My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2003-10-22 Amended Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Order Regarding Trial on Count IV of the Fifth Amended Complaint
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Court Documents
>
2003-2005
>
2003-10-22 Amended Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Order Regarding Trial on Count IV of the Fifth Amended Complaint
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2011 4:14:04 PM
Creation date
7/15/2011 4:12:17 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
state agency. HRS §205-12 provides, "[tjhe appropriate officer or agency charged with the <br /> administration of county zoning laws shall enforce within each county the use classification districts <br /> adopted by the land use commission and the restriction on use and the condition relating to <br /> agricultural districts under section 205-4.5 and shall report to the commission all violations." <br /> Certain language and content in the Development Agreement placed the County in a position of <br /> conflict regarding enforcement of Chap. 205, HRS. The County is faced with a breach of the <br /> Development Agreement had they"held up" or"stalled" the development through any investigation <br /> or reporting to the LUC. The County did not disapprove,but approved,all requested permits <br /> involving the development. <br /> 19. This Court has already ruled; <br /> 4. Pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. Sec. 205-12,the counties must take before-the- <br /> fact measures to insure preservation of prime agricultural land,and when <br /> investigation shows that a proposed subdivision in an agricultural district will in all <br /> likelihood not be used for agricultural purposes and may be an attempted <br /> circumvention of the land use district amendment procedure and controls provided.in <br /> this chapter,the county should disapprove the subdivision application. Op. Att'y <br /> Gen.No. 75-8 (September 3, 1975). Conclusion of Law No. 4,Apri15 Order at& <br /> 20. The Court does not have to wait until Hokuli'a residents obtain building permits for <br /> their residences before it can act to enforce HRS Chapter 205 and/or its regulations,given the <br /> intended uses. <br /> 21. The county must take affirmative preventative action to protect agricultural land and <br /> "cannot rely only on after-the-fact measures when a large area of agricultural land is involved." <br /> Attorney General Opinion 75-8 Without affirmative action prior to subdivision approval, the <br /> County's enforcement ability will be impractical when the County must prosecute 730 separate lot <br /> owners after subdivision approval. See Id. "Any doubt as to whether a proposed subdivision will <br /> result in a significant change of land use should be resolved in favor of a disapproval." Id <br /> 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.