Hokulia asks
court to reconsiderThe developer cites a Supreme
Court ruling in its request for
the project to proceed
HILO >> The developer of the luxury Hokulia residential development in West Hawaii is asking a state judge to reconsider his ruling that halted the project, in light of a recent state Supreme Court decision in a similar case.
Circuit Judge Ronald Ibarra ruled Sept. 8 that the multimillion-dollar development was an illegal use of agricultural land. He ordered all work stopped.
On Wednesday, attorneys for developer 1250 Oceanside Partners filed a motion in Ibarra's court contending that, based on the Supreme Court ruling in an Oahu case, the Hokulia project should be allowed to proceed.
The Supreme Court upheld last month a lower court ruling that said the Honolulu City Council acted within its powers to rezone a bluff above Sunset Beach for a residential development.
In the mid-1990s, Japanese company Obayashi Hawaii Corp. announced plans for a 765-acre development of 1-acre lots on Oahu's North Shore. The plans called for residents of the proposed Lihi Lani subdivision to conduct farming on their lots, thereby satisfying the requirement that homes in the state agriculture district be in some way involved in agriculture.
The Council changed the land's zoning from agricultural to country to accommodate the development.
Two citizens groups, the Save Sunset Beach Coalition and Life of the Land, filed suit to halt the project. The plaintiffs claimed Obayashi was not serious about requiring buyers to farm a portion of their land and that the Council did not have the authority to change the zoning.
Opponents of Hokulia made similar arguments, contending the development does not comply with state land use law on agricultural land because its primary purpose is not agriculture.
In the Oahu case a Circuit Court judge ruled against the plaintiffs in January 1998. The Supreme Court upheld the decision Oct. 20.
The lower court said it was too early for the plaintiffs to claim there would be no agricultural activity on the land. Instead, compliance would be monitored during application for various permits.
In its motion before Ibarra, the Hokulia developer says it should be allowed to proceed, based on the high court ruling.
"Their argument is weak at best," said Robert D.S. Kim, attorney for Hokulia's opponents. "It's like comparing apples and oranges."
Kim pointed out the country zoning designation given to Lihi Lani does not exist on the Big Island. He also said that individual homeowners at Lihi Lani would be responsible for farming activities, whereas at Hokulia an owners association would maintain an "agricultural easement" through each parcel.
Ibarra is expected to rule on the motion within the week.