Opinion ID: 2562719
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Circuit Court's Decision and Order

Text: SDHW appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court vacated the ZBA's decision insofar as it allows the operation of a commercial surf school at [the Hotel]. The circuit court focused on whether the Director has the power to grant a LUO § 21-4.110(c)(4) exception by crafting `conditions'  in this case by imposing volume restrictions on new use  to mitigate any greater adverse effects on surrounding properties. [7] After considering the issue de novo, the circuit court made the following conclusions of law: 14. Whether the Director has the authority under the LUO and the City Charter to craft conditions to a change in nonconforming use in order that the adverse effects on neighboring properties will not be greater than the original nonconforming use, and thereby bring a change in nonconforming use within the ambit of the LUO § 21-4.110(c) exception, is a legal question subject to de novo review. It requires the interpretation of the governing statutes, including the LUO and the Honolulu Revised City Charter. 15. No provision of the City Charter grants the Director the power to craft conditions to ameliorate adverse effects of a change in nonconforming use on neighboring properties, so that the LUO § 21-4.110(c)(4) exception can be used. 16. No provision in the LUO, and particularly LUO § 21-4.110(c), gives the Director the power to craft conditions to ameliorate adverse effects of a change in nonconforming use on neighboring properties so that the LUO § 21-4.110(c)(4) exception can be used. The ordinance implies the opposite: Strict limits are placed on nonconforming uses to discourage the perpetuation of these uses and thus facilitate the timely conversion to conforming uses ... 17. The Director interpreted the LUO § 21-4.110(c) to permit a change from one nonconforming use to a new nonconforming use, notwithstanding adverse effects from the nonconforming use, subject only to conditions he imposes to limit such adverse effects. 18. The Director's interpretation of the LUO grants broad authority to himself to allow certain variances by crafting his own conditions. This interpretation contradicts the City Charter, which imposes a detailed regulatory scheme for allowing variances. 19. The Land Use Ordinance is subordinate to the City Charter. Any interpretation of the LUO which conflicts with the Charter is contrary to law: The proposition is self-evident that an ordinance must conform to, be subordinate to, not conflict with, and not exceed the charter, and can no more change or limit the effect of the charter than a legislative act can modify or supersede a provision of the constitution of the state. Ordinances must not only conform with the express terms of the charter, but they must not conflict in any degree with its object or with the purposes [of the charter]. Harris v. De Soto, 80 Hawai'i 425, 431, 911 P.2d 60, 66 (1996), citing, Fasi v. City Council, 72 Haw. 513, 518, 823 P.2d 742, 744 (1992). Accord, Neighborhood Board No. 24 (Waianae Coast) v. State Land Use Commission, 64 Haw., 265, 639 P.2d 1097 (1982). 20. Thus, the Director's interpretation of the LUO to allow a LUO § 21-4.110(c)(4) exception notwithstanding adverse effects of the new nonconforming use on the neighboring parcels and occupants, was in violation of the ordinance itself, in violation of the Revised City Charter, exceeded the Director's authority and the jurisdiction of the agency and the Director's order was made upon unlawful procedure. Accordingly, the determinations of the Director and the ZBA below were contrary to (1) the LUO and (2) the Revised City Charter and (3) in excess of the Director's authority. Pursuant to HRS § 91-14(1), (2) and (3), the determinations of the ZBA are overruled. 22.[sic] The Director's failure to follow the LUO and the Honolulu Revised City Charter has allowed the surf school's operation to continue in spite of the adverse impacts caused by such operation. Given the amount of materials submitted in the record cataloguing adverse impacts associated with the surf school and the lengthy period the surf school has been operating on the Property, the Court finds that substantial rights of the Petitioners have been prejudiced. In the circuit court's Amended Final Judgment on Administrative Appeal, Vacating and Modifying Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals Number 2004/ZBA-04, it stated that: Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes § 91-14, it is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that [SDHW]'s appeal is granted and the court hereby: 1. Vacates the June 3, 2005 decision of the [ZBA] ... insofar as it allows the operation of a commercial surf school operation at or on [Hotel's property] in derogation of it's a-2 Medium Density Apartment District Zoning: 2. Modifies the June 3, 2005 decision of the ZBA in ZBA matter number 2004/ZBA-04, by inserting the following: The Director of the Department of Planning and Permitting's declaratory ruling that the Hans Hedemann Surf School may operate on the grounds of the New Otani Kaimana Beach Hotel [sic] a permitted change in nonconforming use (from hotel to office), subject to the provisions on [sic] ROH § 21-4.110(c), was arbitrary and/or capricious and constituted an abuse of discretion. 3. Orders Respondent/Appellee City and County of Honolulu, by and through the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Department of Planning and Permitting, to take all necessary actions to effectuate this order[.] (Some internal capitalization modified.)