Source: http://www.hilanduselaw.com/2012/05/state-land-use-commission-does-not-have.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:58:57+00:00

Document:
In Kuleana Ku‘ikahi, LLC v. State, Land Use Commission, plaintiffs challenged the County of Maui's approval of a certain subdivision and subdivision uses. Plaintiffs filed a declaratory order with the State Land Use Commission (LUC), which challenged the County's compliance with state land use laws under HRS Chapter 205.
ranging in size from 5 to 37 acres in west Maui.
[U]nder HRS § 205-12 (2001 Repl.) the counties, not LUC, are charged with enforcing use classification districts. HRS § 205-12 provides that "[t]he appropriate officer or agency charged with the administration of county zoning laws shall enforce within each county the use classification districts adopted by the land use commission and the restriction on use and the condition relating to agricultural districts under section 205-4.5[.]"
While it is true that HRS § 205-17 requires LUC to take into account the preservation or maintenance of cultural historical or natural resources, HRS § 205-17 governs LUC's review of a petition for reclassification of district boundaries. A district boundary amendment from LUC was never sought and . . . an amendment was not needed because the proposed use of the Subdivisions' lots was for agricultural purposes.
County of Maui gave final approval for phases I and II of the Subdivisions, respectively. Any question as to the Subdivisions' effect on Native Hawaiian rights or natural resources under the constitution was impliedly answered when County of Maui approved the Subdivisions. Thus, by seeking a declaratory ruling from LUC under HRS § 91-8 as to the constitutional implications of the Subdivisions, Kuleana is essentially seeking review of County of Maui's approval of the Subdivisions.
The court explicitly held that "[w]ithout the need for a district boundary amendment, the jurisdiction to enforce use classification districts and their restrictions resides with the counties under HRS § 205-12."
The court leaves open the question of the LUC's authority to enforce conditions of a district boundary amendment approval imposed by the LUC through the order to show cause provisions under HRS § 205-4(g). This issue may be clarified on appeal of the Bridge Aina Lea case. Procedural standing in that state/federal case is summarized in this pleading posted at inversecondemnation.com.
For more on Hawaii's land use law, HRS ch. 205, visit our archives.

References: v. 
 § 205
 § 205
 § 205
 § 205
 § 91
 § 205
 § 205