## Facts

- A Buddhist temple in Honolulu obtained a building permit to expand its campus in a residential zoning district, including construction of a “Main Temple Hall” for offices, a library, a museum, and an exhibition room.
- The approved plans showed a 66-foot building height, but the Hall was built approximately 74–75 feet tall, exceeding the permit and the applicable height limit.
- The Department of Land Utilization (DLU) issued a notice of violation and a stop-work order.
- The Temple sought a height variance; after a public hearing, the DLU Director denied the application for failure to satisfy zoning-code hardship requirements.
- The Temple filed a second variance application; at the Director-level hearing, witnesses were allowed to testify without cross-examination, though the Temple could present rebuttal evidence.
- The Director again denied the variance, finding (1) reasonable use existed without a variance, (2) no unique circumstances and any hardship was self-created, and (3) the added height altered neighborhood character.
- The Temple appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA); the ZBA held multiple hearings allowing both sides to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, adopted similar findings, and affirmed the denial.
- Neighborhood and environmental groups opposed the variance, asserting adverse effects on the residential area’s character and environment.
- The Temple pursued multiple circuit-court appeals challenging the merits and procedures; the circuit court rejected the challenges, and the consolidated appeals reached the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the Director and ZBA abused discretion or acted arbitrarily or capriciously by refusing to approve the Hall’s height and denying a variance.
2. Whether the Director-level hearing procedures (including the lack of cross-examination) violated the Hawaiʻi Administrative Procedure Act (HAPA) or constitutional due process.
3. What avenues of judicial review apply to zoning-variance decisions by the Director and the ZBA, and the scope of circuit-court review.
4. Whether enforcing the height limit and denying a variance violated free exercise rights under RFRA, the First Amendment, or the Hawaiʻi Constitution.

## Decision

- The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court and upheld the administrative denials of the requested height variance.
- The court held there was no abuse of discretion: the Temple failed to satisfy the variance criteria, including proof of unique hardship not self-created and consistency with neighborhood character.
- The court held due process and HAPA were satisfied when the administrative process was viewed as a whole, because the Temple ultimately received a trial-like hearing with cross-examination before the ZBA.
- The court clarified that the ordinary review path runs through the ZBA, with subsequent circuit-court review generally limited to the administrative record and statutory grounds (e.g., illegality, arbitrariness, abuse of discretion).
- The court rejected the free exercise claims because the height restriction did not impose a cognizable substantial burden on religious exercise.

## Legal Principles

- A zoning variance requires satisfaction of specified criteria, including reasonable use without the variance, unique circumstances causing hardship, and no substantial alteration of neighborhood character; self-created hardship generally does not justify relief.
- On judicial review of zoning-variance determinations, courts defer to agency fact-finding if supported by substantial evidence and will not overturn decisions absent illegality, arbitrariness, caprice, or abuse of discretion.
- Due process in administrative land-use proceedings is assessed in light of the entire process; an initial hearing need not include full trial procedures if a meaningful opportunity to be heard is later provided in a subsequent administrative appeal.
- Free exercise claims require a threshold showing that government action substantially burdens religious exercise; limits on preferred building design or scale, without interference with core religious practice, may fail that threshold under both federal and state analyses.

## Conclusion

The court upheld enforcement of residential height limits against a temple’s overbuilt structure, ruling that the variance denial was supported by the zoning criteria, that any procedural shortcomings at the initial hearing were cured by the ZBA’s adversarial proceedings, and that the height restriction did not substantially burden religious exercise under RFRA, the First Amendment, or the Hawaiʻi Constitution.


Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple of Haw. v. Sullivan, 87 Haw. 217, 953 P.2d 1315 (Haw. 1998)