Case Title: Brescia v. North Shore Ohana. Concurring Opinion by J. Levinson, with whom C.J. Moon joins [pdf]. S.Ct. Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration and/or Clarification, filed 08/31/2007 [pdf].

Citation: 115 Haw. 477

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2007-07-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
‘s*470R PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTERS+#

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

 

00.

JOSEPH A. BRESCIA, Plaintiff/appellant-Appellee

 

NORTH SHORE OHANA, HAROLD BRONSTEIN and CAREN DIAMOND,
Defendants /Appellees-Appellante

 

and

runswane comnssion oF aie counne or mwas)
Defendant /Appellee Ibs

   

Wy 2l
G31.

No. 27211

APPEAL FROM THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. No, 3-1-0177)

 

guLy 12, 2007

NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, AND DUFFY, 33.; WITH LEVINSON, J.,
CONCURRING SEPARATELY, AND WITH WHOM MOON, C.J., JOINS

‘OPINION OF THE COURT BY ACOBA, J.
We hold in this secondary appeal by Defendants/
Appellees-Appellants North Shore Ohana, Hareld Bronstein, and
Caren Diamond [hereinafter collectively, “Appellants”], from the
Merch 4, 2005 judgment of the circuit court of the fifth circuit!
(the court) issved pursuant to the court's March 4, 2005 findings
of fact, conclusions of law, decision and order reversing and

remanding, in favor of Plaintiff/Appellant-Appellee Joseph A.

 

Brescia (Brescia), the June 10, 2003 decision of

 

Defendant/Appellee Kaua'i County Planning Conmieion (the

‘The Honcrsble George M. Matvoka presided.

 
   

'+FOR FUELICATION IN WEST’ § HAWAI'I REPORTS AND FACIFIC REPORTER'S

 

Commission) to deny Brescia’s application, the June 16, 2003
Commission’s order denying Brescia’s motion for reconsideration,
and the Conmission’s findings of fact, conclusions of law,
decision and order dated September 9, 2003 (2003 order), that:
(1) the Comnission’s decision in enforcing the shoreline setback
Line as shown on the July 1, 1983 subdivision map is supported by
reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, (2) the Commission
did not act arbitrarily or abuse its discretion in denying
Brescia's request for an amendment or variance as to his lot to
build within 31 feet of the shoreline, given that, inter alia,
other shoreline setbacks in the area ranged from approximately 35
to 80 feet, (3) Brescia did not have a right to rely on
representations of the County of Kaua'i Planning Department
(Planning Department), if any, as to any purported setback
boundary inasmuch as (a) the Conmission retained the authority to
establish shoreline setbacks within the Special Management Area
(SMA), as opposed to any individual planning department employee,
and (b) Brescia was on notice that @ restriction in his deed
Provided that the Commission could impose a greater shoreline
setback at the time of building permit review, (4) Brescia was
not vested with a sufficient property interest to implicate any
alleged due process violation and, in any event, at the time of
building permit review he was given a full public hearing by the
Commission, and (8) inasmuch as Brescia acknowledged to the
Commission that utilizing the Developer's Setback provided

Br + and 4,974 sq. ft. of buildable

   

with between 4,203 sq.
 

‘s*4F0R PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND FACIFIC REPORTER:

area, and Brescia’s own architect testified that utilizing the

Developer's Setback did not necessarily make the lot unbuildable,

 

Brescia did not demonstrate that he was denied reasonable use of
his property. Accordingly, we vacate the court’s March 4, 2008
Judgment, and remand to the court with instructions to enter
judgment affirming the 2003 order.

1.

AL

‘The subject property owned by Brescia is Lot 6 within

the 15-lot? Wainiha Subdivision 11, located on the makai? aide of '
Alealea Road on the north shore of the island of Kaue'i. The
subdivision is located in the SMA along the shoreline. Any
development in the SMA is governed by the Coastal Zone Management
Act (C2MA), codified in Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter
205A. The CZMA includes guidelines for development within the
SMR. The legislature, finding that “special controls on
developments within an area elong the shoreline are necessary to
avoid permanent losses of valuable resources and the foreclosure
of management options,” HRS § 205-21 (2001), delegated the
responsibility to each of the counties of enforcing the
objectives and policies of the CZMA and of issuing SMA permits in
accordance with the stetute’s mandates, A policy under the CZMA

is to “{e]nsure that new cevelopents are compatible with their

2 obeter:
includes 28 or 16 love

counts are present as to whether the subdivision

se net material, however, co cur eiecuetion,

          

    

> ose se or “toward the see[.]” Mery
ae).

Pokol ¢ Samuel hi, Etbert, Hawaiian Dieticuary 228 (rev, eds
3

 
{S*4FOR FUBLICATION I MEST’ HAWAI'I REPORTS AND FACIFIC REPORTERS

 

visual environment by designing and locating such developments to

 

minimize the slteration of natural landforms and existing public
views to and slong the shoreline(.]" HRS § 205R-2(c) (3) (B)
(2001). Further, an objective of the C2MA 4s to “{rleduce hazard
to Life and property from teunami, storm waves, stream flooding,
erosion, subsidence, and pollution.” HRS $ 20SA-2(b) (6) (A)
(2001).

on Kaua's, the Connission is the body charged with
smplenentation of the C2MA. In that regard, the Commission
adopted the Planning Departnent’s “Shoreline Setback Rules and
Regulations” {hereinafter “Kavi Roles") in furtherance of this
ebligatson. HRS § 20SA-48 (2001), entitled “Conflict of other
ows,” states in relevant part that “[i]n case of » conflict
between the reguizenents of any other state law or county
ordinance regarding shoreline setback Lines, the nore restrictive
requizenents shall apply in furthering the purposes of this
part.”

2
Tale fe the second tine the Wainiha Subdivision TZ hes

been c

 

sidered by this court. On Octeber 25, 1978, the
Conmission approved SMA Permit (U)-79-1 allowing for the

Gevelopnent of the subdivision. The Connissicn’s issuance of SMA
(U)-79-1 was subsequently challenged and eventually overturned by

this court in Ma » n Yn, 65 Haw. $06, €54 P.2d

 

674 (1982).
‘S*4FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S EAWAI'T REFORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER®

 

on July 5, 1983, developer Alex Ferreira (the

Developer) reapplied for an SMA Use Permit. The Developer

proposed a 22-lot subdivision. Included within his application

was a proposed preliminary subdivision plan map dated July 1,

 

1983, on which the Developer designated a so-called “Zoning
District Boundary Setback Line” [hereinafter “Developer's
Setback”]. The Developer also included in his application an
Environmental Aeseeement which stated, inter alia, that “Inlo
structures are allowed within 40 feet of the certified shoreline
and, therefore, the shoreline area will not be affected.”

After community opposition was expressed, ‘the Developer
presented a second proposal for 2 20-lot subdivision, again
indicating the same Developer's Setback on a map dated Septenber
19, 1983. A third plan proposing 19 lots was also submitted at
the same time, and it too included a map indicating the
Develeper's Setback. The Director of the Planning Department

stated the following, inter alia, in his evaluation of these two

 

 

proposals:
sauna ExAOINGS:
laistscnenay, (the Seveloper) proposed the following
TSEISLETIGAL’ oppldcabie co eleher"Gee fon scheme enedens
Stor STPES eto ta eandaes to geste Peston and

 
‘49FOR FUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER*##

 

This shoreline property 1s located within the
Orban Lond Use District, is further zoned
Resicential District (R-4), with «strip slong

‘the shoreline zoned Open District 10), the’
orth shere fevelsonent Plan Tecate maintains
‘He_Ghen District (01 to avoid the undue
‘[iskcachient of structures onto the ehoreline.
.
Eibedon the foregcing, it te concluded that the design

alternatives conform to the Raval Ceneral Flan, the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinsnce, and the Subdivision

Ordinance. It ig further concluded that adverse
sreironmental and ecologies] effects can be minimized, and
st iciet end cvldelines contain 7

2052 of the IGRS1, and Aules and Reauletions of the County
St Kasai relating to cbiectives, policies and euicelines,

 

Bt 1s ido" concluded that provided all these restrictions
are established, it te not
Siternative and’ tha

Eubdivicion review end spprevel- In necting sé chiectives,,

ik ip nore important to extebligh the restrictions and
GEiteris st this tine snd not necessarily the supivision
Tevout.

 
  

(Emphases added.)
After continued opposition by beth connunity members
and members of the Conmission, the Developer presented a fourth
proposal for a 1S-lot subdivision, Like all of its predecessor
proposals, it was accompanied by @ map that included the sane

Developer's Setback. On Decenber 15, 1983, the Commission issued

 

its “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision and ord
approving SMA (U)-84-2. No reference to the maps presented in
the proceedings was made in the SMA (U)-64-2 order. However, the
Commission's findings included the following:

The Zoning for the property se
ceicential District (Rr4)™ end Open District

  

feet wide, ihe property 12s
‘s+4FOR PUSLICATION IN WEST! § RAWAZ'I REPORTS AND FACIFIC REFORTERS**

 

iz! he arate north shore Development Plan Update
(orth Shore Update”), as pproved by the
Planning Coamisslen, recommends that the subject
site and surrounding properties be rezoned from
ite present Residentiel bistrict” (R-4) /open
District (0) to Residential District (R-2)/open
District (0) due to their Jocetion in a coastal
high hezerd zone area... snd due to the rural
Reture of the ares.
Shore Usdate ie sti subtect tae) public
hearings at the County Council level; B) County
Couneli review and approvals and c) review and
approval by the Mayor.

sa nejuinivbers

22, The North Shore of Kauai has long been
recognised for ite natural Deasty and scenic
Qualities. The goals of the North shore
Develepnent Flan Update reflect thet the area's
nigue natural beauty end special rural charm
should be preserved.” eens definstely reflects
Uhese charscteristice, and eny developnent
Within the ares should be sensitive to ene
Quelities that make it a special place. Ap

 

 

 

 

reserve tnd wh te 7
‘the quality of coastal scenic and cpen space
A supporting policy of this cbiectiv

focsting sich cevelcpnente to-mininize the

fublie views te and alone the shoreline.”

 

nother obtective relates to redveing nea
fe erty from tsunami, storm seve

Seselocnent in cress scbject fo ster wav

ae a ainsien ant Sabriena

beseras*

The Weens aren does have a {raoile envionment

 

cbiectives. Any development shoul reflect and
be Farmenicus with the present character of

 

at

 

Ccaetal scenic and open space rescurces, the
Stbaivieion of the real property shoulé and will
bject to the following restrictions

 

 

ke con shall bs sitnss
ip, Senatroctien shal be aloe
frsnerty slong the shoreline ys + (and)

icte chall be se wide o£ peecible so ae to
saxinize view planes to the shoreline? nd
‘#9FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'T REFORTS 2ND PACIFIC REFORTER!*#

 

the overall layout of the subdivision
shall be subject to Planning Comission
approval,

(Enphases' added. )
‘The Commission's conclusions in the SNA (U)-84-2 order

included, inter alia, the following:

1. The Planning Commission hae jurisdiction
Seer thie spplication pursuant te ERS
Chapter 205°A and the SHA Rules, and
the power under said statutes and rules to
Lspose ressonsble restriction and
conditions in the developnent of the ¥%
property herein.

