Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 21 Case Note: In this case, briefs as amici curiae (i.e., friends of the court) were filed in support of the Board and Superintendent by: the Illinois Association of School Boards, the Illinois As- sociation of School Administrators, and the Illinois Association of School Business Officials. Amicus curiae briefs were filed in support of the City by the Illinois Municipal League and Professor Laurie Reynolds. Variance—Hotel owner seeks variance to renovate hotel that would encroach by 74% into setback Opponents contend hotel owner cannot meet showing of unnecessary hardship required for variance Citation: Surfrider Foundation v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2015 WL 5597179 (Haw. 2015), as corrected, (Oct. 6, 2015) HAWAI'I (09/23/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether a variance granted for a proposed 26 -story hotel and residential tower that permitted a 74% encroachment into the coastal height setback along the Waikiki shoreline was properly issued. The Background/Facts: Kyo-ya Hotels & Resorts LP ("Kyo-ya") owned the Moana Surfrider hotel complex along the Waikiki shoreline in the City of Hono- lulu (the "City"). The complex contained three hotel buildings: the Surfrider Tower, the Banyan Wing, and the Diamond Head Tower ("DHT"). The complex was located in the Waikiki Special District ("WSD"). In the WSD, the "the City Council recognized the need to step back buildings from the shoreline in order to optimize 'the sense of open space and public enjoyment along the beach.' " ROH § 21-9.80-4(g)(2). To accomplish that objective, the City Council had established the minimum setbacks that applied "to all zoning lots along the shoreline" within the WSD (the "Coastal Height Setbacks"). In 2010, Kyo-ya submitted a land use permit to redevelop the existing eight - story DHT with a 26 -story, 282 -foot hotel and residential tower (the "Project"). Due to the Project's size, location, and design, the Project required several permits and approvals, including a variance to allow the Project to encroach into the Coastal Height Setback. In total, about 74.3% of the proposed building would encroach into the Coastal Height Setback. In March 2010, Kyo-ya submitted a variance application to the City's Depart- ment of Planning and Permitting (the "Department"). The City's Land Use Ordinance (the "LUO") allowed for an area variance if the applicant could show unnecessary hardship. In order to establish unnecessary hardship, the applicant had to show: "(1) the applicant would be deprived of the reasonable use of such land or building if the provisions of the zoning code were strictly applicable; © 2015 Thomson Reuters 9