HomeMy WebLinkAboutSession15_Planning LawDays of Future Past
Cal Chipchase
Cades Schutte LLP
Topliss v. Planning Comm.
9 Haw. App. 377 (Ct. App. 1993)
•In other words, if traffic from a development within an SMA is
not shown to have a substantial adverse effect on the coastal
environment, such impact as the traffic may otherwise have on
the existing roadway system in the area of the development
cannot be the basis for denying an SMAP application.
•Additionally, even if the development in this case is shown to
have a substantial adverse effect in accordance with the statute,
the Commission was required under HRS § 205A–26(2)(A) to
determine whether that effect could be practicably minimized
and, when minimized, whether the effect is clearly outweighed
by public health, safety, or compelling public interests.
Linda K. Rosehill, et al. v. State of Hawai‘i, et al.
Case No. SCAP-22-0000371
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful
tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor
less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean
so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master
— that’s all.” ― Lewis Carroll,Through the Looking Glass
Maui Lani Neighbors, Inc. v. State of Hawai‘i, et al.
Case No. SCWC-16-0000444
If you snooze, do you lose?
Who’s Lianed Is It Anyway?