   

1

 

4," ie de turther concluded thet provided that the
yectrictions es noted above fe eetabliched, it
ip not necessary to select « design alternative
and that such decision could be nage at time of
Eubdivision review and approval. In meeting SHA
ebjectives, it is sore inpertent to establish
the restrictions and criteria et this tine.

  

 

 

Among the conditions enumerated in the SMA (U)-84-2
order, in light of the “visual sensitivity of the site” were the

following:

 

2. Boe to the views) of the site in

8) Building locations, materials, and designs

shall be subject to [the Conieeson's)
Ecview ang spproval at the tine of
Bullding and soning permit application.
‘The bullding locations shell be
constructed cn the ground in strict
Sdherence to the approved eubaivision map
and buileing plot pisn

roma corrent certified shoreline at rine
St cevelemment. uo nart of any structure
sal penetrate the Open sone striae

‘renting the shoreline.
ec) Builainge shail be lisited to one story
above the fleed elevation.

 

b)

 

hi’ " he setback from Alesles fosd and Alanc'o
Road shail be a minimon ef 20 feet. All
cther frent yard cethecks shell be 18
feet. The eide yerd eetbacke shell be &

Hininun of 10 feet, ineressed setbacks
sn 2 ihe plang

 

 
‘*ATOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAWAL'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS*#

permit review if the deeien of a residence

Scrrante--areater eathactiate
ALLof the shove resuirenents shell be eciablished as
egbrictive covenants within each deed at the tine of

subdivision:
1

 

"" "8. tne everatl eubdivieion design and layout
. be'subsect to the review and/aroreval ef the
Acenmizaicnl in accordance with suk
The subaivieion ote shall be as

reauirenents.
wise a= porribie and

Roxinize view plane: oreline.

 

(Emphases added.)

After the {ssuence of SMA (U)-84-2, the Commission on
april 11, 1984, granted the Developer tentative subdivision
approval for a 15-lot subdivision, which differed in layout from
the previous (fourth) 15-lot proposal submitted by the Developer.
Once again, however, conditions of the approval were that all
building setbacks be measured from a certified shoreline, that no
part of any structure penetrate the Open zone strip fronting the
shoreline, and that these restrictions be made part-of all
subdivision deeds. After obtaining tentative subdivision
approval, the Developer sold the property to Sylvester Stallone
(Stallone), who subsequently sought approval of the final
subdivision nap.

on March 13, 1985, the Commission approved the final
subdivieion map. The final subdivision map, later recorded as
File Plan 1840, did not contain the Developer's Setback which had
appeared on all previous maps submitted to the Conmission.
Section 9-3.8 of the Kaua'i County Code, entitled “Final
Subdivision Map," requires that the final subdivision map

indicate, among other things, setback lines. Additionally,
‘s#070R FUBLICATION IN WEST'S IANAI'T REPCRES AND FACIFIC REPORTERS

Section 9-3.8(c) (5) of the Code, entitled “Errors and

Discrepancies,” stated:

he approval of the fina subdivicion sep by the Planning
Connissicn shall not relieve the spplicent of the
responsibility for any error in the dimensions or other
Giecrepancies or oversights. Errore, discrepancies, oF
oversights shall be revised or corrected, upon sequestt,) to
the eatiefaction of the Pisnning Commission.

 

 

 

On February 20, 1992, the Declaration of Covenants,

Conditions and Restrictions (hereinafter “cCtRs”) for the
‘the

 

subdivision was recorded at the State Bureau of Conveyanc

CcéRs stated, inter alia, the following: .
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS

AND RESTRICTIONS FOR WAINIHR SOBDIVISTON=11,

RECLIALS
WHEREAS, a6 2 condition to fine) subdivision spprova:
ronerty By the = certain re

‘Sovenante ware imposed upon the Eroperty, which restrictive
‘SSuenants are stated in Schedule “p sttached hereto and
nade 8 part hereo!t.)
WHEREAS, [Stailene], by making this Declaratien,
ans

gest 7
r Brosertys and
WoW, THEREFORE, (Stallone! ben
(as hereinafter defined), hereby

Geclaree that bert -
suguibered, conveved, sold. used, cccunied and improved,
ibiect to and 1 betefit tn th
suitations, restrictions, covenants and conditions set
Sersh in thie Ceclaration. sll of shleh are established and
isclared be Tor th enhanc

 

Pratectina the wales, desirability and attractiveness of the
Eccertv, there Linitetions, restrictions: covenants and
ihe bene (it of ang be binding Gn all parties having or oro

coquize eny right, tite er inte

   
 

TICLE 12
por sreseicHons
Section 1, county Restrictions, All Owners che

  

Her Getached-herete. In the event

tency between Schedule “B" and the

 

10
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAWAI'I REFCRTS 25D FACIFIC REPORTER*#

 

 

Section 2. Construction. No building . . . shall be
constructed. .'. until the complete plans, drawings and
Specifications therefor . = « have been submitted to and
approved by the Design Comittee. . ;.- No residence shall
Contain less than 2,500 square feet of covered space
(excluding garage, lanais and cutbulldings) «

Section $. Setback Lines. Al1 building setbacks
shall conform to the requirenents stated in Paragraph € of
. Schedule "E" attached hereto

 

 

Schedule “B" is a restatement of the conditions of

approval in SMA (U)-€4-2, and states in relevant part:

SCHEDULE “2”
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
FoR

i.” Buliaing tocations, materials and designe shell be
subject ‘te [Conmission) review and epproval at the time of
Building end soning permit application. - =

2: “All butidine setbacks shell ke nesiured from a
worrent certified shoreline at the tite 7

[Eonting the shoreline.
"W'.", aneresced setbscks shalt be required by the

 

 

 

 

io. “there shail be no reversing movenents onto Alea:
Reed, Each lot shall provice for ite cm turn-around.

 

(Emphases added.)
on February 11, 2000, Brescia and Jodie A. Brescia

purchased Let 6 of the subdivision by Warrenty Deed (deed),
recorded on February 23, 2000. Accerding to Brescia, Lot 6 is a
funnel-shaped flag let, with the top of the “funnel” being the
shoreline. The Conmicsion found Lot 6 is the most seaward and
visually prominent let within the subdivision. Eleven of the

lots 1¢ subdivision, including Lot 6, abut the shoreline.

 

On December 11, 2001, the cwner of neighboring Lot 9
appeared before the Conmissicn to seek @ Building Location,

Material and Design Review in accordance with SMA (U)-84-2. The

a
 

‘#9FOR PUBLICATION JN WEST'S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTES

 

Commission unanimously voted that the ouner was required to
comply with the setback identified in SMA (U)-84-2 order, as
restated in the CC&Rs attached to the deed, and as illustrated on
the Developer's original proposal map dated July 1, 1983. The
July 1, 1983 map indicates @ setback on Brescia’s lot of
approximately 61 feet at the northeastern makei corner ranging to
about 71 feet at the northwestern makai corner.

on Septenber 3, 2002, Brescia’s attorney submitted a
letter to the Commission in which he stated, “Please consider
this letter as a request for all necessary permits and approvals
to allow the proposed single fenily residence on the property.”
Brescia sought “an Anendnent to SMA (U)-@4-2 to allow the

applicant ‘to deviate from the building setback line dened by

 

the Planning Department to be applicable to the lot. . .7 a
Class I Zoning Permit; and @ Shoreline Setback Variance.”
According to Brescia's application, a setback of approxinately 63
feet 2s shown on the July 1, 19€3 map would allow for a
triangular-shaped buildable area of approximately 4,974 square
feet. Within this area, Brescia must construct, in accordance
with the CCéRs, a residence of at least 2,500 square feet--

excluding garage, lanais, a required turnaround area, and septic

system.

 

4 Rules Section 5, entitled “shoreline Setback

 

Lines,” states:

  
 
 

  

 

Sherel.
County Sper reeches of
shew waves other than etore ang tice) waver,
‘*#47OR PUBLICATION I WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPCRTER##

except that such shoreline setback Lines shall be 20 feet
inland on any land parcel of record when eny one oF nore of
the following exist!

im wildsble arcel ie x

 

orelin anda
County reauirenente wherein the parcel is located
Eneivding but net limited to front end eide yard
setbacks, cross-slope requirenents, and terrein
Fequirencnt

 

 

 

  

shoreline cethacks esteblisned at [a] distance crester than chat
Fer oe 5 in con deh the

(Emphases added.)

Under the C2MA, = variance may be granted for private
facilities if the Conmission “finds in writing, based on the
record presented,” that the variance is “clearly in the public
interest(,]” or that “hardship will result to the applicant if
the facilities or improvements are not allowed within the

shoreline area[.]" HRS § 205R-46(a) (7)-(8) (2001). Although

‘ URS § 20SA-46 (2001) states in relevent pert:

(a) A variance nev be granted for a structure or
activity otherwise prohibited by this pare if the authority

 

Hinge in writing, bese that the
propeced structure or activity is necessary for oF anciiiary
(9) ” Erivate factiities or improvenents that are

 

clearly in the public interest

(6) Frivate facilities or improvenente which will
neither adversely affect besch processes nor
artificially fix the shoreline; provided that
the authority also finds thet
Eesult to the agplicant if the facilities or
Inprovesente are not allowed within the
shoreline areas

 

 

 

 

 

sha ined in qles adopter

   

 

Seereval listed in
Net sh Sn

 

teont snved

 

13
 

‘s9470R PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS:

 

the legislature in HRS § 20SA-46(b) assigned the Commission the
+ Kaua't

 

task of defining hardship with respect to SMA varianc
County has not defined “hardship” in its rules for the purposes
of evaluating shoreline setbacks.*

On Decenber 10, 2002, Brescia submitted a County of
Koua't, Department of Planning application form in order to seek
2 Building Permit and an Amendment to SMA (U)-84-2, oF in the

alternative, a variance.‘ The form contained a printed section

 

entitled “For Variance or Use Permits only,” and stat

cont inved)
ro 7
‘fon, and slens

 

lempheses adced.)

+ Section 12(b) of the Keue'l Rules, entitled “Administration of
These Fules anc Regulations,” states in relevent part!

