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
Advice And Comments Received By Oceanside. <br /> 40. In planning the Hokuli'a development, Oceanside retained legal specialists in <br /> land use law to research the State land use laws regarding permissible agricultural uses of the land. <br /> Test. R. Frye (7110103); Exh. PKO-195 Ag. Plan(1121199). <br /> 41. Although early opinions addressed the Villages of Hokukano(1440 lots), <br /> Oceanside knew that in order to legally proceed with the Hokuli'a development(730 lots), the <br /> residences planned for the development needed to be bona fide"farm dwellings,"i.e., single-family <br /> residences used in connection with a farm or providing income from agricultural operations to those <br /> occupying the residence. Test. R Stuit(7 123103). <br /> 42. In 1989, after reviewing two development options,Attorney Sandra Schutte <br /> advised Oceanside that once a"more concrete development proposal is established,the proposal be <br /> reevaluated and also reviewed by the appropriate state and county agencies involved in the land use <br /> permitting process." Exh. DO-1354, Dr. From S. Schulte to L.Anderson(6130189)p. 15. <br /> 43. On June 30, 1989, Oceanside attorneys also advised their client that land use laws <br /> in Hawaii were complicated by the dual jurisdiction of state and county governments,and <br /> counseled that compliance with these laws would depend upon the consistency of three factors; (1) <br /> the general plan designation of the County of Hawaii for the relevant area; (2)the LUPAG map for <br /> the area; and(3)the requirements of state land use law. Mr. Frye was aware of this advice. Exh. <br /> PKO-704, Memo from Roehrig Roehrig, et al. (6130189); Test. R Frye (7110103). <br /> 44. As Oceanside sought to rezone the property and obtain development approvals, it <br /> also received considerable input from State agencies reminding it of the agricultural classification <br /> and uses of the property. Test. R. Frye 7110103;Exhs PKO-597A, PKO-S99B, PKD-622, PKO-568 <br /> PKO-571, PKO-573, PKO-576, PKO-591, Letters from Slate agencies and Defendant's responses. <br /> 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.