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

Home

60. Rather, as it was advised by state officials, Oceanside needed to assure that the LUC amend the Hokuli'a land use classification from Agricultural to Urban in compliance with state land use laws if it intended to develop a residential-golf course subdivision project. 61. Oceanside's presumption that reduction of lot density(from 5 acres to one-acre Ag) absolved it of the requirement to reclassify its land to"urban" uses. By ignoring contrary advice from its own counsel, its presumption was unreasonable. Proceeding without state land use approval does not confer a vested right upon Oceanside, even though Oceanside may have made substantial expenditures in reliance thereon from county officials. Mill er• 521 A.2d at 647. Equitable Estoppel As to the 14.854-Acre Parcel. 62. The simultaneous passage of Ordinances 97-34(general plan amendment of 25 acres),97-35 (land use reclassification of 14.854 acres),and 97-36(rezoning)indicates that neither the County of Hawaii nor Oceanside considered the general welfare of the people of the County of Hawaii. 63. The General Plan Amendment redesignating 25+acres from"Orchard"to "Retreat Resort,"immediately followed by the reclassification of a smaller area of 14.854-acres from Agricultural to Urban and subsequent rezoning from Agricultural to Resort Hotel reveals an intent to circumvent both the County General Plan and the State land use laws. 64. Because this Court has declared both the general plan amendment(Ord. 97-34)and the county reclassification of the 14.854-acre parcel (Ord. 97-35)both invalid, Ordinance 97-36,the attempt to rezone the parcel from Agricultural (A-la)to Resort Hotel (V-6.0), is also invalid. 65. The 14.854 acres was a portion of the 25-acre parcel Oceanside redesignated for resort use under the County General Plan, and was below the maximum acreage subject to county jurisdiction under HRS § 205-3.1 by only 0.146 acre. 28