 

The Agency, through its Director, shall receive and review
Plans for proposed structures, facilities, or activiti
that are prohibited within the shoreline setback upen the
rubniceicn of adequate plone and eta attached to = properly
executed application form requesting # variance through the
Flonning Cennicsion of the County of Kevai- ss

 

 

se rules and regulations

   

Applications for 2 variance from t

 

(2) guch structure, activity, or facility e in the public
interest: oF
bronceeg activity, orf

Hioreline setrack:
(Emphases added.)

+ in the ebeence of a definition of hardship" in the Haue's Rel
sn his answering brief thet, “[t]he County's Comprehensive
ing Orésnence (Cz0) similarly recognizes thet there ray be a need for &

ice in oppropriste circunetences, sion may grant
veriences . 1. [where] the strict application of the regulations cepriver
the property cf privileges enjoyed by cther property lowers] in the vicinity
ng tithin the cone District, 37 ne shone that he cennot make @
Feasorsbie use of the property i feng are opplied.”

 

 
  

 

     

     
 

‘**TOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ HANAI'T REPCRTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERH#

NO

“Conditions justifying Variance or Use Permit application: (use
additional sheets as required)” As justification for the
variance,’ Brecia wrote, “[S]ee letter of [Brescia’s attorney),
dated Septenber 3, 2002,” referred to supra. Brescia’s attorney
stated in the September 3, 2002 letter that Brescia’s proposed
3,600" square foot residence would be “31 feet inland of the
certified shoreline at its nearest point(.]” The letter states:

In support and justification for his requests, (Brescia)

brings the following to the attention snd conssderetion of

the Cennission: . . . The Applicant's residence woeld nae be

the only residence in the subdivieson or aleng thet stretch

of coastline built as close to the shoreline,” the existing

Fesience on lot 4 of the subdivision is approximetely 20
fect from the shoreline.

 

 

(Emphasis added.) However, on appeal to this court Brescia
acknowledges in his answering brief that, contrary to his
Septenber 3, 2002 letter, setbacks in the area range from 35 to
80 feet. Further, Brescia also acknowledges that the setback on
neighboring Lot 4 is not the 30 feet represented in his
spplication to the Conmission, but is in fact 40 feet.

On January 2, 2003, the Conmiseion held a hearing, at

which time Appellants were granted intervenor status. Brescia’s

 

architect testified that utilizing a setback of approximately 60
feet as indicated by the developer's original proposal map dated
July 2, 1983, makes the triangular-shaped lot “almost become

unbuiidable. . . . [YJou cannot get a reascnable structure

on, Brescis reprecented the
fate feet. In hie opening brief
iat_he uss requesting s stevecure
Renever, in hie cpening brief
‘applied cn September 3, 2002 for

gle fenily resicence en Let 6" for 8 “propered 3,300 equare

   

  
 

 

operon
feet structure

1s
‘**+FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTERM+#

there.” Brescia argued that, since no setback was illustrated on

 

the final subdivision map, the “Open District strip" referred to
in the SHA (U)-64-2 order 4s the line shown on the County Zoning
Naps. Rather than inposing a setback on Lot 6 of approximately ,
61 to 71 feet at each makes corner as does the Developer's
Setback, the County Zoning Map would impose a setback on Lot 6 of
about 9 to 22 feet at each makai corner. The County Zoning Maps
were adopted by ordinance as part of Section 8-2.2 of the Kaua'i
County cede (1987).

After having conducted a site visit to the property and
hearing oral argument from ell parties, the Commission denied
Brescia's application on June 10, 2003. On June 16, 2003,
Brescia filed a Notion for Reconsideration. On June 24, 2003,
the Comission denied Brescis's motion. On September 9, 2003,
the Comission entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
Decision and Order. The relevant findings of the 2003 order

state as follows:

 

2. The Wainthe Subdivieion IT. . . wae opproved
[Sma] Tee Permit SMA (0)-B6-2, and Subaivision

2 On Decenber 16, 133, the comission! issued tts
Afisndinas, conclusions, Dh0l anoroving SMA (0)-24=2.

 

 

“The [onmissicn's 2incangs! State the foliowina:

io." 1. , the Zoning for the property is
“neeicential District (R-é)" and Open District
(0), Pas Oven Distrsee strip se 65
dccis Feet vice. The property se within the
Teva] istrict.

 

 

shore of Faves hee long been

for ste natural fe ‘scene

   

 

“thetedore, to further protect the quality of
ccastai scenic and open space rescurces, ‘the
scbaivielon of the Feel preperty should and will
be subject te the following restrictions:

 

16
‘#*TOR PUBLICATION IN MEST’ § HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS+#

ee

(©) Bp construction shall be allowed with

 

5.” the approval of Ma (0)!
which state in pare:

 

2 was subject to conditions,

 

 

2," " Bue to the visual seneitivity of the site in
relation to its ecenie location on the North
. Shor
a) Bs +
b) BID building vetbacks sheil'be meseured
from a corrent certified shoreline at tine
of develcpnent. No eart a

All of the shove recutrenente shell be established ag

restrictive covenants with er a .

‘subdivision

~The Auclicetion for SMA (v)-84-2 included the
Hielininary subsivigion map dated Saly tn S803 stich

sent tied che area Ceent lag tps Uoevalacar'e Setback)
‘Kelied uocn by the [coneissionl Sin | aaprevine oma

 

in | .". » (Brescia's) deed included the [CcéRe) imposed by
the [Coonission}, as required by SMA (O)-E-2.

32, On Decenber'11, 200%, ‘the Suliaing Location, ‘Materiel
and Design Review for Lot’ 9 of the Weiniha subeivicion (71),
ScE4=BE, THK 5-€°09-008 was before the [Conmission).— The
[Conmiesion], in reaffirming the original intent of SHA 10)-
84-2, unanincusly voted on cecesber 11, 2001 that the
applicant “shall comply with the set backs identifies in the
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision snd Order,
for SHA (U)~64-2; dated Decenber 15, 1963, and the eriginal
proposal map dated duly 1, 1563."

 

 

 

is. “according to (rescia's) seotes 2002 applics

leis i te

the (Cesnission) ‘at the January 26, 7003 public hearings a
celine seth

ified shoreline detec 36, t
Develosar's Settack] eau see =f 2,
suomiteed

‘sche prencked substvision sap dated Surg te taee
with the Applicetion for swh (U)-e42, xii] -silow [presesa:

   

aa aa acre ane

subnitted with the Bpplication for GW (0)-84-7 when
Restured from Alesles Rese ii 1 tal tetancy

scbroniestely 4.20 souere fect om
Whien fe construct a ingle family resioence,

 

7
 

*40POR FUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAKAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER:

 

20, [Brescia) submitted on Affidevit attached to his
Opening Brief which stated he “wer informed by Kaual County
Officials, whom he did net pane, [that] the "shoreline
setback on’ Lot 6 was 20 feet inland of the certified
shoreline."

 

(Emphases added.)

Among the Commission's conclusions were the following:

1. The Hawai'i [COMA], HRS 2054-1, et. seas, controle
Gevelepment in the cosetal sone by the (Smal permit process,

5." Swi (0}-84-2 ie the primary and controlling permit for

the development of the Wainihe Subdivision II.
&"" The condstione upen which the approval of SMA (W)-84-2

 

was besed upen were incorporated into the [CCéRE] of the

deed (Brescia) received from [the Developer).

Heeiva x7 eects] wae Bot on noth

the rea 7 mets

rer z rocture aha

Estgtrate the open sone strip fronting the shoreline” and

shat =ipiaiiding locations, materials, and designs shall be
cbiset te Penni es 2

Eine_of building and soning nemit anlication.”
8." Patevant to the geale and objectives of the (C2MA], HRS
200Re1, et, sea, in order to preserve and protect the
quality ef cosstal ecenie snd open space resources, the
Planning Conniseicn in ite Findinge ef Fact, Conelgsions of

id Order, Sua (0]-¥0-2. dated December TE

subsitred with th

 

  

tetrate’s The [bevelener'e Setheck
‘Sine She ecasr arent ineenes aber ye teaeea aarp
aa ‘ the {co
sud wi-bane mas to preserve Wiew plan
Soo renee peace Se eae ea ae eegeal sands end

 

i] “te unidentified “Fava! County Offtesaie" did not have the
[aidninistrative suthority to sake the final decision on the
Jecation of [Brescia's) building, because that decision wae
reserved to the [Ccamissicn]«
BS." The (Connieeion], purscant to Section 9-3.6(d) (5) of
tthe Keva's County Code, 1987, © oenced, hee the authority
with respect te the revision er correction of approved fin]
subdivision mape as follows:

Errore, ciserepancies, of cversignte chell be revs

sfection of the

 

 

 

 

 

  

18
 

‘***FOR FUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAWAI'I REFCRES AND PACIFIC REPORTER’

OO

16. The area fronting the July 1, 1963 [Developer's
Setback] was identified by [the Developer) and relied on by
the (Conniseicn) when st iesved ite Findings of Facts
Conclusions of Leu, Decisicn nd Order spproving SHA (0)-Bé-
2

 

1. dbs tin wt are
develaser's Sorbecit aiit tt th z
: Setar and coor a oot ele hee eae a te

3g." Prohibiting buridings within the aree fronting the
(Developer's Setback] identified in the Findings of Face,
Conclusions of Lew, Decision end Créer, for SMA (0)-84°2,
Gated December 18,1983, and on the propored eubdivieion’ map
Seted'July 1, 1968 submitted with the Application for SHR
(0)=86-2 ae ie oppiies to Lot €, t

Z le use reperty.
18. Feascnable use ir not necessarily the use most desired
by the onner of the property, and [erescie’s] ‘compliance
with 99 (0l-£4-2 allows for' the construction of 8
fubstantial house en the property witheut the opplicant
being denied reaccnable use of the property.

 

 

 

aa. “ny sion el iBreset id in

angular shared us
r intel Sant ‘Sepending

gm which celcuiaticn submitted by (Srescia] ie used. . =

2a. WBrescia’s] lot is the most seamard and visualiv
broninent lot within the subdivision. and coneteuetsen

Sut TEC tie srea's scenic and oper
fesse aoe snd za

(Emphases added.)

 

Finally, the 2003 order stated as follow:

1S upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and
fons of Lew, it is the Decision of the Planning

Consission that?
1.” [breseis's] reovest to mend Sua (U)-64-2 or orant
ez Sa ees
PDevelover's Setback! is deniea?
‘shall be prohitited from constructing

fronting the (Developer's Setback]
-d'in the Findings cz Fact, Conclusions of Lew,
Decision ang Orser, for =¥A (0) dated Decesber 15,
3983, end the proptsed subdivision mop dated July 1, 1963,
subsitted «ith the Application for SMA (O]=€(-2 which
prohibits eny structure fron penetrating the open zone strip
fronting the shoreline, and thie allowe [Sresele) ressconsele
ute of hie property.

