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
persuasive weight to administrative construction and follow the same, unless the construction is <br /> palpably erroneous." Ka Pa'akai O Ka'Aina v. Land Use Comm!m 94 Haw. 31, 42 (2000) <br /> 46. Both the LUC Executive Director and the County Planning Director expressed <br /> concerns about the failure to view the Hokuli'a project"in its entirety"to determine the appropriate <br /> land use designation for the project under FM chapter 205. These opinions lend persuasive weight <br /> to the conclusion that when viewed"in its entirety,"the Hokuli'a project is essentially an urban, not <br /> agricultural, use of lands. <br /> 47. Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes § 91-8,any interested person may petition an <br /> agency for declaratory order as to the applicability of any rule or order of the agency. <br /> 48. .Given the advice Oceanside received from its counsel and the comments of the <br /> County of Hawaii Planning Director,the Executive Director of the State LUC,the director of the <br /> State OSP;and the director of the State DOA,it was unreasonable for Oceanside to proceed with the <br /> development of Hokuli'a without seeking state LUC approval or a declaratory ruling. Oceanside's <br /> insistence on proceeding with only County approval for its rezoning of the agricultural lot area to <br /> Ag-1 a in its residential subdivision,without regard for the additional requirement of HRS §205-4.5 <br /> is a disregard for known risks that does not constitute"acting in good faith." <br /> 49. Oceanside's decision to nearly triple its alleged$55 million spending prior to the <br /> filing of this action establishes that it knowingly risked the additional $136 million it allegedly <br /> expended since the filing of the complaint. Test. R Stuit(7 123103). <br /> 50. Oceanside's April 20, 1998 Development Agreement with the County was explicitly <br /> conditioned on compliance with HRS Chapter 205: <br /> 5. PERMITTED USES OF THE PROPERTY. Permitted uses of the Property <br /> shall be all uses permitted under the Land Use Regulations"and Approvals, <br /> The Development Agreement defines land use regulations as follows: <br /> v. LAND USE REGULATIONS."Land Use Regulations"shall mean any and all <br /> State and County laws,ordinances,resolutions,rules and policies governing the permitted uses of the Property, <br /> 25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.