*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX 10-MAR-2023 08:47 AM Dkt. 33 OP
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
---o0o---
HOOMOANA FOUNDATION, Respondent/Respondent/Appellant-Appellee,
vs.
LAND USE COMMISSION, STATE OF HAWAII, Respondent/Petitioner/Appellee-Appellant,
and
PUUNOA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; AND COURTNEY L. LAMBRECHT, Petitioners/Respondents/Appellees-Appellees.
SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX consolidated with CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; CIV. NO. 16-1-0160)
MARCH 10, 2023
NAKAYAMA, WILSON, AND EDDINS, JJ., AND McKENNA, J., DISSENTING, WITH WHOM RECKTENWALD, C.J., JOINS
OPINION OF THE COURT BY NAKAYAMA, J.
This case concerns a proposed overnight campground
development for unhoused and commercial campers on “class B”
land in an agricultural district near Lahaina, Maui. At issue *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
is whether the Hoʻomoana Foundation’s (the foundation) proposed
campground project can be authorized by special use permit or
whether a district boundary amendment is required. The specific
exclusion of overnight camps from permitted uses in Hawaiʻi
Revised Statutes (HRS) § 205-4.5(a)(6)1 means that the public and
private recreational use of overnight camps is not permitted in
class A and B land in agricultural districts, and cannot be
permitted by special use permit. In addition, Mahaʻulepu v. Land
Use Commission, 71 Haw. 332, 790 P.2d 906 (1990), superseded by
statute, 2005 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 205, §§ 2-3 at 669-71, which
held that a use not permitted under HRS § 205-4.5(a)(6) could be
authorized by special use permit, is overruled because it was
1 Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 205-4.5 (Supp. 2015) “Permissible uses within the agricultural districts” provides in relevant part:
(a) Within the agricultural district, all lands with soil classified by the land study bureau's detailed land classification as overall (master) productivity rating class A or B and for solar energy facilities, class B or C, shall be restricted to the following permitted uses:
. . . .
(6) Public and private open area types of recreational uses, including day camps, picnic grounds, parks, and riding stables, but not including dragstrips, airports, drive-in theaters, golf courses, golf driving ranges, country clubs, and overnight camps[.]
(b) Uses not expressly permitted in subsection (a) shall be prohibited, except the uses permitted as provided in sections 205-6 and 205-8[.]
. . . . 2 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
incorrectly decided. Because the foundation’s proposed
campground project includes a public or private recreational
overnight camp use, the project requires a district boundary
amendment.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
The Land Use Commission (LUC) described the
foundation’s proposed campground project as follows:
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
8. The Property is situated along Hokiokio Place, adjacent to and bounded by the Lahaina Bypass Road between the Puamana Planned Unit Development and the agriculturally zoned Puʻunoa Subdivision . . . at Lahaina, Maui, Hawaiʻi. Kauaʻula Stream flows on one side of the Property. The lots within the Puʻunoa Subdivision are situated immediately mauka of the Property.
9. The Property consists of approximately 7.9 acres of land and represents a portion of the approximately 22.678- acre parcel[].
10. The Property is situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District.
11. The Property is owned by Kauaula Land Company, LLC, and is leased to Hoʻomoana.
12. The Property has soil classified by the [Land Study Bureau’s] detailed land classification as overall (master) productivity rating class B. Specifically, the Property is situated on “B87i” rated land.
13. The Property was previously used for sugarcane cultivation.
14. In addition to the Property, [the parcel] includes an approximately 9-acre area used as a retirement stable for horses and approximately 5.8 acres that are part of the Lahaina Watershed Flood Control project area.
PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY
15. Hoʻomoana plans to develop the Project as an overnight campground for homeless and commercial campers with an
3 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
agricultural field for possible future uses by the campers on the Property. The name of the Project is Kauaula Campground.
16. Under Hoʻomoana’s proposal, the Project would consist of 2 acres, while the remaining adjacent 5.9 acres would be reserved as an agricultural field to be used by the campground occupants for therapy and work. It is envisioned that the [homeless] campers may work in the agricultural field to supplement their rental fees. Homeless campers are expected to pay $10 a night, while the commercial campers would be charged more. The camping fees are anticipated to underwrite the expenses of the campground. Although some of the campers may wish to participate in farming activities on the Property, there is no guarantee that the agricultural field would result in future agricultural productivity nor is there a current requirement placed upon the campers to engage in agricultural pursuits.