 

 

  

 

      

 

(Enphesis added.)
n.
On December 12, 2003, Brescia filed a Notice of Appeal

as
 

}FOR FUBLICATION IN WEST’ HAMAI'T REPORTS AND FACIFIC REPORTER'S
An the court, On March 4, 2005, the court issued its findings,

 

 

conclusions, and Order, and Judgment pursuant thereto. The
court's order in effect found (1) the Open zone strip referred to
Ap the 4A (U)-84-2 order is the Open zone shown on the County's
Zoning Map, (2) Brescia had a right to rely on alleged
representations made by Planning Department employees as toa
purported setback boundary, and (3) Brescia cannot make

asonable use of his property if the Developer's Setback is

 

imposed.*

 

+ the court's findings included, inter alia, the following:

57. ‘The inposition of the [Develeper’s Setback) on
the Final supeivision Hap, under the guise of correcting the
[rap] exceeds the authority granted to the Conniseion under
£°553,8(c) (3) of the Havas County Code(], for it reflected &
change in interpretation 16 years after the fect and not en
error in éinension, discrepancy or oversight

5." The cee tone strip frontine the shoreline

Shounen the Cosnta'e Toning Map

32. “the [Developer's Settack] shown on the duly “63
Map inpoted a cetback of between lt and Tl feet from the
shoreline for Let € more then double or triple what ha
been represented as'being the applicable eetback fer the
subdivision to the public end Brescia.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

be. “rhe 1¢_shown on the County’, i
=
57, “the {Developer's Setback) shown on the July *€3

 

 

applicable setbecke, resulted in a triangular builcstie eres
oh Let € of only ¢,203 square feet

iod.” Other improved lots in the innediate
neighterhied . -. were subject to shoreline eet
Fonging fron 0'e6 38 feet.

ke

 

30k.” |. . (rlppiicetion of the [Developer's Setback)
(cont anced...)

20
‘*4FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ § WANAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS

 

 

-continved)
‘to Lot 6 results in a buildable area of 4,203 equere feet,

oF only 26.78 of the lot~

‘ 113," Doe te the buildine constraints aforessid,

fe the # are feet tri fia

Eszry

115." the Commission's denial of the, variance lacks
support if the record.

8 added.)

 

The court's relevent conclusions were #¢ follows:

4. The “oven 21 Eronténe ine”,
pene fon the Coon Bap in
existence at the time, as supported by the relieble,
probetive and cubstantisl evidence en the whole recerd.

5.” The Cpen zene ax chown on the County's Dosing Map,
within whieh structures are prohibited, Se sufficient fo
hnect and ie net contrary to the cbsectivee of the. Seate
cama] and the {SHA} laws, ee supported by the relisble,
probative end cubstanticl evidence on the whole Tecere,

    

 

3.” ne Commission's finding that the Plenning
Connission in [the order granting SH (U}-€4-2) intended
thet the "open sone strip fronting the shoreline” be the
[Developer's Setback] shown on the Joly "62 Map, inetecd of
tthe Open zone shown on the county's Zoning Map and North
Shore Development Flan (Upeste NO. 1), wae clearly erroneous
in view of the reliable, probetive, ané substantial evicence
(oh the whole Fecore.

 

 

 

io, “the connissicn's actions on Decenber 11, 2001 in
its new intexpretation and epplication of @ setback line,
without any notice to and the opportunity to be heard by
Brescia and other effected lancemers, were rade in
viclation of their constitutional right ef ove proces

 

 

 

 

Pour ss
rebatis eviaens lest
Sezenearstes thet a

£ tS uihelg ang etriet

confermty therewith is required.

26." Brescia having met the etanderde for the grenting
cf @ varlence to enable the reseenstle vse of ict € in
accordance with privileges enjoyed by other iote in the
Inediate vicinity, the Con! Eronsously denies the
ueriance in view of the relisble, protetive, and svbetenti
evicence on the whole Tecere.

     
        
 

(eontinved. «1
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*#*

 

On April 4, 2005, Appellants filed their Notice of

Appeal with this court.

mr.

 

, on eppeat, Appellants argue that the court’s “entize
Findings of Feet, Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order... is
being appealed as it is wrong as a matter of law.” (Emphasis in
original.) Appellants argue that it was an abuse of discretion
or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion in violation of
HRS § 91-24(g) (€) (1993)? for the court to substitute its own
judgnent for that of the Commission when it reversed the
Commission's decision to deny Brescia’s application.

In response, Brescia argues that (1) “the
(Conmission’s] subsequent recognition 16 years later of the

[Developer's Setback) on the never adopted July ‘63 Map in liew

s clearly erroneous in view of the

 

of the [County Zoning Map],
reliable, probetive end substantial evidence on the “hole
record"; (2) “the Commission cannot impese and enforce a setback
Line which is not shown on the final subdivision map, as was
required by lew"; (3) “the action of the Commission cannot be
justified on the beeis of enforcenent of the CZMA"; (4) “the
Connission's decision that the renaining buildable area allows

Brescia @ reascnable use of his property is without support and

 

in error"; (5) “the refusal to amend the SMA conditicns or to

 

 

"(continues
Eapheses’ sede.)

+ See sntza,
‘s*4FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTERY+#

grant a variance for the proposed dwelling was arbitrary,
capricious, and characterized by abuse of discretion”; (6) “the
Commission is estopped from enforcing a totally different
building prohibition than is set forth in the [SMA (U}-64-2

order)"; and (7) "Brescia had a vested right to proceed with the

 

construction of his residence,” and “the Commission's action to

recognize the line on the July ‘83 map as the applicable setback

 

Line violated Brescia’s constitutional due process right
Ww.

“tReview of & decision made by @ court upon its review
of an adninistrative decision is a secondary appeal. The
standard of review is one in which this court must determine
whether the court under review was right or wrong in its
decision.'” Leslie v. 84. of Appeals of County of Hawaii, 109
Mawas's 364, 291, 126 P.34 1072, 1078 (2006) (quoting Lanai Co.
nc. vs Land Use Comm'n, 108 Hawai'i 296, 306-07, 97 P.34 372,
3€2-€3 (2004) (other citation omitted)). The standards as set
forth in HRS § 91-14(g) (183) are applied to the agency's
decision. a Pa'akei 0 Ke'sina v, land Use Comm'n, 94 Hawai'i 31,
40, 7 F.3d 1068, 1077 (2000). HRS § 91-14(g) provides:

view of the record the court may affirm the
on of the agency er renand the cate with izetruct ions
for further proceedings; cr it may reverse cr nosify the
decizien and order if the substantial righte of

petitioners may have been prejudiced because the
Sdhinietrative findings, conciveione, decieions, or orders

(s) upon

 

 

 

       

 

 

 

" (2) In wicletion of constitutions! or stetutery
provisions) oF
(2) En excess ef the etatutery authority oF

 

  

juriediction of che agency: ef
Nace ypen unlawful procestres cr
Affected by other error of law cr

 

   

23
STOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ § HAWAI'I REFORTS AND FACIFIC REFORTER*#*

 

(5) Clearly erroneous sn view of the reliable,
Prebetive, and substantial evicence on the whole
Fecore? oF

(©) Kebitrary, or capricious, or characterized by
abuse of cisereticn or clearly smsrranted
enereise of discretion.

 

“*Under HRS § 91-14(g), conclusions of law are reviewable under
subsections (1), (2), and (4); questions regarding procedural
defects under subsection (3); findings of fact under subsection

(5); and an agency's exercise of discretion under subsection

(6).'" Sierra Club vs Office of Planning, State of Hawa‘, 109
Hawai'i 411, 414, 126 P.3d 1098, 1202 (2006) (quoting In re.
Hawadian Elec, Co., 61 Hawai'i 459, 465, 918 P.2d 561, 567 (1996)

(other citation emitted) ).
“whn agency's findings are not clearly erroneous end
will be upheld if supported by reliable, probative and
substantial evidence unless the reviewing court is left with a
firm and definite conviction thet @ mistake has been made.’” Boe
va Hawai'i Labor Relations Bd., 105
655 (2004) (quoting Kilauea Neschborhood hes'n v. Land Us

‘ai'i 97, 100, 94 P.3d 652,

 

Comm'n, 7 Hew. App. 227, 229-30, 751 P.2d 1031, 1034 (1988).

 

[T]he courts may freely review an agency's conclusions of
low.'" Lanai co., 105 Hewai"l st 307, $7 P.3d at 383 (quoting

Role Heweii Div.-Cestle & Cocke, Inc. vs Ramil, 72 Haw. 419, 424,
794 P.26 1125, 1118 (2990) (other citation omitted)). “abuse is

apparent when the discretion exercised clearly exceeds the bounds

 

of reason or disregards rules or principles of law or practice to

the substantial detrinent of a party litigant.” Kimura vs

24
 

'FOR FUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*

Kemalo, 106 Hawai'i 501, 507, 107 P.3d 430, 436 (2005) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted).

 

In connection with his first argument, Brescia

is Little question that the [SMA (U)-

 

acknowledges that *[t]h
82-2 order] imposed a prohibition against building in the Open
zone strip fronting the shoreline of the Wainiha 11 subdivision.”
Brescia argues that the “[tJhe dssue is whether the ‘open zone
strip’ was determined by (1) the clearly existing
Open/Residential Line on the officially adopted County's Zoning
Map, or (2) the elusive [Developer's Setback) shown én the July
\€3 Map which was never adopted or even mentioned in the (SMA
(0)~84-2 order]." We conclude that the Commission's decision in
enforcing the Developer's Setback as shown on the July 1, 1963
subdivision nap is supported by reliable, probative, and
substantial evidence on the whole record and, thus, was not
clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court's finding no. S@ that
“[elhe Open zone strip fronting the shoreline referred to in the
SMA decision and Order is the Open zone shown on the County's
Zoning Map" is clearly erreneous, and conclusion no. 4 which
states, inter alia, that “[t]he ‘Open zene strip fronting the
shoreline,’ . . . is the Open zone as shown on the County Zoning
Mep" is wrong.

Erescis states, “[E]xcept for the verbiage referencing
the Open strip fronting the shoreline, the [Commission in its SMA
(0)-€4-2 order] did not adept, approve, or incorporate by

28
 

'FOR FUBLICATION IN WEST’ § HRMAI'T REFORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER*##

reference any of the maps presented in the proceedings.”
According to Brescia, inasmuch as the only official, map which
showed “any Open zoned strip along the shoreline was the County's
Zoning Map, adopted by the County under ordinance No. 239," this
is the only setback of which he had notice. Breecia maintains,
“IMJoreover, the County's North Shore Development Plan Update
(which {s also the County's Zoning Map) was adopted by the
(Commission) at a special meeting on September 28, 1983, only tuo
months before the issuance of [the SMA (U)-84-2 exder]." Thus,
Brescia asserts that Commission members were aware of the
contents of the North Shore Development Plan Update and, given
that the SMA (U)-@4-2 order refers to the “Open zoned portion” in
the past tense, it is apparent that the Commission wes referring
to the County Zoning Maps.

