COM 0219.006 2000-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

_ 07/13/01 08:57 FA% 8089618822 CORP COtnVSEL ~ 003 ~ ~ page 2 of ~ ' i 'The debate ever the bill has raised s~reral interesting ic~gal issues. I. bible Con~iot with State Land.Use Law Hawaii devised Striates, §205~.51ist~ the permitted on ].and which is designated as agricultural by ~e State Land Use Commissi®n. Subsection (a)(4) included as a p fie; ~ (4) Farffi dwellings, employee housitag, fame buildings, or activity or uses related to faYrnirag and animal husbandry; ' l; arm dwelling as used in dais para~aph means asingle-family dwelling located on and used in connection with a faun, including clusters of single-family farm . dwell~gs perm.ifted within agr'tcultutal parks developed by the State, ®r where agricultural a~vity,provides income to the family occupying the dwelling. 'his office has perviously rendered the opinion (OP 94-1 of 1~^ebruary 9, 1994) that so-called "ohana" units could be permitted on land designated. as agricultural by the LUC, so long as all units on the property rae$ the definition of a. "farm dwelling" Tie espirlion does not state ' that there is a right to atg unlimited number of fay. dwellings on LUC agricultural land, nor does it state that them can be an limitation oar the nt~ber of farm dwellings on such property_ State law makes it clear, that euhile sash uses as "farm dwellings" shall be permitted. on agriculture designated. lands, flint these cases maybe further defined by fibs counties by ordinance_'Fi[tS 205-5(b). `i`hus, should the Council wish to Ii.anit the density of "farm dwellings," through the use of zoning prower;it would be fi~ to do so. Z'her~e are dif~ictalties which arise, however, whew. this power is applaed to a single parcel, as opposed to being made part of a generally applicable policy. 3 Zox "Spot Zoning^ is defaliegi as an:arbitrary action by which a sma11 acre within a large area is singled out and specially Zoned fox a use classif calaion da£ferent from and inconsistent with the classification of the surrounding area and .which is not in accord with the general plats. Life of tfae Land vs_ City Comical of City ct»d Co~Py of H®~®lul~ 60~ P2d, E66, 51 Haw. 39~ (1980). It has also been deigned as an am~endffiertt which reclassifies a small parcel in a ffiannex inconsistent with existing zoning patterns, for the beneiYt of the owner and without any substantial public pure®se: ~4nderson, ~rican Law Qf Toning, §5.12 (4th 1?dd. 1996). When it actors, rt ~ an aznpxoper exercise of the zoning power, and is void_ Lr~rc Yip Kee, Ltc~ vs. City and Coza~ly of Honolt4l~ 7b7 P2d. 815, 70 Tdaw. 179 (1989}. At first glance, this proposed action. would appear to be an attempt at "spot zoning." `T'here is no other A-2a property anywhert near the a~ect®d parcel, and there is no evidence of any public purpose, ether than tffie benefit of the owner, tv be served by dais aetaon. purkher flee size of fibs parcel falls is between mat where 1?rofessor Anderson finds n~ly all htip:/Iwrxrar.co.hawaii.hi.uslcorp c®u~aseU99®pinioa3,htaa~ 7/6/01