Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 10, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 15 constitutional rights, . . . 5C 1983 does not provide redress in federal court for viola- tions of state law. "Finding the Samsons had suffered no violation of their constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process, the court affirmed the order granting the City's motion for summary judgment. Case Note: In finding that the choice of a moratorium as the favored policy mechanism for regulat- ing development was nonarbitrary, the court noted that "moratoria, or `interim development controls' . . . are an essential tool of development." Restrictive Conditions/Landfill— State Agency Permits Landfill xpansion Subject To Restrictive Condition City challenges restriction, saying it is unsupported by substantial evidence Citation: Department of Environmental Services, City and County of Hono- lulu v. Land Use Com'n, State of Hawaii, 127 Haw. 5, 275 P.3d 809 (2012) HAWAI'I (05/04/12)—As a matter of first impression (i.e., the first time the court addressed such an issue), this case addressed the issue of whether a restrictive covenant imposed by decision or order of an agency (the Land Use Commission) was supported by substantial evidence, and thus valid. The Background/Facts: In 2008, the Department of Environmental Ser- vices for the City and County of Honolulu (the "DES") applied to the state Land Use Commission ("LUC") for a special use permit ("SUP") to expand the existing Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill ("WGSL"). The LUC ap- proved the SUP (the "LUC Order") subject to, among other things, a condition prohibiting the WGSL from accepting municipal solid waste after July 31, 2012 ("Condition 14"). DES appealed the LUC Order, challenging the validity of Condition 14. DES argued that Condition 14 was "Arbitrary and Capricious, Characterized by Abuse of Discretion, and a Clearly Unwarranted Exercise of Discretion." DES asserted that the record on which the LUC relied established that there would always be waste material that could not be combusted, recycled, reused, or shipped. Therefore, DES argued, an option to dispose of municipal solid waste at WGSL would continue to be necessary beyond the July 31, 2012 deadline as imposed in Condition 14. Among other things, the LUC maintained that Condition 14 was reasonable and supported by the record. © 2012 Thomson Reuters 5