We first note, as previously stated, that the maps
submitted by the Developer in seeking a SHA Use Permit to develop
the subdivision indicated 2 Developer's Setback, which would
impose a shoreline setback in the area that would become Lot 6 of
approximately 61 to 71 feet st each makai corner. The maps and
the Developer's Setback shown thereon were part of the
Developer's application and the setback remained consistent
throughout the Developer's sutmissions.

‘The Developer also included in his application an
Environmental Assessment which stated, inter alia, that “(nJo
structures are allowed within 40 feet of the certified shoreline

end, therefore, the shoreline area will not be affected.” The

 

26
‘++FOR PUBLICATION IN MEST’ S HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTERY*#
SMA (U)-84-2 order, in finding nos. 10 and 23, confirmed that the

“open District strip is approximately 40-75 feet wide,” and
that “Ino construction shall be allowed within the Open zoned
portion of the property along the shoreline.” Although no
reference 18 made to what the developer called the “Zoning
District Boundary Setback Line,” findings nos. 10 and 23 in the
SMA (U)-84-2 order plainly refer to that setback, in effect
incorporating the Developer's Setback by reference to the Open
district strip.” It is evident, then, that SMA (U)-G4-2
condition 2(b), stating in part that “[nJo part of any structure
shall penetrate the Open zone strip fronting the shoreline,”
refers to the lend seaward of the Developer's Setback. This
setback line indicates an approxinate 61 to 71 foot setback in
the area of Lot 6. Hence, Brescia’s argument that the “open
zoned portion” referred to by the Conmission in SMA (U)-E4-2 is
not the 40-75 fect strip specifically described in the order as
the “open district strip,” but is rather the area marked “open”
on the County Zoning Mep, is not persuasive.

The approximate 9- to 22-foot shoreline setback in the

area of Lot 6 indicated as “Open” on the County Zoning Map would

 

There ie no evicence in the record thet thie condition in SMR (O)~

84-2 wor contested or eppesied after ite ies

 

ng Director's
Tene on the

Zoning Desteiet
represented to
the Conpiseion noted

   
  
   
 

    
 
 

Ane” (Devel eps
Re to the Kort
a2 thet the
10 stated that the cpen district

 
FOR PUBLICATION JN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERt##

be less than the setback established in the SMA (U)-84-2 order,
and is thus inconsistent with that order. The court's finding
no. ‘$8 that “[t)he Open zone strip fronting the shoreline
referred to in the SMA Decision and Order is the Open zone shown
on the County's Zoning Map,” then, is clearly erroneous inasmuch
as the record lacks any substantial evidence to support such a
finding.
vt

Brescia’'s second argunent on appeal is that the
Commission cannot impose and enforce a setback line not shown on
the finel subdivision map, as required by law. For reasons
stated both supra and infra, we conclude as clearly erroneous the
court's finding no. 57 that “{t)he imposition of the [Developer's
Setback] on the Final Subdivision Map, under the gui'se of
correcting the final subdivision map, exceeds the authority
granted to the Commission under Section 9-3.8(c) (5) of the Kauai
County Code, for it reflected @ change in interpretation 16 years
after the fact and not an error in dimension, discrepancy or

oversight.“

BAe previcuely noted, Section $-2.8(e) ($) of the Kevatt County
cose, entitied “Errcrs and Discrepancies,” tater a2 follow

 

 

‘The epproval of the final subdivision mep by the Flenning
Connission shall net relieve the applicent of the
seeponeibility for any erzer in the dimensions cr other
Giecrepancies or cversighte. Errore, oiecrepancies, oF
oversights ehall be revised or corrected, open request te
the satisfaction of the Planning Comission.

 

  

 

 

Brescis suggests that the oniesion of the Developer's Setback on
the {ine subdivision rap cid not conetitote an error in ginereien oF
oversight of the type intenced for correction by fection $3

inty Code. As noted, the Connission, ih conclusion nes

 

   

   

(continues...

28
‘*+FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTERS+®

Rs mentioned above, Section 9-3.8 of the Kaua'i County

 

Code requires that setback lines be indicated on the final
subdivision nap, however, no setback lines, including the
Developer's Setback, were indicated on the final subdivision map.
Pursuant to HRS § 205-26 (2001), “{nJo development shall be
allowed in any county within the [SA] without obtaining a permit
in accordance with this part.” Thus, within @ SMA, development
is controlled by a SMA permit. See Mahuiki, 65 Haw. dt 519 0.24,
654 F.2d at 663 n.16 (stating that “Iplermits required under this
act supersede 01 others, including any permits required from
state agencies such as the Lend Use Commission in conservation
and agricultural districts along the coast, so that the 1975
shoreline protection legislation for the first tine supersedes
state controls in an inportant area of environmental, concern”
(quoting 0. Mandelker, Environmental and Land Controls
Legislation 317-28 (1978)). Irrespective of the fact that the
final subdivision map did not indicate any setback lines as is
required by County ordinance, the Developer's Setback, as
required by SMA (U)-84-2, must be adhered to, Accordingly,
Brescia's second argunent is unavailing.
vit.
Brescie’s third argunent on appeal is that the action

   

PC. continues)
2003 order, stated that “pureuent to Sectson 9-3.8(8)($] of the Faus's County
Code, 1587; as anenced, (the Comission] hee the authority with respect te the

        

‘ction’ of epproved fanei eubdivieion rape.” ineenuch se we
‘Gecisien en ether grounce, we need net reach the
ancy in this cove wae of tne type encenpected

‘county cede.

29

 

Sphela the Conn:
ticn ef whetner the
En Seetien $-3,6(e) (3) of

 

      
*##7OR PUBLICATION IM WEST'S HAWAI'I REFORIS AND PACIFIC REPORTER'*#

—

of the Commission “cannot be justified on the basis of
enforcenent of the [CzMA]." Brescia contends that the Commission
“ignor fed] the plain language of [the SMA (U)-€4-2 order)” and
that “[t]he issue in this appeal is whether the (court) wae
correct in finding and concluding that the Conmission’s actions
under the circumstances were inconsistent with (the SMA (U)-84-2

order}.” Inasmuch as we conclude, as stated supra, that the

 

Commission's use of the Developer's Setback was consistent with
the plain language in the SMA (U)-84-2 order, as also reflected
in Brescia’s deed, the Commission's imposition of the Developer's
Setback was justified. Additionally, as Brescia recognizes, the
record clearly shows that as to the SMA (U)-84-2 order, the
“Commission duly considered, addressed and upheld the policies
and objectives of the CZMA, es well as its [SMA] requirenents(.]”
Thus, the court's conclusion no. 7 that “[t]he Commission’ s
finding that the Planning Comission in SMA (U)-@4-2 in 1984
intended thet the ‘open zone strip fronting the shoreline’ be the
[Developer's Setback) shown on the July ‘63 Map, instead of the
Open zone shown on the County's Zoning Map. . . , was clearly
erroneous” is wrong as @ matter of law.

Nonetheless, Brescia further contends that “[t]he
decision by the Commission to reject Brescia’s proposals and to

impose the [Developer's Setback] on Lot 6 with its 61% to

Ti-feet setback was in clear excess of the requirements end
objectives of the CMA. . . and the [Kaue‘i Rules].” (Enphesis

added.) Erescia does not cite any specific provision of the C2MA

30
 

+e+FOR FUELICATION IN WEST'S KAWAT'T REFORTS ARD PACIFIC REFCRTER:

or the Kaua't Rules in connection with this assertion. it is
observed, however, that HRS § 205-22 (Supp. 1970) and Section §
of the Kavs's Roles both pertain to the establishment of
shoreline setbacks. HRS § 205-32 stated in pertinent part that

“ [tine commission shall establish setbacks slong shorelines of
not less than thenty feet and not more than forty feet inlandl J"
(emphasis added.) Section § of the Hava'l Rules states in
relevent part thet “[s]horeline setback lines are estdblished
throughout the County of Kavai at 40 feet inland... , except
that such shoreline settack Lines shall be 20 feet Jolan .
[ulhere the buildable eres of the parcel is reduced to less than
50 percent . . . after applying the 40 foot shoreline setback
Line and all State and County requixenents[.J” (Euphasis sdded.)

© or form; to bring about or

 

“Establish” is defined as “[t]o
into existence[.]” Black's Law Dictionary 586 (8th ed. 2004).

On the plein language of the statute and the rule, the
establishment of these setbacks does not prohibit a developer

fron propesing a greater shoreline setback on a development than

 

those contained in HRS § 205-32 or Section 5 of the Kaua'i Rul
in an application for a SMA use permit. Likewise, the CZMA and
the Kaua'i Rules do not prohibit the Commission from accepting
such a proposal in approving @ SMA use permit. Of course,
generally, @ setback is nothing more than “[t}he minimum amount

of space required between @ lot line and a buslding line.”

Black's Lew Dictionsry at 1404 (enphasie added).

2
‘***FOR PUBLICATION Im WEST’ § HAWAI'I REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERC##

In that regard, as previously mentioned, this is not
the first time in which this court has considered the Wainiha
Subdivision IT, See supra. In Mahuiki, this court overturned
the Commission's issuance of a SMA use permit after the
Commission failed to comply with the directives of the C2MA,
which required it “to make @ specific finding that the proposed
Geveloprent would ‘not have any substantial adverse environmental

ch adverse effect is clearly

 

or ecological effect, except as
outweighed by public health and safety’ before approving the SMA
use permit application.” 65 Haw. at 516, 654 P.2d at 881
(quoting HRS § 208R-26(2) (A) (1976))". Thus, this court vacated
the circuit court's order of dismissal and summary judgment in
favor of the Developer, and remanded the cese for proceedings
consistent with its opinion, Id. at 519, 654 P.2d at 683.
Subsequently, as Brescia states, the SMA (U)-64-2
Proceeding “was a re-application by the [Developer] for the same
Gevelopment following the reversal and remand in Mahuikif.]” To

reiterate, the Developer's first proposal was for a 22-lot

 

‘The current version of HRS § 205A-26(2) (Al (1976), HRE § 205A

26(2) (A) (2001) tater:

(2) No development shall be approved unless the authority
‘fret found:

(k) That the development will net have any
substential adverse environmental or ecologi:
effect, except a uch severse effect 12
Hininiles te the extent practicetle end cl
Cotwesghed by public health, safety, or
conpelling public interests. Such scverse
effects ene.
the potent
Gevelozsente, each cf
Bight net neve 8 tubs

 

    

 

   
 
 

 
 

‘seo PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAMAI'T REFORTS AND FACIFIC REFORTER!:
subdivision. With his application, the Developer included a

proposed preliminary subdivision plan map, which designated the
Developer's Setback. After facing community opposition to the
proposed development, the Developer simultaneously submitted a
second proposal for a 20 lot subdivision, and a third proposal
for a 19 lot subdivision. Like the first proposal, both the
second and third proposals included a map indicating the
Developer's Setback. After continued opposition, the Develcper
submitted a fourth propose accompanied by a map again reflecting
the Developer’s Setback. On December 15, 1983, the Commission
approved SMA (U)-84-2, which contains the Developer's Setback.
As Brescia relates, “there was no appeal from the granting of the
[SMA (U)-€4-2.}" In that regard, pursuant to HRS § 205A-29
(2001), “{aletion on the special managenent permit shall be final
unless otherwise mandated by court order.”

