2005-04-01_Defendant-Appellant-Cross_Appellees_County_of_Hawaiis_Amended_Opening_Brief

Home

not principally agriculture; the amendment merely gives the lot owner the ability to engage in farming activity as directed by the homeowner's association. Exhibit PKO-724. Moreover, the agricultural activities proposed are deminimis and do not change the purpose and character of the development,which is luxury residential living within the setting of a golf course, club house,private lodge, and other amenities unrelated to agricultural activities." Count IV Order,pp. 16-17, COL Nos. 1, 3, 7; R at 66: 21413A252-253. This error was brought to the attention of the Circuit Court in the Memorandum in Support of the County's Motion to Amend 2d Amended Judgment,pp. 6-10, 16,R at 86:27810-814,27820. Point of Error No. 13-: The Circuit Court erred in rejecting as"immaterial"any developer attempts to comply with Chapter 205 after"court intervention": "6. The information and proposals available at the time of subdivision approval are the only relevant evidence of the legality of what uses are going to be made of the land. Any subsequent attempts to comply with HRS chapter 205 after court intervention are immaterial to this determination." Count IV Order,p. 16, COL No. 6; R at 66: 21413A252. This error was brought to the attention of the Circuit Court in the Memorandum in Support of the County's Motion to Amend 2d Amended Judgment,pp. 10,R at 86:27814. Point of Error No. 14 : The Circuit Court erred in holding that Defendant- Appellee/Cross-Appellant Oceanside had no vested rights or equitable estoppel defense due to allegedly invalid permits: 36. Oceanside has a vested right to use the land for agriculture. It has no vested right to build luxury residences in the guise of"farm dwellings,"or to operate an urban resort development on Agricultural lands. 37. Because both its rezoning and subdivision approvals are defective, Oceanside's reliance on its prior subdivision approval to assert a defense of either vested rights or equitable estoppel for its planned"agricultural" subdivision must fail, and the County cannot ignore its enforcement duties under HRS § 205-12." Count IV Order,pp. 22-23, COL Nos. 36, 37,R at 66: 21413A259. This error was brought to the attention of the Circuit Court in the Memorandum in Support of the County's Motion to Amend 2d Amended Judgment,p. 4-18,R at 86:27808-822. Point of Error No. 15 The Circuit Court erred in holding that Defendant-Appellee/Cross- Appellant Oceanside had no vested rights or estoppel defense due to lack of good faith: 19