|
Similarly, Laches bars challenges to government actions taken after public notice,when it
<br /> would be"unjust and inequitable"to affected agencies and parties. Searfoss v. School District of
<br /> Borough of White Haven, 397 Pa. 604, 156 A.2d 841, 845-846(1959). Hence, the issue of when
<br /> such public interest plaintiffs had notice of their claims turns on the extent to which the public
<br /> had imputed notice.
<br /> Based on the complaint,Plaintiff-Appellees are challenging the design of the subdivision,
<br /> claiming that the 730-lot subdivision design, associated with a golf course,would be inherently
<br /> violative of HRS Chapter 205. R at 26: 9252, 9270
<br /> Hence, from the time that the public had notice that a substantial 1-acre subdivision
<br /> design with a golf course and lodge was proposed on this property within the State Land Use
<br /> Agricultural District, any persons interested in challenging such a use(like Plaintiff-Appellees)
<br /> should have begun diligently pursuing their claims. As summarized in the Statement of the Case,
<br /> the public had notice since 1993 of the nature of this project, from public proceedings on the
<br /> EIS,the SMA Permits,rezonings, state land use redistricting, general plan amendments, and
<br /> even a Development Agreement.
<br /> 3. Plaintiffs Delayed Filing Their HRS Chapter 205 Claims Until December 21, 2000,
<br /> To the Substantial Prejudice of Defendants Oceanside and Co=. and Nonpartyot
<br /> Purchasers.
<br /> Despite the years of repeated and varied public notice, from 1993 on, of the planned
<br /> residential/agricultural subdivision on the property,the Plaintiffs failed to file their HRS Chapter
<br /> 205 claims in any forum until the Second Amended Complaint in this case, filed December 21,
<br /> 2000. R at 473, 488-489. In short,Plaintiffs slept on their HRS Chapter 205 claims from
<br /> September 1993 through December 21, 2000, over seven years.
<br /> During the seven years of Plaintiffs slumber, Defendant-Appellant Oceanside diligently
<br /> pursued its SMA Permits, Use Permits, rezonings, general plan amendments, and state land use
<br /> boundary amendments in public forums as needed.
<br /> In the years 1999-2000, after the rezonings and Development Agreement,Defendant-
<br /> Appellant Oceanside invested approximately forty-five million dollars ($45,000,000.00) in
<br /> construction. R, Test. Robert A. Stuit, Tr., July 23, 2003, a.m.,pp. 62, 64-65. This included the
<br /> golf course, and improvements for all Phase I lots, including over ten miles of road and utilities,
<br /> water wells and reservoirs, and the start of a wastewater treatment plant. Id., at 63.
<br /> 31
<br />
|