Because plainly the C2MA and the Kaue'l Rules did not
prohibit the Developer from proposing the Developer's Setback,
and the Commission from accepting that setback in approving SMA
(0)-€4-2, the restrictive covenant containing the Developer's
Setback in the CCéRs and Brescia’s deed are valid. similarly, in
McDonald v. Pnporiz-Lven County Joint Bd. of Zenine Aopeals, 697
P.2d 69, 70-72 (Kan. Ct. App. 1965), the Court of Appeals of
Kansas held that the grant of 2 setback variance by the proper
municipal authorities did not have any effect upon a setback

, thus, affirmed the

 

established in a restrictive covenant

 

trial court’s grant of sunary judgment te the plaintiffs because

 
 

‘s*0TOR PUBLICATION IN WEST! § JUNAI'T REPORES AND PACIFIC REPORTER:

SSS

of a violation of a restrictive covenant setback provision. In
so holding, the McDonald court ebserved that “it is generally
recognized that . . . ‘[rlestrictive covenants do not supersede
or in any way affect the requirenents of an already existing
zoning ordinance, and conversely, @ zoning ordinance cannot
Gestroy, impair, ebrogate, or enlarge the force and effect of an
existing restrictive covenant.’ 1d, at 71 (citation omitted).
Accordingly, “*({z]oning ordinances, if less restrictive, do not
Giminich the legal effect of private restrictive covenants.”
Id, (citation omitted).

As Brescia recounts, he and his wife acquired Lot 6 by

warranty deed, which referenced the CC&Rs. As indicated

 

Previously, the CCéRs plainly state that “as a condition to final
subdivision approval for the Property by the [Connission},
certain restrictive covenants were imposed upon the Property,
which restrictive covenants are stated in Schedule 'B’ attached
hereto end nade a part hereof." The reason for such covenants as
the CCBRs wes the “desirel] to enhance and protect the value,
Cesizebility and attractiveness of the Property.” To reiterate,
the CCuRs also state that:

Stallone] tor the sutusl benefit and protection of all

Excverty shal] be held, leased, encumbered, conveyess serd,
sed, cecupred and smproved, i
ns brotection of the lintestionss restrict iene oon

Hig ccadiciene cer deren in thie besiaeesoety ora
Sugeare of cnteceiee tea eecrecene tae copes Uy
snd attigctiverces of the froperty. These iaitaione,

Sonaitione stall ron with th

 

  

Raving or who ecquire any Tight, Citie er
interest in the Ficperty or eny part thereof, their heirs,

36
‘s+sFOR FUELICATION IN MES2’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER®:

jonal representatives, successors and arsigns

 

Pe
(Emphases added.) As Brescia sets forth, “Schedule ‘BY [is] a

restatement of the conditions of approval in the (SMA (U)-84-2,]"
which includes the shoreline building restriction that “{nJo part

Gf any structuie hall penetrate the open Zone strip fronting thé

 

shoreline." As discussed supra, the Open Zone strip refers to
the land seeward of the Developer's Setback. In sum, contrary to
Brescia’s suggestion, the C2MA and the Kaua'i Rules did not
prohibit the Developer from proposing the Developer's Setback in
his application for SMA (U)-€4-2, and likewise the Commission vas’
not prohibited from accepting the Developer's Setback in
approving a SMA (U)-84-2. Accordingly, Brescia's third argument
is not cogent.

virr.

In connection with Brescia’s fourth argument regarding
reasonable use, as Appellants point out, the “requirement
prohibiting any building in the Open zone as well as the other
conditions of development were known or should have been known to
[Brescia] as they were incorporated into his deed, and he would
not obtain final approval for the building location on his lot
until the ‘time of building and zoning permit application.’” As
recounted previously, these restrictions were incorporated into
Brescia’s deed as restrictive covenants.

This court has “long held that where a deed makes @
specific reference to a restrictive covenant, the grantee is on

notice that his interest is subject to the terns of that

38
 

‘S*0FOR FUBLICATION IN WEST'S HANAI'T REPCRTS AND FACIFIC REPORTER’

eS
restrictive covenant.” Lee v, Puamana Cnty, Ass'n, 109 Hawai'i

561, 568, 128 F.3d 874, 681 (2006) (citing Pelosi v. Wailea Ranch
Estates, 91 Hawai'i 478, 489, 985 P.2d 1045, 1086 (1999) (“The
individual defendants in the present matter had constructive
notice, by virtue of their deeds, of the [ ] covenants.”
(Emphasis and brackets in original.)); Rawlins v. Izumo Taisha
Kuo Mission of Havaii, 3€ Haw. 721, 726 (1944) (stating that
equity will enforce a contract “containing restrictive covenants
which create equitable easements, such as restrictive covenants
in a deed or lease limiting the use of the lend in a particular
manner or prescribing a particular use which creates equitable
servitudes”)}. "*(I]t is a well-settled rule that in construing
deeds and instruments containing restrictions and prohibitions as
to the use of property conveyed, all doubts should be resolved in
favor of the free use thereof for lawful purposes in the hands of
the owners of the fee.’” Hiner v, Hoffman, 90 Hawai'i 168, 195,
977 F.2d 878, €85 (1999) (quoting In re Taxes of Johnson, 44 Hew.
519, 536, 386 P.2d 1028, 1038 (1968) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)) (brackets omitted). Also, “such ‘free
end unrestricted use of property’ is favored only to the extent
of applicable State land use and County zoning regulations.”
1d, at 195-96, 977 F.2d at 885-86 (quoting Collins v. Goetsch, $9
Haw, 481, 485 n.2, $83 P.2d 383, 357 n.2 (1978).

Brescia esserts that the Developer's Setback imposed by

 

the Commission, which as noted above results in a shoreline

setback of roughly 61 feet and 71 feet at each makai corner of
‘***FOR PUBLICATION IN MEST’ HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER*+#

Lot 6, denied Brescia reasonable use of his property and is
“without support and in error." In that regard, to repeat,

Brescia requested en amendment to SNA (U)-84-2 on the basis that
such an anendnent was needed in order to allow reasonable use of

his property:

5 . Although a
Special Managerent Aves Use Ferait has siresdy been leeved
for the eubgivicion, i-e., SMA (0) €4-2{], an anendnent to
the permit is ececsary to ceviate from the Building setbeck
ine deemed by the Planning Depertment to be applicable to
the let of approximately 10 fet
sherel sn

Inland of the certifies
‘The proposed residence ss '32 feet inland of the
shoreline at ite nearest point, snd

the setback
Line Uf determines to be 70 feet] Post be snended to
‘accommodate the orccosed residence to allow reasonable use .
shine crerante pe teresciete

(Emphasis added.)

 

     

As stated previously, the Commission denied Brescia’s

request and concluded as follows:

 

18. Pra ndings within Azentine eh
eleser identified in the Findings of Fact,

Tonciussons of Lew, Cecieien ang Order, for sh (U)-et-2,

Gated Lecenber 15,'18€3, ang on the propeeed subdivielon map

 

 

Gated uly 1, 1963 tonnitted with the Application fer sua
(O)s64-2 ae ie eppiies te Let'€, provides [prescia] with

 

At not necessarily the use most desired

[erescia's) conplisnce

stantial neu he-prezerty reecial &

Senied reascnable use of the proserty,

(Emphases added.)

Ts. Reasonable oi
by the owner of the property,

 

 

According to Brescia’s September 3, 2002 application,
as well as his January 28, 2003 written testimony to the
Commission, a setback of epproxinately 63 feet as shown on the
July 1, 1983 sap would allow for @ triangular-shaped buildable
area of approximately 4,974 square feet. As stated, Brescia

later revised this estimate, and in his Mey 6, 2003 Opening Brief

a
 

 

FOR FURLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

to the Conmission related that the buildable area on which to
construct 8 single family residence would be 4,203 square feet.

Brescia asserts that 4,203 square feet of buildable area equates
to 24.78 of the Lot 6 area, As indicated previously, within this
buildable srea--whichever of Brescia’e estimates is used--he mist

excluding

 

Construct a residence of at least 2,500 square f
garage, lanais, » required turnaround area, and septic system,
Brescia’s architect, in apparent full recognition of these
requirenents, stated at the January 28, 2003 public hearing, “1
Gon't want to say its totelly unbuildable.”

Tt As well established thet “mere diminution of market
value or interference with the property owner's personal plans
and desires relative to his property is insufficient to
Snvalidete a zoning ordinance or to entitle him to @ varsancel.]"
City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enters. Inc., 426 U.S. 668, 674
n.8 (1976) (internal quotation marks, citations, and brackets
omitted). In Kor! ddhist Dee le of Hawes’
Sullivan, €7 Hawai'i 217, 235, 953 P.2d 1915, 1333 (1998), this
court found that an applicant for a variance “failed to establish
that it could neke no regsonsble use of the land or its (hlall
without building the [hJall to s height of seventy-five feeti,]”
t initially submitted

given that the record indicated the applii

  

plens reflecting a construction design for the hall of sixty-six
feet in height. (Emphasis added.) This court stated that

reasonable use of the land, in this case within the meaning of

38
‘S#0FOR PUBLICATION J MESI’S KAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the city charter, 1s “not necessarily the use most desired by the
owner.” Id, at 234, 959 P.2d at 1392 (citation omitted).

