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

Home

t � claims is not unreasonable;therefore, Oceanside has failed to meet its burden to prove its affirmative defenses under the doctrine of laches. Improper Delegation. 27. The terms of the Development Agreement do not authorize Oceanside to proceed without complying with HRS chapter 205,as long as Oceanside attempts to comply in the future. Hui Alaloa v. County Planning,Commission 68 Haw. 135, 137; 705 P.2d 1042, 1044(1985) (holding that imposing self-serving conditions on an SMA permit without requiring a compliance hearing was in error). The LUC should have been given the opportunity to make that prior determination with specific findings and conclusions as to the effect of the development on agricultural resources in advance of any land use approvals. Id 28. The County of Hawaii may not delegate the power and responsibility to determine the means to preserve the uses on agricultural land to a private developer,whose interest is in selling lands for recreational and luxury residential uses. Ka Pa'akai 94 Haw. 31, 51; 7 P.3d 1068, 1088 (2000)(holding,as in Hui Alalo a.that the delegation of the protection and preservation of native Hawaiian practices to a developer was inappropriate). Vested Rights And Estoppel. 29. The defense of estoppel is derived from equity,but the defense of vested rights reflects principles of common and constitutional law. Similarly,the elements of the two defenses are different. Estoppel focuses on whether it would be inequitable to allow the government to repudiate its prior conduct; vested rights focuses upon whether the owner acquired real property rights which cannot be taken away by governmental regulations. Nevertheless,the courts seem to 21