17. The 2-acre area of the Project would have up to 26 pods for tents accommodating up to 80 people. Tents are to be provided by the campers. It is intended that both the homeless campers and the commercial campers would be camping alongside each other. In addition to the pods, showers, toilet facilities, fire pits or camp stove areas, a paved parking area, and a charging station for campers are proposed. Homeless campers would be allowed to stay for two to three months or more as approved by the campground manager. It is unclear how long commercial campers would be allowed to use the grounds, but any stay would need to be approved by the manager.
18. Hoʻomoana does not know whether there will be sufficient use to justify continued operations, nor does Hoʻomoana know whether the Project will prove successful in addressing some of the needs of the homeless [people] in West Maui.
19. The Project is being initiated on a trial basis.
(Footnotes omitted.)2
2 No party challenged the LUC’s Findings of Fact describing the property and the proposed campground project before the circuit court or before the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA). Findings of fact that are not challenged on appeal are binding on the appellate court. See Bremer v. Weeks, 104 Hawaiʻi 43, 63, 85 P.3d 150, 170 (2004).
4 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
B. Procedural History
1. Administrative Proceedings
The foundation filed an application for a special use
permit with the Maui Planning Commission, which held a hearing
regarding the application on July 28, 2015.
On December 4, 2015, the Puʻunoa Homeowners Association
and its president Devonne Lane (the homeowners3) filed a petition
with the LUC seeking a declaratory order that the campground
project required a district boundary amendment and could not be
authorized by a special use permit. The homeowners live next to
the proposed project site. The homeowners argued that the
foundation’s proposed use did not promote the objectives of
chapter 205 because there was no guarantee of agricultural
activity at the proposed campground, making a special use permit
unwarranted.
The County of Maui Department of Planning (Maui
Planning Department); the Office of Planning, State of Hawaiʻi
(State Planning Office); and the foundation all filed position
statements with the LUC arguing that a special use permit, not a
3 Reference to “the homeowners” includes the Puʻunoa Homeowners Association and Devonne Lane until Ross Scott was substituted for Devonne Lane during the ICA proceedings on February 5, 2019. From February 5, 2019 until February 8, 2023, “the homeowners” refers to the Puʻunoa Homeowners Association and Ross Scott. On February 8, 2023, Courtney L. Lambrecht was substituted for Ross Scott. From February 8, 2023 onward, “the homeowners” refers to the Puʻunoa Homeowners Association and Courtney L. Lambrecht. 5 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
district boundary amendment, is appropriate. The foundation
also petitioned to intervene in the action.
On February 24, 2016, the LUC heard the homeowner’s
petition and the foundation’s petition to intervene at a public
meeting. The LUC heard testimony from nearby residents, and
from the homeowners’ counsel, the Maui Planning Department’s
counsel, the State Planning Office’s counsel, and the
foundation’s counsel. A majority of the LUC voted to grant the
homeowners’ petition, and then unanimously voted to deny the
foundation’s motion to intervene as moot.
The LUC’s March 3, 2016 declaratory order concluded
that the campground project could not be permitted by special
use permit and required a district boundary amendment. The LUC
determined:
5. In this case, the clear prohibition of overnight camps on class A and class B rated lands is irreconcilable with the provisions of HRS § 205-6 that permit certain “unusual and reasonable uses” within agricultural districts other than for which the district is classified. By expressly prohibiting overnight camps on class A and class B rated lands, the legislature effectively determined that the use of overnight camp facilities on class A and class B rated lands is unreasonable.
6. To adopt the interpretation of Hoʻomoana, [the State Planning Office], and the [Maui Planning Department] that a special use permit may be used to allow the Project on class A and class B rated agricultural lands despite the clear language to the contrary would mean that the counties could define away completely any statutory restrictions on agricultural uses. It results in treating a clear and explicit statutory prohibition as a nullity, and it results in treating an implicit determination of the legislature that overnight camps on land classified as class A and class B is an unreasonable use on such land as a nullity, and as such must be rejected. The only way that overnight camps such as those proposed in the Project can be allowed 6 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
on the Property is to change its land use classification to one where overnight camps would be permitted. A change in the land use classification would require a district boundary amendment.
The LUC also filed an order denying the foundation’s petition to
intervene as moot.