Inasmuch a8 the Commission in finding no. 15 found that
according to Brescia’s own application letter @ shoreline setback
of approxinately 69 feet would allow the applicant  trianguler-
shaped buflding ares of approximately 4,974 square feet, and
whereas Brescia’s oun architect testified that utilizing the
Developer's Setback did not necessarily make the lot unbuildable,
the Commission could rationally conclude that Brescia did not
establish that he could not make reasonable use of the property
based on the Developer's Setback. Thus, it was error for the
court te hold in conclusion no. 25 that “[t)he record on the
whole, through reliable, probetive and substantial evidence, also
clearly denonstrated thet Brescia could not make reasonable use
of Let 6 Af the [Developer's Setback) is upheld and strict
conformity therewith is required.” Because substantial evidence
existe in the record to ndicate that the setback inposed by the
Commission will permit Srescia to construct a residence of at
least 2,500 square feet of Living area, the Connission could have
retionally determined thet Brescia retained the reasonable use of
nis property.

x

Brescia's £4fth argunent on oppeai is that the
Cennission’s refusal to anend the SMA conditions or to grant a
varience for Brescia’s propesed dwelling, which would approach

and

 

within 31 feet of the shoreline, was arbitrary, capriciou:

39
"+*FOR PUBLICATION I WEST’ S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND FACIFIC REFORTER**#

characterized by abuse of discretion, In HRS § 205A-46(a) (8)
entitled “Variances,” the legislature provided that the counties
may grant variances based on hardship. As noted supra, the

Rules what constitutes

 

Commission has not defined in ite Kaua'
“hardship” for the purposes of evaluating shoreline setback
variances. In the absence of such a definition, Brescia and the
Commission appear to have proceeded on the basis of evaluating
whether a setback variance was necessary in order that Brescia
retain “reasonable use” of his property.

We observe initially that, as mentioned supra, Kaua'é
Rules, Section 12(b), states that the application for a variance

shall be accompanied by “accurate written statements to
substantiate that hardship will be caused." (Emphases.

 

 

See gunca note 6 and accompanying text.

 

us _.fereas the fect thet Hous's County hae net adopted & definition
of Therdship" for the purposes of evaluating requests for shoreline setback
et 15 not raised ch appeal, the inpact cf this cnieeion need not be

 

 

Other counties have included in their criteria for establishing
“hardahip" for purposes of granting @ shoreline setback variance the factor of
whether @ variance is necessary to provice the applicant reasonable use of his
GE, her property. For exanple, the Revised Ordinances of Honolulu, Chapter 22
‘Shoreline Setzacks,” Section 23-1 Stleg “Criteria fer grenting @
dence,” states in relevant part?

 

 

      

(3) Herdehip stancerd.
(A) A structure or activity may be granted &
Yeriance upon grounss Gf herdehip if:
(i) "The sppiicant would be deprive
ble use of the lena if required to
Eenpiy fully with the shoreline setback
Grdinance end the shereline setback roles;
(ii) The applicant's proposal is due te unique
cfr et and does not draw inte
question the resscnabienese cf this
Chapter end the ehereline setbeck rules
3

   

 

       

 

 

 

(JH) The properel is the practicoble
alternative which sett conforms to the
BAIRGSe of this chenter and the shoreline

(eentinved,..)

 

40
 

-FOR PUBLICATION IN MESO’S HAMAT'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFCRTER*

 

added.) In support and justification of his request, Brescia
asserts that “[o]ther inproved lots in the immediate neighborhood

t” and that

 

range in size from 27,674 to 13,671 square £1
“[e}hese regularly shaped lots were subject to shoreline setbacks
ranging from 60 to 38 feet of the certified shoreline”; nis 3,300
square foot proposed residence would not be the largest house in
the subdivision; and "S26 of the proposed residence would be nore
than 40 feet from the shoreline.”

To reiterate, the Commission denied Brescia’s request
to amend SMA (U)-84-2 or grant a variance based on its findings
and conclusions. As discussed, the Commission could have
properly determined that, even with the imposition of the
Developer's Setback, Brescia is not deprived of resonable use of
his property. See supra. Furthermore, as Brescia explains, the
SMA (U)-84-2 proceeding in 1963 was a “re-application by the

[Developer] for the same development following the reversal and

(.. .continvea)
setbeck rol

 

ded.) Also, County of Hawai'i Planning Commission, Rules of

(emphases
ore, ‘Section G10 entitled, "Criteria for Approvel of @

Practice and Proc
Variance," states!

 

 

 

ndard
rocture cr activity nay be granted @
veriance open grounds of haraship only if:
(i) "the spplicent wouie be senriven of

. se ef the

comply fully with this

(4) The request 42 due to unique cir

1 Goes not Grew into question the
Fearorablerese of this rule? ene

(3) Harcenip st
a

  

 

 

 

 

 

(448) The Seaueet Se the practic sernative
nth Seat conte ee

 

(Enphares added.)
a
BAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER**#

   

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST

 

remand in Mahuikil.]" As Brescia indicates, following this
court's decision in Mahuiki, the Conmission “could not have been

but ‘painfully aware of the importance given to the CZMA by [this]
as

 

court in Mahuiki” during the SHA (U)-84-2 proceeding. Thu:
Brescia recounts, “(t]he record accordingly clearly shows that
the [Connission] duly considered, addressed and upheld the
policies and objectives of the C2MA, as well as its [SHA]
requirenents” in SMA (U)-84-2.

Significantly, as Brescia relates, “there was no appeal

 

from the granting of (SMA (U)-84-2]." Again, pursuant to HRS
§ 205A-28, “[a]ction on the special management permit shall be
final unless otherwise mandated by court order.” In that regard,

ye recently observed that “the legislature expressly granted

 

ve

to the [Commission] the authority to cerry out the cbjectives,

policies and procedures of the C2MA’s SMAS.” Moraan v. Planning
Dept., County of Kevai, 104 Hewai'i 173, 164, 86 P.3d 982, 993

(2004) (citing HRS § 205-27 (2001)). Thus, “[iJn order to carry
out this express responsibility, the [Conmission] must have
authority to enforce the conditions of a SMA Use permit.” Id.
Moreover, as reflected in the Conmission’s findings,
the application for SMA (U)-84-2 included the preliminary
subdivision map which identified the Developer's Setback relied
upon by the Commission in approving SMA (U)-84-2. The approval

84-2 was subject to conditions, including that

 

of SMa (
“Ib)

review and epproval at the tine of building and zoning permit

 

ilding locations . . . shall be subject to [Commission]

a2
 

'FOR PUBLICATION IN MEST’ S HAWAI'I REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

 

application[,]" “(nlo part of any structure shall penetrate the
open zone strip fronting the shoreline[,]” “{t]he setback from
Mealea Road and Alanc'o Read shall be a minimun of 20 feet(,1”
“[a]i1 other front yard setbacks shall be 15 feet{,]” and “[t}he
side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet.” The approval
of SMA (U)-84-2 required that the conditions of the permit “shall
be established as restrictive covenants within each deed at the
tine of subdivision.” Additionally, the requirements and
conditions of SMA (U)-84-2 were in fact included in the CCURS
recorded on February 20, 1992. the recorded CcuRs were
incorporated into Brescia‘s deed. Brescia then clearly had
notice of the requirements and conditions of SHA (U)-84-2 when he
acquired his property.

Hence, inasmuch es the objectives and policies of the
CIMA axe “parencunt in any determination involving the use of
land in a special management axeal,]" Mahuiki, 65 Haw. at 518,
654 P.2d at 682-83 (citations omitted), the Connission upheld
these objectives and policies in issuing SMA (U)-64-2, and the
requirenents and conditions of SMA (U)-84-2 were incorporated in

Brescia’s deed as restrictive covenants, the Conmiesion had

 

rational crounds for denying Erescia’s request to snend SMA (U)-
24-2, or for 2 variance. Under the circumstances of this case,
the Commission did not “clearly exceed[] the bounds of reason or
disregard|] rules or principles of law or practice to the

substantial detrinent of a party litigant.” Kimura, 106 Hawai'i

 

4a
‘S#*TOR FUBLICATION IN WEST’ WAWAI'T REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER!*#

SS

at 507, 107 P.3d at 436 (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted) .

Consequently, the court's finding no, 115 that “[t}he
Commission's denial of the variance request [to build out to
within 31 feet of the shoreline) lacks support in the record” is
clearly erroneous, especially in light of the fact that the court
steelf acknowledged An finding no. 102 thet “other improved
lots in the inmediate neighborhood were aubject to shoreline
setbacks ranging from 80 to 38 feet." Finally, in this regard,

conclusion ne. 26 which states, in part, that “the

 

the court
Commission errenecusly denied the variance in view of the
relieble, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole
record,” is wrong as a matter of lew.

x.

Brescia’s sixth argunent on appeal is that the
Commission is estopped from enforcing a “totally different
building prohibition than is set forth in the [SMA(U)-64-2
erder]." More specifically, Brescia asserts that the Commission
should be bound by the 20-foct setback he clains the Planning
Department represented te be appliceble. We held that the
estoppel doctrine is net applicable.

In the context of this case, equitable estoppel is

Eesed cn @ chenge cf position on the pert of a lend
developer by rubstantial expenaiture of money in connection
with hie project in relience, net selely on existing zoning
Jews or oh good faith expectancy that his development will
be pernittes, Est on i efeurence on which he tata
tie prozect has net Toning requitenents,
‘ovals will be forthcoming in ave course,
ronesd with tne prosect.

 

  

   

ry
‘*+sFOR FUELICATION IN MEST’S KAWAI REFORIS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*#*
Life of the Land Inc,, v, City Council of the City & County of
Honolulu, 61 Haw. 390, 453, 606 P.2d 866, 902 (1980) (emphases

 

added). Estoppel “cannot be applied to actions for which the
agency of acent of the governsent has no authority.” Tumer vs
Chandler, 67 Hawei's 230, 224, 955 P.2d 1062, 1066 (App. 1998)
(quoting Filipe v, Chang, 62 Haw. 626, 634, 618 P.2d 295, 300
(1980) (other estation omitted)) (emphasis added). It ds well
established that zoning which terminates inchoate rights to
develop land is a legitimate exercise of the police power. see
County of Kavas v. Pac, Standard Life Ins. Co., 65 Haw. 318, 336-
37, 683 F.2d 766, 779 (1962) (citation omitted). “Zoning

oppel is not intended to protect speculative business risks.

 

Thus, an expenditure made in compliance with underlying zoning
but before final discretionary action will be disregarded for
estoppel purposes.” Id, at 332, 653 P.2d at 777 (citing Life of
the land Inc., 61 Haw. at 455, 606 P.2d at 903).

Brescis meinteine that “for the past 16 years, the
County had understocd and represented to the public that the

le setback was 20 feet." As support for this contention,

 

appli
Brescia submitted a letter written to a neighboring property
owner by Deputy Planning Director Sheilah Miyake, in which the

sh

 

ine setback for the neighbor's property was confirmed to be

 

20 feet according to the Kaua'i Rules. Brescia states that “[a]t

 

the tine of and pricr te acquiring Let 6 for more than $900,000,
Brescia and his agents inquired and were informed by nenbers of

x Lot 6 was 20

 

the Kaua'i Planning Department that the setback

 

4s
‘**TOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAWAI'I REPCRTS AND FACIFIC REPORTERS+®

feet inland of the certified shoreline.” According to the
Commission, Brescia submitted an affidavit “which stated he ‘was
informed by Kavai County Officiale’, whom he did not name, [that]
the: shoreline setback on Lot 6 was 20 feet inland of the

certified shoreline.”

