Laserfiche WebLink
this chapter may have their existing permitted use or occupancy continued <br /> if such use or occupancy was legal at the time of the adoption of this chapter, <br /> provided such continued use does not constitute a hazard to the genal safety <br /> and welfare of the occupants and the public. (underscoring added) <br /> 1. Status of the Pool. <br /> Under this provision, if the 10-room hotel was permitted in 1956-1957 and <br /> if that permit for the hotel included the pool, then the pool would be a "use or <br /> occupancy" of the pool that is "legal" and that use or occupancy can be continued <br /> without further permits. a In this case, no one disputes that the hotel was permitted <br /> back in 1956-1957. Whether the permit for the hotel building included the pool and <br /> whether a separate permit was required for the pool is not clear. <br /> What is clear is that the pool was located on and a part of the hotel <br /> premises for many years, clearly visible from Alii Drive. Building plans are no longer <br /> available. Known witnesses with knowledge and who can explain when the pool was <br /> constructed and whether a separate permit was ever required or issued for the pool <br /> have not yet been located. Nonetheless, one can infer that the pool was part of the <br /> "building" and hence was included in and covered by the building permits for the hotel <br /> building. This inference is supported by the known fact that county officials conducted <br /> inspections of the premises between 1956 and 1976 (and the SMA law was enacted <br /> during the 1970s). If the pool had to be permitted as structure separate from the hotel, <br /> 4 Although the county's zoning code is a different regulation from the county's <br /> building codes, Section 46-4, HRS addresses "nonconforming" buildings that were <br /> existing but that would not be in conformance with the forthcoming regulations. The <br /> Intermediate Court of Appeals has held that this "nonconforming" clause for zoning <br /> purposes does not implicate the building code. Waikiki Marketplace Investment <br /> Company v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 86 Haw. 343, 949 P.2d 183 (Haw. App.,1997). To <br /> some extent, however, the location and use of a structure presents a zoning question <br /> while the integrity of the structure is building code question. <br /> 4 <br />