Laserfiche WebLink
a. Only the Circuit Court Has Changed the Law, and The Agricultural <br /> Lots Were Permitted as Farm Dwellings, Accessory To or <br /> Compatible To Agricultural Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 <br /> b. Oceanside Complied With Advice of Counsel to Comply With <br /> HRS Chapter 205. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 <br /> c. State Agencies Were Consulted at Various Stages;No State Agency <br /> Required or Advised that a State Land Use Boundary <br /> Amendment Was Required. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 <br /> d. Defendant-Appellant Oceanside Was Not Obligated to Seek <br /> an LUC Declaratory Ruling or Boundary Amendment. . . . . . . . 54 <br /> 2. The Permits and Zoning Relied Upon Were Not Illegal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 <br /> a. The Rezoning and Subdivision Approvals Were Not Illegal <br /> "Parceling"of an"Urban Resort"Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 <br /> b. The Rezoning and Subdivision Approvals Were Not Illegal <br /> "Spot Zoning." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 <br /> c. Summary: The Hokuli'a Permits and Zoning Are Valid, <br /> and Vested Rights or Estoppel Should Apply to <br /> Bar This Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 <br /> 3. Even if Some Permits or Ordinances Are Found Invalid, <br /> It Was Reasonable for Oceanside to Have Relied Upon Them, <br /> and Estoppel or Vested Rights Should Apply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 <br /> E. The Trial Court Erred in Ruling that the County of Hawaii Violated <br /> a Public Trust Duty to Protect the Coastal Waters Offshore of Hokuli'a. . . . . . . 62 <br /> 1. The State of Hawaii,Not the County,has Public Trust <br /> Obligations Under the State's Public Trust Doctrine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 <br /> 2. Plaintiff-Appellees Failed to Carry Their Burden of Proof <br /> Regarding the Alleged Runoff Pollution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 <br /> F. The Trial Court Erred When it Awarded Plaintiffs' Attorneys Fees Under The <br /> "Private Attorney General"Doctrine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 <br /> 1. This Court Should Reject the Private Attorney General <br /> Doctrine in Land Use Cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 <br /> 2. The PAG Doctrine Application Factors Are not Met In This Case. . . . . . . . . 68 <br /> 3. The Trial Court Erred in Failing to Distinguish Between Successful and <br /> Unsuccessful Claims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 <br /> V. Law Relevant to the Issues Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 <br /> VI. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 <br /> Appendices <br /> Statement of Related Cases <br /> Certificate of Service <br /> -iii- <br />