Honolulu Charter Commission leaves zoning board reform off ballot

by Jonathan Helton, Grassroot Institute

Oahu voters will soon consider a slew of City Charter amendments approved by the Honolulu Charter Commission earlier this year for placement on the general election ballot. 

Among those will not be a proposal to help reduce the backlog of cases under review by the City’s Board of Zoning Appeals, even though two were submitted for consideration — one by the Grassroot Institute, the other by Councilmember Tyler Dos Santos-Tam. 

And residents will unfortunately have to wait 10 years for the Commission to meet again for another bite at the apple, unless the Council votes to put the issue on a future ballot before then.

Honolulu’s Board of Zoning Appeals is a five-member, volunteer board that reviews all cases in which a property owner appeals a decision made by the Department of Planning and Permitting or requests a variance from the zoning code to facilitate a project. In October 2025, Honolulu Civil Beat reported that the board had a backlog of 270 cases. 

Dos Santos-Tam’s proposal would have allowed for the creation of more than one Board of Zoning Appeals. 

“The Zoning Board of Appeals can fall behind on making timely decisions because of the volume of appeals,” he wrote in his amendment submission. “When necessary, there should be flexibility to increase the number of boards to more quickly move through the work.”

The City Department of Planning and Permitting testified on the amendment, stating that rule changes related to the appeal of fines might reduce the number of appeals and the board’s workload. 

Grassroot’s proposed Charter amendment would have given the Zoning Board of Appeals more flexibility in determining whether to approve a variance request, with the goal of reducing barriers to new housing. 

The current process for obtaining a variance requires applicants to prove that they would be deprived of a reasonable use of their land without the variance, that the request is due to unique circumstances and not the character of the neighborhood, and that the board’s approval of the variance would not “alter the essential character of the neighborhood nor be contrary to the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance.”  

Grassroot proposed removing the “essential character” language for being overly subjective, along with creating a second method for obtaining variances by allowing applicants to show that the request furthered the policies of the Honolulu general plan, strategic housing plan or area development plan. 

The amendment would have also removed public hearing requirements for some residential-related appeals and variances, and specified that only project applicants can appeal decisions related to their own residential projects. 

In support of that amendment, Housing Hawaii’s Future testified that such changes would be beneficial. 

“General Plans and Development plans are themselves the product of extensive community consultation conducted at county expense,” the group wrote. “These should serve as the basis for a project’s approval, not a limited survey of individuals with the means and the time to attend hearings often scheduled in the middle of a work day. 

The Charter Commission noted in its report on the two Zoning Board of Appeals amendments that the commissioners could not agree on an attempt to combine them with another proposal related to zoning variances.

Because these changes need to be made by altering existing Charter language, the City Council has limited authority to address the issue on its own. 

The Charter Commission will not meet again until 2036, but the Council can also vote to place amendments on the ballot.

For now, delays in the variances and appeals process could continue to delay much-needed new housing and other beneficial projects.