Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/2016

Home

February 25, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 4 Zoning Bulletin does not act as a barrier to reclassification.' " Moreover, the court found that the plain language of Article XI, § 3 did not require the LUC to stay reclassification proceedings until the IAL mapping pro- cess was complete. The court next looked to the implementing legislation of Article XI, § 3: Act 183, known as Part III. Again, the court found that the plain language of Part III contained "no provision requiring a stay" of reclassification pending IALs designations. The Opponents had also argued that the reclassification of the lands here did not comply with HAR § 15-15-77, which requires reclas- sification to comply with the Hawai'i State Plan, and (1) not substan- tially impair agricultural production; or (2) be necessary for urban growth. The court found the Opponents' argument was unpersuasive. The court found that the Opponents had failed to provide an argu- ment on the issue of whether the reclassification violated the Hawai'i State Plan. Moreover, although the LUC had found that reclassifica- tion was reasonably necessary for urban growth, the court found that the Opponents had failed to challenge that LUC finding. The court concluded that it was therefore bound by the LUC finding, and that even if it were not so bound, substantial evidence supported the LUC' s additional findings that the reclassification would not substan- tially impair agricultural production. Consequently, the court found it could not conclude that the LUC's decision and order violated HAR § 15-15-77. For those reasons, the Supreme Court of Hawai'i affirmed the circuit court's decision and order, which affirmed the LUC's decision and order, and dismissed the. Opponents' appeal. See also: Save Sunset Beach Coalition v. City and County of Ho- nolulu, 102 Haw. 465, 78 P.3d 1 (2003). 8 ©2016 Thomson Reuters