526 P.3d 314
Haw.2023Background
- Property: ~7.9 acres of class B agricultural land near Lahaina, Maui; portion of a larger parcel formerly used for sugarcane cultivation.
- Project: Hoʻomoana Foundation proposed a 2-acre overnight campground (Kauaula Campground) for unhoused and commercial campers (up to ~80 people) plus an adjacent ~5.9-acre agricultural field for optional therapy/work.
- Administrative history: Foundation sought a county special use permit; neighboring homeowners petitioned the Land Use Commission (LUC) for a declaratory order that the project required a district boundary amendment because overnight camps are excluded on class A/B lands.
- LUC ruled special permits cannot authorize overnight camps on class A/B land and that a district boundary amendment is required; circuit court reversed relying on Mahaʻulepu; the ICA addressed intervention and Mahaʻulepu; the case reached the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court on certiorari.
- Holding: The Supreme Court held that uses expressly excluded by HRS §205-4.5(a)(6) (including overnight camps) cannot be authorized by special use permit on class A/B agricultural land, so the proposed campground requires a district boundary amendment; the court overruled Mahaʻulepu.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether uses expressly excluded by HRS §205-4.5(a)(6) can be authorized by county special use permit under HRS §§205-4.5(b) and 205-6 | Foundation: §205-4.5(a)(6) merely excludes those uses from the "open area" phrase; other uses may be allowed as "unusual and reasonable" by special permit | LUC/Homeowners: The statute’s explicit exclusion shows the Legislature intended those uses to be unreasonable and not eligible for special permits | Held: Excluded uses (dragstrips, airports, drive-ins, golf courses/ranges, country clubs, overnight camps) cannot be authorized by special use permit on class A/B agricultural land |
| Whether the proposed campground is an "overnight camp" requiring a district boundary amendment | Foundation: The project can be characterized and approved via special use permit (or is not excluded as an "overnight camp" in a way that bars a permit) | LUC/Homeowners: The project is an overnight camp and thus excluded from §205-4.5(a)(6); it therefore requires a district boundary amendment | Held: The project is an overnight camp; it cannot be authorized by special permit and requires a district boundary amendment |
| Whether Mahaʻulepu v. LUC remains controlling law | Foundation: Mahaʻulepu should remain; stare decisis is strong for statutory interpretation and the Legislature can amend if it disagrees | LUC/Homeowners: Mahaʻulepu was wrongly decided and should be abandoned | Held: Mahaʻulepu was incorrectly decided and is overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Mahaʻulepu v. Land Use Comm'n, 71 Haw. 332, 790 P.2d 906 (1990) (case overruled; previously held golf courses could be authorized by special permit)
- In re Hawai'i Elec. Light Co., [citation="145 Hawai'i 1, 445 P.3d 673"] (2019) (administrative review standards)
- Ito v. Invs. Equity Life Holding Co., [citation="135 Hawai'i 49, 346 P.3d 118"] (2015) (statutory-interpretation methodology)
- Kaua'i Springs, Inc. v. Planning Comm'n of Cnty. of Kaua'i, [citation="133 Hawai'i 141, 324 P.3d 951"] (2014) (purpose of chapter 205 to protect natural resources and orderly land use)
- Dairy Rd. Partners v. Island Ins. Co., [citation="92 Hawai'i 398, 992 P.2d 93"] (2000) (standards for overruling precedent)