## Facts

- Honolulu created the Waikīkī Special Design District to manage shoreline-area development and preserve open space and public enjoyment of coastal resources.
- District rules included a coastal height setback intended to step back tall buildings from the shoreline.
- Honolulu’s variance framework required proof of “unnecessary hardship,” generally including: (1) denial of reasonable use without the variance; (2) hardship caused by circumstances unique to the property; and (3) no alteration of neighborhood character and no conflict with ordinance purposes.
- Kyo-Ya Hotels & Resorts LP proposed redeveloping an existing beachfront, eight-story hotel into a 26-story hotel/residential tower.
- The proposal would encroach about 74% into the coastal height setback.
- The Director of Honolulu’s Department of Planning & Permitting granted a variance allowing the encroachment, finding the hardship and related criteria satisfied.
- Environmental and community organizations appealed; the Zoning Board of Appeals upheld the Director, and the circuit court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding that strict application of the coastal height setback would deprive the developer of reasonable use, constituting “unnecessary hardship.”
2. Whether the asserted hardship arose from circumstances unique to the parcel rather than conditions common within the Waikīkī Special District.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported findings that the variance would not alter neighborhood character and would not be contrary to the setback’s and district’s purposes.

## Decision

- The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court reversed the circuit court, the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Director’s variance approval.
- The court held the variance criteria were not satisfied because key findings lacked substantial evidence.
- The matter was remanded with instructions to set aside the variance.

## Legal Principles

- A zoning variance requires substantial evidence satisfying each required criterion; agencies cannot approve major departures from district-wide rules based on conclusory assertions.
- “Unnecessary hardship” is not shown merely by demonstrating that a larger or more profitable project is preferable; the record must support denial of reasonable use without the variance.
- A claimed hardship must stem from circumstances unique to the specific property, not from regulatory conditions generally applicable throughout the neighborhood or district.
- Findings that a variance will not affect neighborhood character and will not conflict with the ordinance’s purposes must be supported by the record, particularly where the variance substantially undermines shoreline-protection design controls.
- The variance process cannot be justified by pointing to other discretionary permitting routes or preferred designs; variance criteria must be met on their own terms.

## Conclusion

The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court set aside a major coastal height-setback variance for a proposed Waikīkī shoreline tower because the administrative record did not substantially support findings of unnecessary hardship, unique property circumstances, or consistency with the special district’s coastal-protection purposes.


Surfrider Found. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 358 P.3d 664 (Haw. 2015)