Laserfiche WebLink
IV. ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 <br /> A. Plaintiffs Lacked Standing to Challenge the Development <br /> Under Chapter 205,HRS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 <br /> B. The Circuit Court Erred In Ruling that Plaintiffs' HRS Chapter 205 <br /> Claims Were Not Barred by Laches or Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 <br /> 1. Principles of Lacher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 <br /> 2. There Was Ample Public Notice of A Planned Substantial 1-Acre <br /> Subdivision In the State Land Use Agricultural District from <br /> September 1993 Onward. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 <br /> 3. Plaintiffs Delayed Filing Their HRS Chapter 205 Claims Until <br /> December 21, 2000, To the Substantial Prejudice of <br /> Defendants Oceanside and County, and Nonparty Lot Purchasers. . . . . . 31 <br /> 4. The Circuit Court Erred in Holding that As a Matter of Law, <br /> Laches Does Not Apply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32. <br /> a. Laches Does Not Require"Good Faith Reliance" <br /> On County Approvals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 <br /> b. The County's Alleged Failure to Enforce HRS Chapter 205 Is <br /> Irrelevant to Laches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 <br /> c. The Development Agreement Poses No County <br /> Enforcement Conflict or Collaboration With Developer <br /> Barring Equitable Laches Relief. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 <br /> d. The Circuit Court Erred to the Extent That It Denied Laches Due to <br /> Defendant-Appellants' Differences With the Court's <br /> Ultimate Chapter 205 Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 <br /> C. The Circuit Court Created New,Unconstitutional and Erroneously <br /> Restrictive HRS Chapter 205 Farm Dwelling Requirements, Discarding <br /> Administrative Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 <br /> 1. Summary: HRS Chapter 205 on Permissible Uses in the Agricultural District. <br /> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 <br /> 2. Administrative Interpretation of HRS Chapter 205 Agricultural or Farm <br /> Dwelling Requirements Considered Hokuli'a In Compliance. . . . . . . . . 37 <br /> 3. The Circuit Court Erroneously Added Rigorous"Economic Viability" <br /> Substantive and Procedural Requirements to Subdivision <br /> Approvals in the State Land Use Agricultural District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 <br /> 4. The Circuit Court Erroneously Refused to Consider The Project As an <br /> Accessory Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 <br /> 5. As Applied By the Circuit Court. HRS Chapter 205's Farm Dwelling and <br /> Agricultural Use Restrictions Are Unconstitutional Violations of Due <br /> Process and Separation of Powers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 <br /> D. The Circuit Court Erred in Rejecting Defendant-Appellant Oceansides' Zoning <br /> Estoppel or Vested Rights Defense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 <br /> 1. Defendant Oceanside Acted in Good Faith Reliance On the State of the Law <br /> And Its Existing Permits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 <br /> -ii- <br />