2. Circuit Court Proceedings
On March 29, 2016, the foundation appealed the LUC’s
declaratory order and order denying the foundation’s motion to
intervene to the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (circuit
court). The foundation asked the circuit court to reverse the
LUC’s orders. The foundation argued the plain language of HRS
§ 205-4.5(a)(6) does not mean that overnight camps can never be
allowed, but rather means that overnight camps are not an “open
area type of recreational use” and may be permitted if
determined to be an “unusual and reasonable use[].” The
foundation also argued the LUC failed to follow Mahaʻulepu, which
“found that HRS § 205-4.5(b) allows uses for which special
permits may be obtained under HRS § 205-6”4 and applies to the
present matter.
4 HRS § 205-6 (2017) provides in relevant part:
(a) Subject to this section, the county planning commission may permit certain unusual and reasonable uses within agricultural and rural districts other than those for which the district is classified. Any person who desires to use the person's land within an agricultural or rural district other than for an agricultural or rural use, as the case may be, may petition the planning commission of the county within which the person's land is located for permission to use the person's land in the manner desired. Each county may 7 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
The LUC countered it properly interpreted HRS §§ 205-
4.5 and 205-6: the more specific restrictions against overnight
camps should prevail against the more general provisions for
special use permits, and overnight camps can never be
“reasonable” uses under HRS § 205-6 because they are explicitly
excluded in HRS § 205-4.5. Further, a contrary reading would
render the specific restrictions against overnight camps a
nullity, which should be avoided.
The homeowners argued the foundation was attempting to
circumvent the land use laws and achieve spot zoning by seeking
a special use permit. The homeowners emphasized the Hawaiʻi
Constitution and HRS chapter 205 both enshrine the protection of
agricultural lands.
establish the appropriate fee for processing the special permit petition. Copies of the special permit petition shall be forwarded to the land use commission, the office of planning, and the department of agriculture for their review and comment.
(c) The county planning commission may, under such protective restrictions as may be deemed necessary, permit the desired use, but only when the use would promote the effectiveness and objectives of this chapter; provided that a use proposed for designated important agricultural lands shall not conflict with any part of this chapter. A decision in favor of the applicant shall require a majority vote of the total membership of the county planning commission.
8 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
On February 16, 2017, the circuit court entered its
Final Judgment in favor of the foundation, pursuant to its
January 4, 2017 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
Vacating the Land Use Commission, State of Hawaiʻi’s Decisions
and Orders Entered on March 3, 2016. The circuit court held
that overnight camps are allowable by special use permit. The
circuit court held HRS § 205-4.5(a)(6) unambiguously means that
overnight camps are not “open area types of recreational uses”
and noted the relevant statutory language had been directly
addressed in Mahaʻulepu.
3. Intermediate Court of Appeals Proceedings
The LUC and the homeowners appealed the circuit
court’s Final Judgment to the ICA.
Before the ICA, the LUC asserted that HRS § 205-4.5(a)
creates three categories of uses: (1) expressly permitted uses,
(2) uses not mentioned in HRS § 205-4.5(a) that are prohibited
by default per HRS § 205-4.5(b) but can be approved by special
permit, and (3) uses expressly not permitted under HRS § 205-
4.5(a). Regarding the third category, the LUC explained,
“[b]ecause the use is specified, that implies that the
Legislature disapproves of the use and considers it inconsistent
with the purposes of the land use statutes and the agricultural
classification. Therefore, such a use should not be subject to
the special permit process.” (Footnote and citations omitted.) 9 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
The LUC argued that because the third category of uses fails to
satisfy the criteria applicable to special permits as a matter
of law, allowing such uses to go through the special permit
process would be pointless. The LUC noted HRS § 205-4.5(b)
applies to uses subsection (a) is silent on, but does not apply
to uses expressly not permitted. As to Mahaʻulepu, the LUC
argued that because the legislature clarified that golf courses
cannot be authorized by special permit in 2005, the same should
be presumed for the other uses excluded in HRS § 205-4.5(a)(6).
The homeowners contended that Mahaʻulepu is no longer
good law and emphasized that the relevant legislative history
evinces an intent to protect agriculture.
The foundation maintained the statute refers to two
categories of uses: (1) expressly permitted uses and (2) all
other uses that are prohibited by default, because the statute
does not refer to “expressly not permitted” uses. The
foundation also noted that overnight stays on agricultural lands
are not contrary to the objectives of chapter 205 because HRS
§ 205-4.5(a)(14) permits “[a]gricultural tourism activities,
including overnight accommodations of twenty-one days or less
. . . .”
