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

Heading: The Director's Declaratory Ruling

Text: On March 4, 2004, SDHW filed a petition for a declaratory ruling from the Director of the City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP) on whether the Surf School operates in compliance with the regulations of the zoning ordinance for nonconformities. In beginning his analysis, the Director set forth the provisions of the Land Use Ordinance (LUO) that relate to nonconforming uses. He quoted LUO § 21-4.110(c)(1), which states that A nonconforming use shall not extend to any part of the structure or lot which was not arranged or designed for such use at the time of adoption of the provisions of this chapter or subsequent amendment; nor shall the nonconforming use be expanded in any manner, or the hours of operation increased. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a recreational use that is accessory to the nonconforming use may be expanded or extended if the following conditions are met: (A) The recreational accessory use will be expanded or extended to a structure in which a permitted use also is being conducted, whether that structure is on the same lot or an adjacent lot; and (B) The recreational accessory use is accessory to both the permitted use and the nonconforming use. The Director then quoted LUO Sec. 21-4.110(c)(4), which governs changes in nonconforming uses, states that Any nonconforming use may be changed to another nonconforming use of the same nature and general impact, or to a more restricted use, provided that the change to a more restricted use may be made only if the relation of the use to the surrounding property is such that adverse effects on occupants and neighboring properties will not be greater than if the original nonconforming use continued. (Emphasis in original.) The Director first found that the Surf School was not an accessory use of the Hotel because [m]ost of the students are not guests of the on-site hotel. See LUO § 21-10.1 (`Accessory use' means a use which . . . [i]s operated and maintained substantially for the benefit or convenience of the owners, occupants, employees, customers or visitors of the zoning lot with the principal use.). Rather, the Director concluded that the use should be considered an `office' since the primary on-site activity is the assembly and registration of students and the distribution of surf boards to them. The Director further found that the Surf School was not an expansion of a nonconforming use prohibited by LUO § 21-4.110(c)(1). He reasoned that the Surf School did not involve a new structure or the physical expansion of an existing structure and the hours of the surf school  8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.  could not be considered an expansion of the Hotel's twenty-four hour operation. Instead, the Director found that the establishment of a surf school on the site more properly represents a `change in use,' rather than an `expansion' of the nonconforming use. To frame his analysis of whether the Surf School was a permissible change in nonconforming use, the Director stated that current zoning regulations clearly permit changes in nonconforming use under LUO Section 21-4.110(c)(4), provided the change in use does not result in greater adverse effects for occupants and neighboring properties. This means that any of the ground-floor commercial uses on the site considered principal uses, including the surf school, are permissible so long as their impact on surrounding properties is no greater than that of the hotel use. The Director limited the adverse effects under consideration to the adverse effects on the various land uses within the neighborhood, including the seawall, rather than on the ocean itself. The Director noted that [t]he LUO does not stipulate criteria that must be applied to changes in nonconforming use in order to determine whether a greater adverse effect will occur, so changes in nonconforming use must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. As a result, he analyzed the nonconforming use issue according to the framework provided by Interpretation No. 88/INT-6, issued by the DPP on December 19, 1988, [which] addresses how changes in nonconforming use can be evaluated by providing guidelines for decision-making on whether a proposed change in use may involve greater adverse effects. [6] The following portions of the Director's analysis are most relevant to the dispositive issue of this appeal: whether the Surf School's use of the Hotel's premises was a permissible change in nonconforming use under the LUO. As analyzed by the Director: 2. Clientele Volume: Information available to the DPP concerning the number of surf school customers (students) indicates that class size varies greatly. . . . . For purposes of this Analysis, it seems reasonable to conclude that the impact of the change in use to a surf school operating on the grounds of the hotel should be no greater than if it operated as an accessory use of the hotel. At issue then is the level of activity or intensity of use which results in greater adverse effects. DPP staff observed no significant impacts associated with the surf school activities on the morning they conducted their site visit. At that time, there were only 4 students in the class. On the other hand, a large number of complaints from area residents, over a sustained period of time, clearly indicates that there are adverse effects associated with the surf school's activities, particularly when class size is large. Relevant nuisances include noise (shouting and yelling) and congestion at the seawall. Further, it would be difficult to find that a class involving 30 to 50 students would be typical for an accessory use of a 124-unit hotel. . . . . The DPP is not aware of any historical adverse effects associated with the operation of the nonconforming hotel on the site similar to those associated with the surf school relative to noise, seawall congestion, and incompatibilities with surrounding and conforming uses on the properties in the surrounding neighborhood. The relationship between the surf school and these adverse effects are apparently associated with large surfing class size, and should be controlled by limiting class size. If the adverse effects can be controlled by limiting class size, then the surf school's activities should not have an impact greater than if [the] surf school operated as accessory use of the hotel. The class size should be limited to no more than 12 students per session, and no more than 3 sessions per day. The surf school operator should also take appropriate actions to minimize congestion along the seawall adjacent to the shoreline in the vicinity of its activities during the periods of its surfing instruction. Finally, it is the operator's responsibility to comply with these controls. Failure to comply may necessitate a reevaluation by the DPP concerning its conclusions about the ability to mitigate the related adverse effects of the surf school on the surrounding neighborhood. If the adverse effects cannot be adequately controlled as discussed herein, then the conclusions reached by this Analysis may need to be revised accordingly, and, a conclusion that this particular change in nonconforming use cannot be permitted under any conditions. (Emphasis added.) Based on the above analysis, the Director made conclusions of law which stated, in relevant part, F. Since it constitutes a principal use, the surf school establishment on the site shall be considered a change in nonconforming use for the commercial space specifically identified as Shop No. 7. The change in use is from a principal hotel to office use. G. There is adequate evidence that the surf school establishment can involve greater adverse effects (in particular seawall congestion, noise, and incompatibility with surrounding residential and apartment uses) on surrounding properties within the neighborhood when the size of a surfing class is too large. H. The change in nonconforming use, which occurred at the location identified as Shop No. 7, has the potential for greater adverse effects than if the hotel use of that location been [sic] continued, or if it were operated as an accessory use of the hotel. Accordingly, the change in use shall not be permitted pursuant to LUO Section 21-4.110(c)(4), unless the size of the surfing classes can be limited such that the adverse effects are no longer a problem. This limit shall be 12 students per class and 3 classes per day; equated to a maximum class size of 15 people (12 students and 3 instructors). If the intensity of use should ever exceed this level, then it shall constitute a zoning violation of LUO Section 21-4.110(c)(4), and the establishment and/or landowners or lessees shall be subject to appropriate enforcement action. (Emphasis added.) The Director's Declaratory Ruling stated: The Hans Hedemann Surf School may operate on the site as a permitted change in nonconforming use (from hotel to office), subject to the provisions of LUO section 21-4.110(c)(4), provided: A. Its related surfing instruction operations shall not at any time exceed a maximum size of 12 students per class, and 3 classes per day; and B. The surf school operator shall take appropriate actions to insure that the seawall adjacent to the shoreline in the vicinity of its operations is kept free of congestion during its periods of instruction.