2003-10-22 Amended Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Order Regarding Trial on Count IV of the Fifth Amended Complaint

Home

52. In 1994, addressing Oceanside's request for advice on a State Land Use Commission("LUC')declaratory ruling on a project known as"Crazy Horse,"2 Oceanside's attorney Christine A. Low advised? In its declaratory order, the LUC ruled that a dwelling situated on land located in the State Agricultural Land Use District must be a"farm dwelling"or related to an agricultural activity,pursuant to FM §205.4.5(ax4). Mhe LUC ruled that the State land use law preempts any county law, ordinance o rule that authorizes any residential dwelling as a r agricultural land use district. Ltr.from C Low to Frye (12120194),�included in Erh PKO-195. 53. Ms:Low stated that other than a statement that Oceanside is"exploring options for integrating agricultural zones," ,[t]here is no indication that the residential units proposed by Oceanside 1250 are either`farm dwellings' or otherwise relate to an agricultural activity."Id at pp. 2-3. 54. Ms. Low's letter explicitly addressed the statutory,requirement of HRS § 205.4.5(ax4)for a farm dwelling: each farm dwelling was required to be"tied to agricultural activity,"rather than other uses,like a golf course,concluding: Given the ruling in the Crazy Horse development,it may also be anticipated that the State Land Use Commission and the County of Hawaii may not approve any permits, absent a petition for reclassification to urban and/or enactment of a County ordinance in conformity with the State land use law which specifically allows residential dwellings in connection with golf courses. Id at p. 3. 2 "Crary Horse"involved a development project on 10.496 acres of land in Kona,also classified as Agriculture 1-a. In that case,the LUC ruled that single-family dwellings that failed to meet the requirement of"farm dwellings"were not permissible uses for that type of land classification.Exh.PKO-691,State Land Use Commission,Docket No.DR94-17, in the Matter of the Petition ofiohn Godfftrey,Declaratory Order filed December 6, 1994. not binding on Defendant Oceanside, it nonetheless provided an indication of how the LtUC wouuldlruleif Oceanside was petitioned for reclassification of the Hokuli'a property. Ms. Low was responding to Richard T. Frye's concern as to"whether the Villages at Hokukano was sufficient to meet the standards enunciated in the LUC's declaratory er." promised at the to R. Frye(12/20/94)included in Exh.PKO-195. n' Ltr. fr om C.Low 11