On May 23, 2022 the ICA issued a memorandum opinion
vacating the circuit court’s decision with regard to the
intervention issue and remanded. The ICA concluded it was bound 10 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
by Mahaʻulepu, making the LUC’s decision contradicting Mahaʻulepu
palpably erroneous. However, the ICA observed that the specific
exclusion of overnight camps should control over the general
availability of special permits in keeping with canons of
statutory construction and furthering the statutory scheme. The
ICA issued its Judgment on Appeal on June 24, 2022.
4. Application for Writ of Certiorari
In timely applications, the LUC and the homeowners
both argue Mahaʻulepu should be overruled and special permits
should not be used to approve expressly not permitted uses on
class A and B agricultural land.
In response, the foundation argues the doctrine of
stare decisis is particularly strong regarding statutory
interpretation because if the legislature disagrees with a
court’s interpretation of a statute, the legislature can amend
the law. The foundation further contends overruling Mahaʻulepu
is unwarranted.
The foundation’s procedural due process argument
regarding intervention raised before the circuit court and the
ICA was not raised on certiorari, and as such will not be
addressed.
11 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
A. Review of agency decisions [T]he standard of review, as set forth in HRS § 91-14, is as follows:
Upon review of the record, the court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case with instructions for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision and order if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, conclusions, decisions, or orders are:
(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency;
(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;
(4) Affected by other error of law;
(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or
(6) Arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
HRS § 91-14(g).
Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, pursuant to subsections (1), (2) and (4); questions regarding procedural defects are reviewable under subsection (3); findings of fact (FOF) are reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard, pursuant to subsection (5), and an agency’s exercise of discretion is reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard, pursuant to subsection (6). Mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard because the conclusion is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
In re Hawaiʻi Elec. Light Co., 145 Hawaiʻi 1, 10–11, 445 P.3d
673, 682–83 (2019) (cleaned up).
12 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
B. Statutory interpretation
“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law
which this court reviews de novo.” State v. Thompson, 150
Hawaiʻi 262, 266, 500 P.3d 447, 451 (2021) (citing State v.
Ruggiero, 114 Hawaiʻi 227, 231, 160 P.3d 703, 707 (2007)).
First, the fundamental starting point for statutory interpretation is the language of the statute itself. Second, where the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, our sole duty is to give effect to its plain and obvious meaning. Third, implicit in the task of statutory construction is our foremost obligation to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself.
Ito v. Invs. Equity Life Holding Co., 135 Hawaiʻi 49, 61, 346
P.3d 118, 130 (2015) (quoting Haw. State Tchrs. Ass’n v.
Abercrombie, 126 Hawaiʻi 318, 320, 271 P.3d 613, 615 (2012)).
III. DISCUSSION
A. The uses specifically not permitted by HRS § 205-4.5(a)(6) cannot be authorized by special use permit.
The state-level land use system is set out in HRS
chapter 205. Land in Hawaiʻi is divided into four land use
districts: urban, rural, agricultural, and conservation. HRS
§ 205-2(a) (2001). Agricultural lands are further classified by
soil productivity level from “A” to “E,” with class A denoting
the highest productivity level and class E denoting the lowest.
Neighborhood Bd. No. 24 (Waianae Coast) v. State Land Use
Comm’n, 64 Haw. 265, 267 n.2, 639 P.2d 1097, 1099 n.2 (1982).
Under HRS § 205-4.5, agricultural districts are restricted to
13 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
certain uses, which depend on the productivity rating.
Subsection (a) of HRS § 205-4.5 provides that class A and B
agricultural lands “shall be restricted to the following
permitted uses . . . .” Subsection (a) then enumerates
permitted uses, such as “(1) [c]ultivation of crops, including
crops for bioenergy, flowers, vegetables, foliage, fruits,
forage, and timber;” and “(2) [g]ame and fish propagation
. . . .” At issue here is the sixth enumerated use: “(6)
[p]ublic and private open area types of recreational uses,
including day camps, picnic grounds, parks, and riding stables,
but not including dragstrips, airports, drive-in theaters, golf
courses, golf driving ranges, country clubs, and overnight camps
. . . .” (Emphasis added.)
Next, subsection (b) provides: “Uses not expressly
permitted in subsection (a) shall be prohibited, except the uses
permitted as provided in sections 205-6 [special permits] and
205-8 [nonconforming uses] . . . .”
