Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:22-cv-00247-DKW-RT Document 85 Filed 12/21/23 Page 19 of 28 PagelD.3079 <br /> In this light, Ordinance 22-7 clearly violates HRS § 46-4(a) by eliminating <br /> previously lawful 30-89 day rentals without any grandfathering provision. Before <br /> Ordinance 22-7, it was legal to rent homes on Oahu for periods of between 30 and <br /> 89 days in any zoning district. After Ordinance 22-7, such activity is prohibited in <br /> all non-Resort districts, regardless of whether such use existed prior to the <br /> Ordinance's effective date. This sweeping prohibition therefore directly conflicts <br /> with HRS § 46-4(a)'s bar against zoning provisions eliminating "lawful use[s] . . . <br /> at the time . . . [an] ordinance takes effect." See also Waikiki Marketplace, 949 <br /> P.2d at 194 ("the grandfather protections afforded to a property owner under HRS <br /> § 46-4(a) and the LUO are intended to prohibit new zoning ordinances from <br /> interfering with an owner's lawful uses of a building or premises under an existing <br /> zoning ordinance."). <br /> Further, HRS § 46-4(a)'s amortization exception cannot save Ordinance 22- <br /> 7 from preemption. That is because the exception applies only to "commercial, <br /> industrial, resort, and apartment zoned areas." HRS § 464(a). Insofar as <br /> Ordinance 22-7 seeks to eliminate or phase out existing lawful 30-89 day rentals in <br /> any other zone—including residentially zoned areas—it is invalid. Moreover, even <br /> in commercial, industrial, resort, and apartment zones, HRS § 46-4(a)'s <br /> amortization exception applies only to non-residential uses. See HRS § 464(a) <br /> ("In no event shall such amortization or phasing out of nonconforming uses apply <br /> - 19 - <br />