But as this court noted in Keno’ v. Kene, 106 Hawai'i
270, 298, 103 F.3d 929, 264 (2005), “Lalgents of the government
must act within the bounds of thelr authority: and one who deals
with then assures the risk that they are so acting.’” (Quoting
Sanare de Cristo Dev, Co., Inc, v, United States, 932 F.2d 681,
894 (20th Cir. 1991).). The authority to establish setback lines
within the SMA, as stated in Brescia’s deed, rests with the
Commission. 1t is well accepted that a public enployee not
vested with decision making authority may not bind the state in
its exercise of the police power. See Godbeld v, Manibes, 36
Haw. 206 (1942) (holding that a state cannot be estopped by the
unauthorized acts or representations of its officers).

More importantly, the esteppel argunent is unavailing

given the fact that Schedule “B,” Condition 8 in Brescia’s CC&Rs

 

states, inter alia, that ~ sed setbacks sh
the Plannin sii ne

teulew if the design of a residence warrants a greater setback.”
(Emphasis added.) Thus, Brescia was on notice thet the

Commission retained the discreticnary authority to impose @

 

greater setback.

46
 

‘s#4FOR PUBLICATION IN MESI’S HAMAT'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER:

 

Nonetheless, the court in finding no. 77 found that
“Brescia had the Fight to rely on the representations of the
County Planning Department as to the applicable setbacks for the
subdivision." This is not a finding of fact, but is rather a

conclusion of law. This court “reviews conclusions of law de

 

novo, under the right or wrong standard.” 2's Enters. Inc. v
Del Rosario, 111 Hewai'i 484, 489, 143 P.3d 23, 28 (2006)
(citation omitted). Because the authority to establish setback
lines within the SMA, as stated in Brescia’s deed, rests with the
Commission, the court's conclusion that Brescia had a right to
rely on the representations, if any, of the Planning Depertment
as to the setback, is wrong. Hence, Brescia’s estoppel argument
must necessarily fail.

xI.

Brescia’s final argument on appeal is that he had a
vested right to proceed with the construction of his residence,
and that the Commission’s recognition of the line on the July
1983 map as the spplicable setback line violated Brescia’s
constitutional due process rights. We conclude that Brescia vas
not vested with a property interest sufficient to implicate due
process protection, but in any event, he was afforded due process
in this case.

Both the federal and state Due Process Clauses include

protection from deprivation of property without due process of

a7
*40TOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S KAWAL'T REPORTS 2ND PACIFIC REPORTERI+#

Jaw, See U.S, Const. amend, XIV, § 1; Haw, Const. art. 1, §
5. These guarantees apply when a constitutionally protected
property interest is at stake. See Bd, of Recents v. Roth, 408
U.S. 564, 569 (1972); seach De: . City Co

City & County of Honoluly, 70 Haw. 361, 376, 773 P.2d 250, 260
(1989). A property interest protected by the due process clause

rules or

 

“stem[s} from an independent source such as state 1a
understandings that secure certain benefits and that support
clains of entitlement to those benefits.” Roth, 408 U.S. at 577.
‘A property interest will be seen to exist “if discretion is
Limited by the procedures in question, that is, whether the
procedures, if followed, require a particular outcome.” Crown
Point 1, LLC v. Intermountain Rural Elec, Ass'n, 319 F.3d 1211,
1217 (20th Cir. 2003) (citing Hyde Park Co. v, Santa’ Fe City

Council, 226 F.3d 1207, 1210 (10th Cir. 2000)). See also Jacobs
Wa City of Lawrence Kenses, 927 F.2d 1111, 1116 (10th Cir. 1991)

Brescia contends that when the Commission applied the

 

more restrictive setback line reflected on the July 1, 1983 map

 

11 neke or enforce any law which shall abridge
coer or insunities of citszene of the United
nor shall any State deprive any person ef life,
Liberty, or property, without eve precest of Jal)

 

    

Rewes'd Cet
caste

tution, entitled “De

   

 

son shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of low, ner be Censed the equal
Pretection cf the laws, nor be denied the enieyaent of the
Person's civil rights cr be diserimsnetes ageinet in the
enercise thereof Eecause of Face, religion, ‘sex er ancestzy.

 

  

46
FOR PUBLICATION IN MEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER!

on neighboring Lot 9 at a hearing on December 11, 2001, Brescia’s

 

 

Gue process rights were violated because his parcel was likely to
be subject to the same July 1963 map setback line but he was not
given notice of that hearing or an opportunity to be heard. As

this court hes stated, “these interests

teke many forms.” Int'l Bhd, of Painters £ Allied Trades v
Befitel, 104 Hawai'i 275, 263, 88 P.3d 647, 655 (2004) (internal

property interests--may-

 

quotation marks and citation omitted). “But, the range of
interests protected by procedural due process is not infinite.”
Id, (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Recounted
earlier, see supra, SMA (U)-04-2 wes issued under HRS chapter
205A and a restrictive covenant in Brescia’s deed stated thet
[increased setbacks shall be required . . . if the design of a
residence warrants 2 greater setback.” Inasmuch as Brescia’s
deed relsted thet the Conmission reteined suthority to anend the
setback at the time of building permit review, Brescia was not
vested with @ property interest in building a particular
structure.

A similar procedural due process claim in relation to a
land vse decision wae considered in Clark v. City of Hermosa
Beach, $6 Cel. ptr. 24 223 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). Clark held

that, even though the landowner had received a conditional vse

 

 

pernit te build a two-unit condominium, the planning conniesion
still retained the discretion to “inpose standards above the
minimums designated by the zening ordinance to improve the
quality of development and te mitigate any environmental

48
‘***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND FACIFIC REPORTER +®

 

impacts.” Id, at 241 (internal quotation marks, citation, and
emphasis omitted). In finding no legitimate “claim of
entitlenent to a structure having any particular dimensions,”
that court explained as follows:

‘The Clarks [(Landesners)) do not (and cannot) claim that the
City has" infringes their snterest in constrsctSng © home per
se.” The City aid not bar the Clarks from belicing these
Ecidoninium project sltogethery it denied their application
withoot prejucice te submitting @ revised plan reflecting
the Council's concerns about height, let coverage, snd
sable open space. Thus, the interest at issue ie nat that
of a lenuowner to constrict a roof over his head) rather, it
‘is the Clarke’ inverest in building s structure having the
specitic dimensions they find ceslrable:

 

   

   

Id

Hence, in the instant case, irrespective of the actions
taken by the Commission at the earlier hearing relating to the
neighbor's property, Brescia was not vested with a sufficient
property interest to invoke @ due process violation. He was on
notice that the triangular-shaped parcel he was purchasing,
located in the State’s restricted SMA, was a “visually sensitive
(parcel] in relation to its scenic location on (Kauai’s) North
Shore,” and from the CCéRs in his deed, that “increased setbacks
(could) be required by the Planning Comission at [the] time of
zoning and building permit review[.J" Here, as in Clark, Brescia
cannot claim an entitlement to situate his residence in any
particular location, or claim an entitlenent to a particular

ed residence. As in Clark, Brescia is not being denied the

 

 

right to build a hone; rather, the interest must be classified as
“en interest in building a structure having the specific

Gimensions” which Brescia finds desireble. Id, ‘The discretion

50
'FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S EAWAI'T REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER'*#
left in the Commission to increase the setback defeats any

 

expectation that Brescia’s application must be opproved as
submitted.

Brescia cites Ridenour v, Jessamine County Fiscal ct.,
842 8.W.2d $32 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992), for his claim that he was
deprived of @ property interest without due process of law.
Ridenour, however, Ss distinguishable. In Ridenour, after
conducting @ £011 public hearing, a planning conmission issued
findings and a recommendation for approval of the applicant's
requested zoning change. Id, at $34. A secondary governnent
body with final decision-making authority conducted a review of
the planning cormission’s decision, and was to confine itself to
the record presented to the commission. Id, The secondary body,
however, did not in fact confine itself to the plenning

conmission record--end, further, did not inform the applicant of

 

the meeting at which his request would be taken up. Id. That
court held that, “(blecause the [secondary governnent body]
elected to review the reconmendation of the plenning commission

solely on the record of [the comission],” it was improper to

 

consider matters outside the record. Id, at 535. Unlike in
Ridenour, in this case the Conmission was not conducting a
secondary review, and was not required to ccnfine its

deliberations to any previously established record. Further,

 

unlike in Ridenour, Brescia was given notice of the Conmission
meeting at which his zoning request would be teken up, and a full
opportunity to be heard.

51
 

FOR FUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REFORTS AND FACIFIC REPORTER:

 

Brescia's reliance on Medeiros v, Hawaii County
Planning Comm'n, € Haw. App. 183, 797 P.2d $9 (1990), is
unpersuasive. In Medeiros, the appellants owned property
directly abutting land on which the county planning commission
approved the drilling of 4,000-feet deep holes in the geothermal
resource subzone. Id. at 190, 797 P.2d at 63. Appellants
challenged the issuance of the permit on due process grounds.
Id. at 193, 197 P.2d at 65. In finding no due process violation,
the Intermediate Court of Appeals noted that whether appellants
were vested with a property interest sufficient to trigger
protection was arouable, end indeed did not reach this question.
Id, at 194-95, 797 P.2d at 65.

Brescia proffers that the Commission's imposition of
the Developer's Setback on the neighboring property “was a fait
accompli to Brescis’s prejudice and in violation of his rights.”

This contention is not meritorious. Brescia was given a full

 

public hearing before the Conmission made its ruling on Lot 6.
At the public hearing Brescia was able to present testimony to
support his request for a variance. The Connission, along with
Brescia, Planning Cepertment staff, and menbers of the public,
Conducted @ site inspection of the property. It is manifest thet
the Commission did receive evidence concerning Brescia’s request
for a variance. The record supports, for the reasons stated in
this decision, thet the Commission was cbliged to follow C2MA

policies and its construction ef SMA (U)-84-2 which established

 

setbacks in the subdivision at approximately 40 to 75 feet, was

82
 

‘S+sFOR FUELICATION IN WEST’S HAMAI‘T REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the
record. While the variance scught was ultimately denied, Brescia
nonetheless received the due process to which he was entitled.
Thus, the court's conclusion no. 10 that “[t]he Commission's
actions on Decenber 11, 2001 in its new interpretation and
application of @ setback line, without any notice to and the
opportunity to be heard by Brescia and other affected landowners,
were made in violation of their constitutional right of due
process," was wrong 2s a matter of lew.
xr.

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the court's
March 4, 2008 judgment, and remand this case to the court with
instructions to enter judgment thereon affirming the Conmission’s

Septenber 9, 2003 order.
‘On the briefs: Pies © Pinca aries
Herold Bronstein for

defencants/appellees-

appellant: Yous. Beye

 

Walton D.Y. Hong for
plaintiff /appellant-
appellee.

83