HRS § 205-6 sets forth the law on special use permits.
It provides: “the county planning commission may permit certain
unusual and reasonable uses within agricultural and rural
districts other than those for which the district is
classified.” HRS § 205-6(a) (emphasis added). Further, “[t]he
county planning commission may, under such protective
restrictions as may be deemed necessary, permit the desired use, 14 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
but only when the use would promote the effectiveness and
objectives of this chapter . . . .” HRS § 205-6(c) (emphasis
added).
The question before this court is whether the public
and private open area types of recreational uses explicitly not
permitted in HRS § 205-4.5(a)(6) – dragstrips, airports, drive-
in theaters, golf courses, golf driving ranges, country clubs,
and overnight camps – can be permitted by special use permit
under HRS §§ 205-4.5(b) and 205-6.
“[T]he fundamental starting point for statutory
interpretation is the language of the statute itself. . . .
[O]ur foremost obligation [is] to ascertain and give effect to
the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained
primarily from the language contained in the statute itself.”
Invs. Equity Life Holding Co., 135 Hawaiʻi at 61, 346 P.3d at 130
(quoting Abercrombie, 126 Hawaiʻi at 320, 271 P.3d at 615).
Special use permits are available only for “unusual
and reasonable uses” and “only when the use would promote the
effectiveness and objectives of this chapter.” HRS § 205-6(a)
and (c). HRS § 205-4.5(a)(6) specifically lists uses that are
not permitted in class A and B agricultural district land. By
explicitly banning certain uses in HRS § 205-4.5(a)(6), the
legislature indicated those uses on class A and B agricultural
land are inherently not reasonable. Therefore, a plain reading 15 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
of the text demonstrates that special use permits are
unavailable to authorize the public and private recreational
uses of “dragstrips, airports, drive-in theaters, golf courses,
golf driving ranges, country clubs, and overnight camps” because
those are not reasonable uses on class A and B agricultural
land.
Further, the statutory rule against superfluity
establishes that special use permits are unavailable for the
public and private recreational uses of “dragstrips, airports,
drive-in theaters, golf courses, golf driving ranges, country
clubs, and overnight camps” on class A and B agricultural land.
“It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that courts are
bound to give effect to all parts of a statute, and that no
clause, sentence, or word shall be construed as superfluous.”
State v. Bautista, 86 Hawaiʻi 207, 213, 948 P.2d 1048, 1054
(1997) (quoting State v. Ganal, 81 Hawai‘i 358, 372, 917 P.2d
370, 384 (1996)). If special use permits were available for the
explicitly not permitted uses listed in HRS § 205-4.5(a)(6), HRS
§ 205-4.5(a)(6)’s clause banning such uses would be superfluous.
Therefore, to give effect to HRS § 205-4.5(a)(6)’s clause
excluding the public and private recreational uses of
“dragstrips, airports, drive-in theaters, golf courses, golf
driving ranges, country clubs, and overnight camps” from
16 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
permitted uses on class A and B agricultural land, such uses
cannot be permitted by special use permit.
Another principle of statutory interpretation confirms
that HRS § 205-4.5(a)(6)’s specific list of not permitted uses
controls over the general default rule and special use permit
exception of HRS § 205-4.5(b).
It is the generally accepted rule of statutory construction that unless a legislative intention to the contrary clearly appears, special or particular provisions control over general provisions, terms or expressions. . . . It is also elementary that specific provisions must be given effect notwithstanding the general provisions are broad enough to include the subject to which the specific provisions relate.
In re R Child., 145 Hawai‘i 477, 485, 454 P.3d 418, 426 (2019)
(quoting State v. Coney, 45 Haw. 650, 662, 372 P.2d 348, 354
(1962), overruled on other grounds by City and Cnty. of Honolulu
v. Bonded Inv. Co., 54 Haw. 385, 507 P.2d 1084 (1973)). HRS
§ 205-4.5(a)(6)’s express list of not permitted uses is more
specific than HRS § 205-4.5(b)’s default prohibition and general
special use permit exception. As such, HRS § 205-4.5(a)(6)’s
express list of not permitted uses controls.
