Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin February 25, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 4 Eventually, the LUC reclassified Horton-Schuler's lands from the state land use district to the state urban land use district, subject to conditions. The Opponents appealed the LUC's decision and order to the circuit court. They alleged that the LUC violated: (1) Article XI, § 3 of the Hawai'i State Constitution, which provides that the State shall conserve and protect agricultural lands and shall not reclassify lands identified as important agricultural lands; (2) Act 183, codified at Hawai'i Revised Statutes ("HRS") §§ 205-41 through -52, and also known as Part III of HRS chapter 205 ("Part III"), which implements Article XI, § 3's mandate and governs land use on important agricul- tural lands ("IALs"); and (3) Hawai'i Administrative Rules ("HAR") § 15-15-77, which requires reclassification to confoiiii to the Hawai'i State Plan. Generally, the Opponents argued that the LUC should be required to stay reclassification of the "potentially important agricul- tural land" owned by Horton -Schuler pending foiuial designation of IALs' by the relevant counties, pursuant to Part III. Under Part III, each county must "identify and map potential important agricultural lands within its jurisdiction. . .," which the county councils then adopts, with or without changes, by resolution, and sends to the LUC for further action. Here, the relevant counties had not yet submitted their IAL recommendations. The circuit court dismissed the Opponents' appeal and affirmed the LUC's decision and order. The Opponents again appealed, and the Supreme Court of Hawai'i accepted transfer of the case. DECISION: Judgment of circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Hawai'i held that a stay of reclassification proceedings pending IAL deteiiiiinations was not required. The court concluded that the LUC properly reclassified Horton-Schuler's prop- erty from the agricultural land use district to the urban land use district. In so holding and concluding, the court looked at the language of Article XI, § 3. The Opponents had pointed to the provisions that require any "[1]ands identified by the State as important agricultural lands. . . shall not be reclassified by the State. . .without meeting the standards and criteria established by the legislature and approved by a two-thirds vote of the body responsible for the reclassification. ..action." The court said that constitutional provi- sion alone did not require the LUC to suspend reclassification proceedings pending formal identification of IALs in order to "conserve and protect" agricultural land because "Article XI, Sec- tion 3, standing alone, is 'not self-executing,. . .has no effect and © 2016 Thomson Reuters 7