COM 0056.001 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

POP: gatri v. blane Page 9 of 11 Protect Ala Wai, 6 Haw. App. at 547, 735 P.2d at 955 (emphasis added). In Protect Ala Wai, the appellant conceded that the general plan did not have the force and effect of law. The ICA accepted this statement, and the opinion does not fully analyze and consider this issue. This proposition, in the SMA context, is cleazly incorrect and we overrule Protect Ala Wai to the extent that it affirms this erroneous proposition. HRS § 205A-26(2)(C) provides in relevant part that a SMA permit shall not be approved unless the authority finds that "the development is consistent with the county general plan and zoning." (Emphasis added.) The circuit court's conclusions that (1) the general plan does not have the force and effect of law and (2) because the project was consistent with the zoning, it is ep r se consistent with the general plan, render the mandatory conjunctive in the statutory language a nullity. A fundamental principle of statutory construction is that "courts are bound to give effect to all parts of a statute, and that no clause, sentence, or word shall be construed as superfluous, void, or insignificant if a construction can be legitimately found which will give force to and preserve all words of the statute." State v. Ganal, 81 Hawai' i 358, 372, 917 P.2d 370, 384 (1996) (citation omitted). Therefore, we hold that the county general plan does have the force and effect of law insofaz as the statute requires that a development within the SMA must be consistent with the genera] plan. There aze significant differences between the general policy guidelines evaluated in Protect Ala Wai and the specific land use plan contained within the ICMCP. Where consistency of a proposed development is evaluated with respect to broad, hortatory policy statements in a general plan, it may be azbitrary and capricious to base a denial on the general plan statement because of their broad and non-specific nature. This was the situation in Protect Ala Wai. The general plan for the city and county of Honolulu evaluated therein specifically stated that "[a]ll policy statements ...contained in this Plan are intended to serve as policy guidelines, as opposed to rigid requirements Contrarily, the KMCP's avowed purpose is to provide a relatively detailed scheme for implementing [the General Plan] objectives and policies relative to the Kihei-Makena region." The KMCP provides specifically, and this is not challenged by GATRI, that the subject parcel is intended for single-family residences. The Director's decision that GATRI's proposed snack baz was inconsistent with the KMCP did not meet any of the standards for reversal of an administrative agency decision under HRS § 91-14(g). Therefore, the circuit court erred in reversing the decision of the Director. Having made this determination, we necessarily overrule the second challenged proposition from Protect Ala Wai, namely that a proposed project is ep r se in conformity with the general plan if the project site was zoned prior to the adoption of the general plan and the proposed project is in accordance with the zoning. This proposition erroneously followed from the conclusion that the generai plan does not have the force and effect of law. It is incorrect because it ignores the statutory mandate that the proposed development must be consistent with both the general plan and the zoning. Consistency with the zoning alone is insufficient. It is unnecessary, as Protect Ala Wai appears to hold, for the county to rezone a parcel to conform to a change in the general plan in order to preempt the issuance of a SMA permit. The KMCP was adopted after extensive public input and enacted into law by the Maui County Council on July 17, 1985 as an amendment to section 2.80.050 of the Maui County Code. It is part of the general plan of Maui County. Therefore, it has the force and effect of law and a proposed development which is inconsistent with the KMCP may not be awarded an SMA permit without a plan amendment. Rezoning of the parcel is not necessary because the development must be consistent with both the general plan and the zoning. We therefore overrule Protect Ala W ai to the extent that it holds that a development in conformance with a http://www.hawaii.gov/jud/20385.htm 12/22/2006