A closer examination of HRS § 205-6 reinforces that
special use permits are unavailable for the public and private
recreational uses of “dragstrips, airports, drive-in theaters,
golf courses, golf driving ranges, country clubs, and overnight
camps” on class A and B agricultural land. Using class A and B
agricultural land for such uses of “dragstrips, airports, drive-
17 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
in theaters, golf courses, golf driving ranges, country clubs,
and overnight camps” does not appear to promote the objectives
of HRS chapter 205, which is required by HRS § 205-6(c) to
qualify for a special use permit. See HRS § 205-6(c) (“The
restrictions as may be deemed necessary, permit the desired use,
objectives of this chapter . . . .” (emphasis added)).
The “overarching purpose” of HRS chapter 205 is to
“protect and conserve natural resources and foster intelligent,
effective, and orderly land allocation and development.” Kaua‘i
Springs, Inc. v. Planning Comm’n of Cnty. of Kaua‘i, 133 Hawai‘i
141, 169, 324 P.3d 951, 979 (2014) (quoting Curtis v. Bd. of
Appeals, Cnty. of Haw., 90 Hawai‘i 384, 396, 978 P.2d 822, 834
(1999)). Relevant here, HRS chapter 205 is intended in part to
protect agricultural land for agricultural use. See HRS § 205-
2(a)(3) (“In the establishment of the boundaries of agricultural
districts the greatest possible protection shall be given to
those lands with a high capacity for intensive cultivation[.]");
Curtis, 90 Hawai‘i at 396, 978 P.2d at 834 (noting that one of
the purposes of HRS chapter 205 is to “[u]tilize the land
resources in an intelligent, effective manner based upon the
capabilities and characteristics of the soil and the needs of
the economy” (emphasis added) (quoting H. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 18 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
395, in 1961 House Journal, at 855–56)). Moreover, the
legislature declared that “the people of Hawaii have a
substantial interest in the health and sustainability of
agriculture as an industry in the State. There is a compelling
state interest in conserving the State's agricultural land
resource base and assuring the long-term availability of
agricultural lands for agricultural use . . . .” HRS § 205-41
(2017). HRS § 205-41 was enacted pursuant to article XI,
section 3 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution, which enshrines the
protection of agricultural lands: “The State shall conserve and
protect agricultural lands, promote diversified agriculture,
increase agricultural self-sufficiency and assure the
availability of agriculturally suitable lands.”
Thus, in addition to the foregoing reasons, it appears
special use permits cannot authorize the public and private
recreational uses of “dragstrips, airports, drive-in theaters,
golf courses, golf driving ranges, country clubs, and overnight
camps” on class A and B agricultural land, because these uses of
class A and B agricultural land do not appear to promote the
objectives of chapter 205, as required by HRS § 205-6(c).
In sum, HRS §§ 205-4.5(a)(6) and 205-6 are clear: the
“public and private open area types of recreational uses” of
driving ranges, country clubs, and overnight camps” are not 19 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
permitted on class A and B agricultural land, and cannot be
permitted by special use permit.5
B. A district boundary amendment is required for the foundation’s proposed campground.
Public and private recreational uses of “dragstrips,
airports, drive-in theaters, golf courses, golf driving ranges,
country clubs, and overnight camps” are not permitted uses on
class A and B rated agricultural land and cannot be subject to a
special use permit. (Emphasis added.)
The foundation’s proposed campground is clearly an
“overnight camp” within the meaning of HRS § 205-4.5(a)(6). The
LUC found that “Hoʻomoana plans to develop the Project as an
overnight campground . . . The name of the Project is Kauaula
Campground.”6 The campground project is intended for
recreational use by commercial campers, in addition to use by
unhoused campers. Because the campground project includes a
5 This opinion does not construe “overnight accommodations” within the meaning of HRS § 205-2(d)(12), relating to agricultural tourism activities, because this issue was not raised on certiorari, except briefly by the foundation in the separate context of arguing Mahaʻulepu v. Land Use Commission, 71 Haw. 332, 790 P.2d 906 (1990), superseded by statute, 2005 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 205, §§ 2-3 at 669-71, was not abrogated.
6 In its answering briefs before the ICA, the foundation argued the record is inadequate because it does not include the special use permit application. The special use permit application is not in the record, though the homeowners appear to have attached excerpts of the special permit application as an exhibit. The foundation did not raise the issue on certiorari. Given our disposition in this case – that the special use permit procedure is not available for overnight camps on class A and B rated agricultural district land – the fact that the special use permit is not in the record is inconsequential. Throughout its briefing, the foundation admitted it is “seeking a special use permit for the operation of an overnight campground.” 20 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
recreational use of an overnight camp, the project cannot be
authorized by special use permit. Accordingly, the proposed
campground requires a district boundary amendment to change the
land use classification to one where recreational overnight
camps are permitted. See generally HRS § 205-3.1 (2005).
