COM 0770.004 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

interest being advanced, is the demand nondiscriminatory and reasonable and does the demand bear a reasonable connection to or rational nexus to the property or use in question. As stated in the previous opinions from our office, there are several limitations on the out-right imposition of additional conditions. First, the proposed addition must be nondiscriminatory, must be reasonable and must advance a legitimate state interest. Second, the existing circumstances or facts must justify the proposed addition. Third, the proposed addition must not interfere with or hinder the landowner's rights as defined in County of Kauai v. Standard Life Insurance Co., 65 Haw. 318 (1982): "Life of the Land therefore teaches that final discretionary action constitutes official assurance for zoning estoppel purposes. This rule acknowledges the incremental nature of the modern development process and strikes the appropriate balance between competing private and public interests. It preserves government control over development until the government's own process for making land use decisions leaves nothing to discretion. A proper understanding of the lat discretionary action in a governmental process will lead to predictable results consistent with the important public policy considerations that underlie Hawaii's estoppel rule. In each case, then, the central focus must be on the existing legal process. Identification of the operative mechanisms also will determine whether analogous governmental actions give rise to a similar right to rely. In this case it is undisputed that the last discretionary permit action by the County was the April 9, 1980 vote of the planning commission authorizing a Special Management Area (SMA) use permit for the Nukolii development. The SMA permit approval was nonlegislative action imposing new conditions on the development which expressly made compliance therewith precedent to issuance of a building permit. The SMA permit is analogous to the variance granted in Life of the Land and would constitute final discretionary action for estoppel purposes * * 65 Haw. at 329-30.