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
t <br /> including,without limitation,the permitted uses in Chapter 205, HRS,the Zoning <br /> Code section 25-5-72, and all supplemental uses allowed under Zoning Code sections <br /> 25-4-1 through 25-4-14. <br /> 51. The LUC is not a party to the Development Agreement, and is not bound by the <br /> Development Agreement. Exh. PKO-428, Development Agreement between County of Hawaii and <br /> Oceanside Exh 10. Oceanside can only develop its lands under the Development Agreement if it <br /> complies with state land use laws. <br /> 52. Given Oceanside's substantial resources and the exclusive nature and costs of its <br /> development,and balancing this with the risks raised by Oceanside's advisors,Oceanside acted <br /> unreasonably in not seeking declaratory relief or review and approval of the Hokuli'a development <br /> from the LUC prior to expending substantial amounts of money. Oceanside has the financial assets <br /> to secure land use approvals. It hired multiple attorneys and land use planners to advise it of <br /> applicable land use requirements. <br /> 53. Hokuli a has sold approximately 190 lots. These lots range in price from$600,000 <br /> to $3 million each. Assuming an average price of$1 million per lot,the project should have$190 <br /> million at its disposal from sales revenue alone. As an indication of its fiscal power, Oceanside <br /> budgeted$8.874 million for its defense of this trial alone, and actually expended$7.768 million for <br /> its defense in trial through May 2003." Exhibit DO-1366. <br /> 54. An equitable estoppel claim cannot prevail where Defendant clearly"took a <br /> chance."Pelosi v. Wailea Ranch Estates, 91 Hawaii 478,489, 985 P.2d 1045, 1056 (1999). <br /> 55. Oceanside "took a chance" when it disregarded its own counsel's July 30, 1989 <br /> advice to seek review by"the appropriate state and county agencies involved in the land use <br /> permitting process" ... "after a more concrete development proposal is established."DO-1354 at 15. <br /> including,without limitation,uses,density,design,height,size and building specifications of proposed <br /> buildings;construction standards and specifications for roads and utilities,roadway improvements;affordable <br /> housing;community benefit assessments;water utilization and all exaction requirements applicable to the <br /> development of the Property;made applicable and in force as of the date of this Agreement. <br /> 26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.