2024-04-02 PL-CCI-2024-000003 Bill 121 Claudia Rohr Testimony

Home

Case 1:22-cv-00247-DKW-RT Document 85 Filed 12/21/23 Page 3 of 28 PagelD.3063 FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND4 The parties have stipulated to the facts as set forth herein. Stip. Facts, Dkt. No. 59; see United States v. Houston, 547 F.2d 104, 107 (9th Cir. 1976) ("[w]hen parties have entered into stipulations as to material facts, those facts will be deemed to have been conclusively established."). In 1957, the Hawaii Legislature enacted the Zoning Enabling Act, HRS § 464(a), endowing the counties with the authority to promulgate zoning ordinances. Save Sunset Beach Coal. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 78 P.3d 1, 17 (Haw. 2003); see Stip. Facts at ¶ 41. As relevant here, HRS § 464(a) permits counties to enact zoning ordinances as "necessary and proper to permit and encourage the orderly development of land resources within their jurisdictions," provided that: Neither this section nor any ordinance enacted pursuant to this section shall prohibit the continued lawful use of any building or premises for any trade, industrial, residential, agricultural, or other purpose for which the building or premises is used at the time this section or the ordinance takes effect; provided that a zoning ordinance may provide for elimination of nonconforming uses as the uses are discontinued, or for the amortization or phasing out of nonconforming uses or signs over a reasonable period of time in commercial, industrial, resort, and apartment zoned areas only. In no event shall such amortization or phasing out of nonconforming uses apply to any existing building or premises used for residential (single-family or duplex) or agricultural uses. 4The factual and procedural background set forth herein is condensed as relevant to the instant Motions. A more detailed version is set forth in this Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. See Dkt. No. 31 at 3-11. - 3 -