COM 0045.028 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The Consistency Doctrine There is a comprehensive legal concern regarding the General flan which potentially affects many properties. The GP needs to take into account the "consistency doctrine" enunciated by the Hawaii Supreme Court. If any GP designation is more restrictive than the zoning for such property, then the property has been effectively downzoned. In Gatri v. Blane 9G2 P 2d., the court held: ....[any] proposed development must be consistent with both the general plan and zoning. Consistency with the zoning is insufficient." On October 20, 2003, in Save Sunset Beach Coalition et al v. City & County of Honolulu et al. (case # 21332) the Supreme Court extended the "consistency doctrine" to three applicable criteria: i) State Land Use Designation, ii) County General Plan, & iii) Zoning Ordinance: "Because GATRI was subject to both the development [General] Plan as well as the zoning ordinance, GATRI was entitled only to the more restricted uses allowed by the development [Generals Plan." "We believe that the "consistency doctrine" enunciated in GATRI is somewhat instructive in the instant case. Because the uses allowed in country zoning, axe prohibited from conflicting with the uses allowed in a State agriculture district, only the more restricted as between the two is authorized. We believe that any comprehensive review of the County General Plan should not make designations which are inconsistent to present County zoning. To do otherwise would effectively downzone the property under Hawaii black letter law.