Laserfiche WebLink
the Hawaii Supreme Court demanded much more of an agency that acts as a public <br /> trustee. The Court held that the agency has a duty to address several points with <br /> express findings, 133 Haw. at 181, 324 P.3d at 991, such as: <br /> * Whether the proposed use is consistent with a trust purpose. <br /> * If a presumption should be applied in favor of a public use. 6 <br /> * Whether the use is private or commercial in nature; and if so, will <br /> it meet the test of a high level of scrutiny. <br /> * Whether the use satisfies the "reasonable and beneficial" standard in <br /> relation to other public and private uses of the resource (the land). <br /> * Whether the applicant has demonstrated its actual needs and the <br /> propriety of the use. <br /> * Whether the applicant has demonstrated the absence of a practicable <br /> alternative. <br /> * If harm will be presented to the resource (the land), whether the <br /> applicant has demonstrated that the use is still "reasonable and <br /> beneficial" and that the applicant can implement reasonable mitigation <br /> measures. <br /> * Whether the applicant has met its burden of proof. <br /> Proposed Finding No. 66 fails to address these subjects in the manner <br /> required by the Kauai Springs case. Nor does it address the county's counterpart <br /> set forth in the Hawaii County Charter, Section 13-29. <br /> 6 A charter school is deemed to be a"public"school in Hawaii. <br /> An"alternative" may be a different place. It may also be a different procedure like a <br /> boundary amendment and rezoning, which require appropriate services to be provided. <br /> 13 <br />