C. Mahaʻulepu v. Land Use Commission is overruled.
Mahaʻulepu v. Land Use Commission, 71 Haw. 332, 790
P.2d 906 (1990), superseded by statute, 2005 Haw. Sess. Laws Act
205, §§ 2-3 at 669-71, rests on flawed statutory analysis and
was incorrectly decided.
“[A] court should not overrule its earlier decisions unless the most cogent reasons and inescapable logic require it.” Dairy Rd. Partners v. Island Ins. Co., 92 Hawai‘i 398, 421, 992 P.2d 93, 116 (2000) (quoting State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai‘i 85, 95, 976 P.2d 399, 409 (1999)). Nevertheless, “there is no necessity or sound legal reason to perpetuate an error under the doctrine of stare decisis.” State v. Garcia, 96 Hawai‘i 200, 206, 29 P.3d 919, 925 (2001) (quoting Robinson v. Ariyoshi, 65 Haw. 641, 653 n.10, 658 P.2d 287, 297 n.10 (1982)). The doctrine is “subordinate to legal reasons and justice and we should not be unduly hesitant to overrule a former decision when to do so would bring about what is considered manifest justice.” Ariyoshi, 65 Haw. at 653 n.10, 658 P.2d at 297 n.10 (quoting McBryde Sugar Co. v. Robinson, 54 Haw. 174, 180, 504 P.2d 1330, 1335 (1973)).
State v. Chang, 144 Hawai‘i 535, 553, 445 P.3d 116, 134 (2019).
Mahaʻulepu is overruled because inescapable logic and the cogent
reasons enumerated above require it. The statutory analysis in
Mahaʻulepu is flawed, and “there is no necessity or sound legal
reason to perpetuate an error under the doctrine of stare
decisis.” Garcia, 96 Hawai‘i at 206, 29 P.3d at 925.
21 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Mahaʻulepu held that golf courses on class A and B
agricultural land can be authorized by special use permit under
HRS §§ 205-4.5(b) and 205-6, despite the fact that golf courses
are not a permitted use on class B agricultural land under HRS
§ 205-4.5(a)(6). Mahaʻulepu, 71 Haw. at 336–37, 790 P.2d at 908-
09. The opinion did not reconcile HRS § 205-4.5(a)(6)’s list of
explicitly not permitted uses with HRS § 205-4.5(b)’s and HRS
§ 205-6’s special use permit provisions. Instead, the opinion
analyzed the effect of Act 298 - the 1985 amendment to HRS
§ 205-2 relating to golf courses - on HRS § 205-4.5(b). Id. at
337-38, 790 P.2d at 909-10. Because Mahaʻulepu failed to engage
with the plain language of HRS § 205-4.5(a)(6) prohibiting
certain uses in class A and B agricultural districts, ignored
principles of statutory interpretation, and failed to effectuate
the purpose of the statutory scheme, it is overruled.7
IV. CONCLUSION
The specific exclusion of overnight camps from
permitted uses in HRS § 205-4.5(a)(6) means that the public and
private recreational use of overnight camps is not permitted,
even by special use permit, on class A and B agricultural
district land. Accordingly, the foundation’s proposed
7 The LUC’s contention that the foundation waived its argument regarding Mahaʻulepu will not be addressed in light of this decision overruling Mahaʻulepu. 22 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
campground project requires a district boundary amendment.
Further, Mahaʻulepu v. Land Use Commission, 71 Haw. 332, 790 P.2d
906 (1990), superseded by statute, 2005 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 205,
§§ 2-3 at 669-71, was incorrectly decided and is overruled.
Accordingly, we reverse the ICA’s June 24, 2022
Judgment on Appeal.
Robert T. Nakatsuji /s/ Paula A. Nakayama (Kimberly T. Guidry on the briefs) for /s/ Michael D. Wilson petitioner Land Use /s/ Todd W. Eddins Commission
Douglas R. Wright (Deborah K. Wright on the briefs) for petitioners Puʻunoa Homeowners Association, Inc. and Courtney L. Lambrecht
James W. Geiger for respondent Hoʻomoana Foundation