2005-04-01_Defendant-Appellant-Cross_Appellees_County_of_Hawaiis_Amended_Opening_Brief

Home

rezoning for the 14.854 acre lodge parcel was invalid, and therefore rejecting equitable estoppel defenses: "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 Hawai`i." Count IV Order,p. 28, COL No. 62,R at 66: 21413A237. 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. 17, R at 86:27821. Point of Error No. 18 : The Circuit Court erred in disregarding HRS § 205-3.1(c), and invalidating the lodge parcel state land use district amendment and rezoning,based on the sub- 15-acre size of the redistricting and alleged failure to consider all parts of the development: "12. Ordinance 97-35 reclassifying the 14.854 acres from agriculture to urban district for the purpose of constructing a private lodge for members and guests only constitutes spot zoning and is invalid. The urban use is not in accord with the general plan. ORDER a. Ordinance No. 97-35,regarding TMK: 8-1-04: por. 2 rezoning (sic) 14.854 acres of land for the site of the member lodge at Hokulia from agriculture to urban district constitutes"spot zoning"and is invalid; Count IV MSJ Order,p 10-11, COL No. 13, Order,R at 35: 11884, 11893-894. 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 14.584-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 14.584 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. 66. Had the resort area remained as the original 25+acre parcel affected by Ordinance No. 97-34, Oceanside would have been required to go before the LUC to reclassify the parcel from Agricultural to Urban as required by HRS § 205-4. 22