|
Our law firm won a landmark land use case when a Big Island judge reversed the State Land Use Commission’s decision to downzone the 1,000-acre Aina Lea residential and commercial development.
Landowner Bridge Aina Le`a, LLC—represented by attorneys Bruce Voss, Michael Carroll, and Matthew Shannon—challenged the Land Use Commission’s controversial order which would have changed the property’s land use classification to agricultural use. It was the first time in its 50-year history that the Land Use Commission had attempted to kill an ongoing project while affordable housing was being built on the property.
Circuit Court Judge Elizabeth Strance ruled that the Land Use Commission’s action violated the state’s land use statute, Chapter 205, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the constitution. Judge Strance stated the Land Use Commission had “lost sight of its mission”. Judge Strance’s ruling echoed many of the arguments that firm attorneys Voss and Carroll had made to the Commission over the last two years.
The ruling sets an important precedent for developers and lenders on projects throughout the state of Hawaii. The ruling makes clear that the Land Use Commission cannot kill a development project based solely on alleged non-compliance with a condition imposed by the Commission. Instead, Judge Strance ruled, the Commission must consider the County general plan and all of the other land use planning factors required by the state Legislature.
Below are excerpts of articles in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser and West Hawaii Today concerning Judge Strance’s decision:
Judge rules for developer on affordable housing
Honolulu Star-Advertiser
December 20, 2011
By Andrew Gomes
A 2,300-home community planned on Hawaii island called The Villages of Aina Le`a will be allowed to proceed after a state judge overruled an April decision by the state Land Use Commission blocking the project because of a missed deadline to complete affordable housing.
Circuit Court Judge Elizabeth Strance ruled on Friday in favor of the project’s two developers, which filed lawsuits appealing the LUC’s decision to revoke its earlier approval of urbanizing 1,060 acres near Waikoloa for the estimated $1 billion project.
Strance found the LUC acted improperly and that enforcement of development conditions should be left to the county. . .
Bruce Voss, an attorney representing the project’s other landowner and developer, Bridge Aina Le`a, LLC, called Strance’s ruling a historic one with broader implications because it clarifies the circumstances for the LUC imposing conditions and revoking prior approvals.
“This decision removes a dark cloud over not only this project, but on other projects, too,” Voss said.
3rd Circuit reverses LUC ruling
December 16, 2011 - 11:14pm
BY ERIN MILLER | WEST HAWAII TODAY
A Big Island judge ruled the Land Use Commission overstepped its authority when it reverted a South Kohala land classification from urban to agriculture earlier this year.
Third Circuit Court Judge Elizabeth Strance reversed the commission's decision, returning the petition to the LUC, which must rescind its final decision and its order to show cause in the case.
Developers DW Aina Lea and Bridge Aina Lea sued the commission after that quasi-judicial board reprimanded DW Aina Lea for failing to complete 385 affordable townhouse units by November 2010. The commission had imposed that and other conditions on Bridge Aina Lea, which was the previous owner.
The property, mauka of Queen Kaahumanu Highway near the Mauna Lani Resort, had changed hands several times over the past 22 years since the commission initially granted the land use classification change from agriculture to urban.
"This is an interesting case because there isn't case law on what kind of conditions the LUC can impose and how to enforce those short of reclassification," Strance said during the Friday afternoon hearing.
The more specific the conditions the LUC imposed, Strance said, the more uncertainty the developer faced. . . .
Strance also ruled that Bridge Aina Lea attorney Bruce Voss was correct in arguing that the commission's decision violated the developers' equal protection rights.
"The LUC treated them differently and it did so intentionally and without a rational basis," Strance said. |
