Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2014

Home

February 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 4 Zoning Bulletin HAWAI'I (12/19./13) This case addressed the issue of whether a plaintiff's claims were ripe for adjudication (i.e., ready to be heard by the court). The Background/Facts: The Knudsen Trust ("Knudsen") owned 208 acres of land in Koloa, Kaua'i. In April 2003, Knudsen filed an application with the County of Kaua'i Planning Commission (the "Planning Commis- sion") to subdivide that land. Knudsen sought to implement Phase I of its planned residential community development, which would consist of ap- proximately 20 acres of land bordered on the west by Hapa Road. Hapa Road had been deemed a historically significant site. In January 2009, subject to a mitigation plan for Hapa Road, which was recommended by the Department of Land and Natural Resources ("DLNR") State Historic Preservation Division ("SHPD"), the Planning Commission granted final subdivision approval of the development. Subsequently, Theodore K. Blake ("Blake") filed a civil complaint. He asserted six claims against: the Planning Commission; the County of Kaua'i Planning Department; the planning director of DLNR; and the chair of DLNR; and Knudsen (collectively, the "Defendants"). Among other things, Blake alleged failure of the Defendants to follow the proper environmental and historic review processes, violations of Native Hawaiian rights, and breaches of the public trust. Blake subsequently amended his complaint in part because he discovered that Hapa Road belonged to the State of Hawai'i and not the County. In his amended complaint, Blake also asserted two ad- ditional claims of negligence and public nuisance against Knudsen for al- legedly breaching Hapa Road and its adjacent rock wall. The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to find there were no material issues of fact in dispute and to decide the matter in their favor on the law alone. Among other things, the Defendants argued that Blake's claims were not ripe for adjudication because Knudsen was "prohibited from going forward on [the development] until such time as [it] receive[d] approval from the [DLNR] for an easement across Hapa Road." The circuit court agreed with the Defendants and issued summary judg- ment in their favor. The court determined that, because the DLNR had not given its approval to breach Hapa-Road, the issues raised in Blajje's com- plaint were not ripe for adjudication. The court therefore dismissed the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Intermediate Court of Appeals a$urrped the circuit court's order. Blake appealed, arguing that all eight of his claims were ripe for adjudication. DECISION: Judgment of Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated, and matter remanded. The Supreme Court of Hawai'i agreed with Blake. It held that the Plan- ning Commission's final approval of Knudsen's subdivision application constituted "final agency action" for purposes of ripeness. In so holding, the court explained that in, determining whether a claim is 10 © 2014 Thomson Reuters