COM 0056.001 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

POP: gatri v. blane Page 8 of 11 within the county; and (2) Contain implementation priorities and actions to carry out policies to include but not be limited to land use maps . In the County of Maui, the community plans are part of the general plan. The Khei-Mkena Community Plan (KMCP) in effect at the time of the Director's consideration of GATRPs application was adopted by the Maui county council in 1985. The introduction to the KMCP states that: The County General Plan sets forth the broad objectives and policies for the long-range development of the County. The puroose of this Communit~Plan is to provide a relatively detailed scheme for implementing these objectives and policies relative to the Kihei-Makena region. Contained ~n this plan is the desired sequence, patterns and characteristics of future developments for the region ....Also included are maps identifying the planned distribution and intensity of land uses and public facilities. (Emphasis added.) It is undisputed by the parties that, under the KMCP, GATRI's parcel is designated as "Single Family (SF)." The "SF" designation is defcned in the plan as "includ[ing] single-family and duplex dwellings." The circuit court relied upon the holding of the Intermediate Court of Appeals in Protect Ala Wai for two propositions: (1) that the KMCP "does not have the force and effect of law"; and (2) 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. In reaching these conclusions, the circuit court reversed the Director's determination that the KMCP controlled his review of GATRPs application and that, because the KMCP was inconsistent with GATRPs proposed action, the application could not be processed. This is an agency conclusion of law, which is "freely reviewable to determine if the agency's decision was in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, in excess of statutory authority or jurisdiction or agency, or affected by other error of law." Poe, 87 Hawaii at 195, 953 P.2d at 573. (citations omitted). We hold that the Director was correct and that the circuit court was wrong in its interpretation of the governing law. In Protect Ala Wai, a nonprofit corporation challenged the grant by the city council of a special management area permit to construct ahotel/condominium project. The action was challenged, inter alia, on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the general plan for the City and County of Honolulu. The ICA began its discussion with the statement that: Appellant concedes that the General Plan is a statement of broad policies for the long-range development of Honolulu and does not have the force and effect of law. However, Appellant contends that, although the project comports generally with the General Plan's policy of maintaining the viability of Oahu's visitor industry, it is in conflict with several of the General Plan's other stated policies, such as prohibiting major increases in densities and further growth in hotel and resort condominium units in Waikiki, and preserving Oahu's beauty, natural environment, and scenic views. http://www.hawaii.gov/jud/20385.htm 12/22/2006