Leone v. County of Maui
2012 Haw. App. LEXIS 661
Haw. App.2012Background
- Consolidated appeal from Maui County takings and due process challenges; Leones and Larsons seek inverse condemnation relief and §1983 damages; circuit court dismissed for lack of ripeness; appellants alleged final decision by Director denied development rights; CZMA SMA framework and Community Plan constrained use of Palauea Beach lots designated as park; assessment applications were filed and rejected for inconsistency with the Community Plan; Director’s decision prompted ripeness questions and potential future plan amendments; this court vacates and remands.
- Palauea Beach parcels are zoned Hotel-Multifamily but designated park in the Community Plan; parcels lie within a CZMA SMA; SMA permits and exemptions hinge on consistency with the Community Plan; developers funded environmental assessment but were rebuffed when plan designation remained park.
- The Director refused to process the assessments as inconsistent with the Community Plan; appellants asserted regulatory takings and constitutional claims; circuit court held claims unripe due to exhaustion of administrative remedies; appellants timely appealed.
- Hawai'i Community Plan is binding; SMA Rule 12-202-12(f) requires processing only if consistent with plan; finality/finality of the Director’s determination is the ripeness touchstone; Williamson framework governs finality and exhaustion analysis.
- Appellants seek ripeness despite not pursuing an amendment to the Community Plan; the court holds Community Plan amendment is legislative, not an administrative remedy like a variance; ripeness does not require changing the law, only exhausting administrative variances under existing law if applicable.
- Court remands after vacating final judgments; holds Director’s decision to not process assessment applications constitutes a final determination for ripeness; not requiring plan amendment to reach ripe takings claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the takings claims are ripe despite not exhausting all administrative remedies. | Leones/Larsons argue claims ripe; no need to exhaust where final decision affects property use. | Maui County argues lack of ripe claims due to no final administrative decision and absence of plan amendment. | Yes; Director’s final determination as to processing suffices for ripeness. |
| Whether an amendment to the Community Plan is a prerequisite to ripeness. | Amendment not required; plan has force of law but not an admin remedy. | Amendment akin to variances; needed to ripen claims. | No; Community Plan amendment is legislative, not required for ripeness. |
| Whether the Director’s decision not to process assessments is a final decision for ripeness purposes. | Director’s final position on use of the land suffices for finality. | Appeal to the Commission would be required to exhaust remedies. | Yes; Director's denial constitutes a final decision for ripeness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson v. Planning Comm’n, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (takings ripeness final decision doctrine)
- Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (U.S. Supreme Court 2001) (ripeness depends on finality and beneficial use after regulation)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. Supreme Court 2005) (regulatory takings framework and categories)
- GATRI v. Blane, 88 Hawai'i 108 (Hawai'i Supreme Court 1998) (Community Plan has force of law; non-admin remedy interpretation)
- Kailua Community Council v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 60 Haw. 428 (Hawai'i Supreme Court 1979) (general/long-range planning amendments are legislative acts)
- Ward v. Bennett, 79 N.Y.2d 394 (N.Y. Court of Appeals 1992) (exhaustion/primary jurisdiction considerations in administrative review)