on it “rights and expectation granted by the state” that must be considered in determining what reasonable use it could expect of its property. Kyo-ya additionally argued that it “has the right under the current WSD and its PD-R to construct the density/floor area it proposes” but that without the variance the resulting building would be materially inconsistent with the WSD objectives and guidelines. With regard to the second requirement, Kyo-ya asserted that the Moana Parcel has the greatest width-to-depth ratio of any parcel along Waikiki Beach and includes a historic structure. Thus, Kyo-ya argued the Director properly concluded that the Moana Parcel has unique circumstances that do not call into question the general zoning code. In addressing the third requirement, Kyo-ya maintained, “It cannot be disputed that Waikiki is a highly urbanized area [] with many large and tall buildings in close proximity to the Moana Parcel.” Kyo-ya therefore contended the “essential character of the neighborhood is a dense urban area full of tall hotel and condo buildings.” 21 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER The Director in his position statement argued the record demonstrates that his partial approval of Kyo-ya’s variance application was based on clearly established facts and was a reasonable exercise of his discretion. The Director restated his findings and analysis as to the requirements of the variance test from his Decision. He also reiterated his conclusion that the Project satisfied the variance test with the condition that the Project’s height should be reduced to comply with the 1:1 coastal height setback measured from the beach width intended by the 1965 Beach Agreement because the agreement provided a basis to determine the parameters of a reasonable height limitation. The ZBA issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order (ZBA Order) on February 14, 2013. The ZBA found Surfrider “offered insufficient competent, reliable and probative evidence to establish that the Director’s Decision was clearly erroneous” or that any material fact relied upon by the Director was clearly erroneous. The ZBA also found that Surfrider “offered no competent, reliable and probative evidence” to demonstrate the following: 103. That the 1965 Beach Agreement . . . was without legal effect, had terminated by its terms, or had been terminated by the parties or operation of law, [or] that the Director was precluded from considering, or in error for considering, the 1965 Beach Agreement to aid in his determination of what would be reasonable limits to the extent of the variance. 22 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Accordingly, the ZBA denied Surfrider’s appeal of the Director’s Decision. 14 Surfrider timely filed a notice of appeal to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) from the ZBA Order.