556 P.3d 387
Haw.2024Background
- In 2019, the County of Hawai‘i passed an ordinance banning short-term vacation rentals (STRs) in the state agricultural district for lots created after June 4, 1976.
- Petitioners (Rosehill et al.), who own such lots, challenged the ordinance after being denied nonconforming use certificates to operate STRs.
- The Hawai‘i Land Use Commission (LUC) held that farm dwellings in the agricultural district cannot be used as STRs, finding such use incompatible with agricultural purposes.
- The circuit court reversed the LUC, reasoning that farm dwellings and STRs are not inherently incompatible uses under HRS § 205-4.5, and that the ordinance conflicted with state law.
- The LUC and County appealed, raising both procedural (appellate jurisdiction, proper record scope) and substantive (compatibility of uses under state law) issues, ultimately leading to direct review by the Hawai‘i Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the LUC: STRs are not permitted in agricultural districts as farm dwellings, as this would undermine the statutory purpose to preserve agricultural lands for agricultural use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction and Record Scope | Circuit court had appellate jurisdiction; entire lower court record should be considered. | Appeal should have gone directly to the Supreme Court; only LUC record counts. | Case could be transferred nunc pro tunc; Supreme Court may use the whole record but owes no deference to the circuit court. |
| Consistency of LUC Orders (County v. Rosehill petitions) | LUC erred by granting County's petition but denying Rosehill's as speculative when issues were the same. | County needed determination for enforcement; Rosehill's use was hypothetical, lacking specific facts. | LUC properly distinguished the parties; Petitioners failed to show actual farm dwelling use. |
| Statutory Interpretation: Can farm dwellings be used for STRs under HRS § 205-4.5? | Statute does not set a minimum rental period; STR use is not barred by statute. | Only expressly permitted uses are allowed; STRs are not listed, and use as STRs is not agricultural. | STRs are not a permitted use for farm dwellings in the agricultural district; statute aims to prevent non-agricultural use. |
| Validity of County Ordinance | Ordinance conflicts with state law by restricting permitted use of farm dwellings. | Counties can enact more restrictive zoning if consistent with state law’s purposes. | County ordinance valid—county may impose stricter rules consistent with statutory intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Save Sunset Beach Coal. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 102 Hawai‘i 465 (Counties may impose more restrictive land use regulations than state law if not inconsistent)
- Curtis v. Bd. of Appeals, 90 Hawai‘i 384 (Ambiguous land use statutes should be strictly construed; look to legislative intent)
- Honoipu Hideaway, LLC v. Land Use Comm’n, 154 Hawai‘i 372 (Court can transfer appeal nunc pro tunc to preserve party rights post-jurisdictional clarifications)
- In re Kanahele, 152 Hawai‘i 501 (LUC declaratory orders equivalent to contested-case orders for judicial review purposes)