Nuuanu Neighborhood Ass'n v. Department of Land Utilization of the City & County of Honolulu

630 P.2d 107, 63 Haw. 444
CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedJune 18, 1981
DocketNO. 7756
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 630 P.2d 107 (Nuuanu Neighborhood Ass'n v. Department of Land Utilization of the City & County of Honolulu) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nuuanu Neighborhood Ass'n v. Department of Land Utilization of the City & County of Honolulu, 630 P.2d 107, 63 Haw. 444 (haw 1981).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT BY

MARUMOTO, J.

The question for decision in this case is whether 45.783 acres of land in Nuuanu Valley, Honolulu, owned by Dowsett Highlands Land Trust, for which the owner has submitted to the Department of Land Utilization of the City and County of Honolulu an application for subdivision into 58 lots as residential lots in R-3 Residential district established in the Comprehensive Zoning Code of the City and County of Honolulu, are legally zoned for residential use.

*445 In this opinion, Dowsett Highlands Land Trust, Department of Land Utilization of the City and County of Honolulu, Director of the Department, and the land involved in the subdivision application will be referred to respectively as Dowsett, DLU, Director of DLU, and the subject land; and the following brief descriptions will be used to refer to the charters, ordinances and resolutions mentioned and discussed herein:

(a) 1943 Zoning Resolution: Resolution No. 121 of the City Planning Commission, approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 5,1943, which created Class AA Residential District No. 9, Dowsett Highlands and Dowsett Tract, Nuuanu;
(b) 1959 Charter: Charter of the City and County of Honolulu, enacted in Session Laws of Hawaii 1959, Act 261, which became effective on July 1, 1959;
(c) 1964 General Plan: General plan enacted in Ordinance No. 2443, pursuant to 1959 Charter, Section 5-512, which became effective on May 7, 1964;
(d) 1968 Development Plan: Development plan enacted in Ordinance No. 3196, pursuant to 1959 Charter, Section 5-512, which became effective on June 6, 1968;
(e) Puunui-Nuuanu-Dowsett DLUM: Detailed land use map for Puunui-Nuuanu-Dowsett area, adopted in Ordinance No. 3197, which became effective on June 6, 1968;
(f) CZC: Comprehensive Zoning Code of the City and County of Honolulu, enacted pursuant to 1959 Charter, Section 5-514, in Ordinance No. 3234, which became effective on January 2, 1969;
(g) 1973 Charter: Revised charter of the City and County of Honolulu, approved by the electorate on November 7, 1972, which became effective on January 2, 1973;
(h) 1977 General Plan: General plan adopted pursuant to 1973 Charter, Section 5-412, in Resolution No. 238, which became effective on February 2, 1977.

Plaintiffs are a Hawaii non-profit corporation comprised of members who are residents and owners of lands adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity, and individual residents and owners of lands adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity, of the subject land.

*446 In the amended complaint filed in the First Circuit Court, on October 3, 1979, against DLU, Director of DLU, and Dowsett, as defendants, plaintiffs alleged that they would be adversely affected in their property interests and in the use and enjoyment of their area by the approval of the proposed subdivision, and sought ajudgment declaring the proposed subdivision to be in violation of law and enjoining defendants from effectuating the same.

Upon motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs, motion for summary judgment filed by Dowsett, and motion to dismiss amended complaint filed by DLU and Director of DLU, the circuit court denied plaintiffs’ motion, granted Dowsett’s motion and the motion of DLU and Director of DLU, and entered a judgment dismissing the action on the merits.

This case is here on plaintiffs’ appeal from that judgment.

In their briefs filed on this appeal, plaintiffs raised numerous issues. However, in the final analysis, there is only one decisive issue in this case.

That issue is the validity of plaintiffs’ contention, which has been repeatedly expressed, inferentially if not explicitly, that the subject land is not legally zoned for residential use by its location within R-3 Residential district established in CZC because the land use designation of the subject land on the map in the 1964 General Plan, and in the Puunui-Nuuanu-Dowsett DLUM, which was Preservation, prevailed over the zoning thereof in CZC, which was R-3 Residential.

The issue may be summarily resolved under City and County of Honolulu v. Midkiff, 62 Haw. 411, 414, 616 P.2d 213, 216 (1980), in which this court stated:

It is well-established that, absent special circumstances, an appellate court will decide an appeal on the law as it exists at the time of its decision,

and did not discuss appellants’ arguments based on the 1964 General Plan because the adoption of the 1977 General Plan during the pendency of the appeal made it unnecessary to consider the preexisting plan.

There is no special circumstance in this case which will prevent this court from following Midkiff.

Midkiff has undermined plaintiffs’ position in this case. The 1964 General Plan is not in force at the present time. It has not been in *447 force since February 2,1977, when it was repealed in Ordinance No. 77-8, which became effective upon the adoption of the 1977 General Plan.

The amended complaint in this case was filed more than two years after the repeal of the 1964 General Plan.

Plaintiffs have not contended that the 1977 General Plan affects the zoning of the subject land; nor have they advanced similar contention with regard to the 1968 Development Plan. The 1968 Development Plan shows only the location of public facilities, streets, parks and utilities.

Pursuant to 1973 Charter, Section 5-408, the 1977 General Plan sets forth broad policies for long-range development of the City and County of Honolulu, and does not have any land use map attached thereto.

With reference to plaintiffs’ arguments based on the Puunui-Nuuanu-Dowsett DLUM, they are irrelevant in the situation where the 1964 General Plan is not in force because, as clarified in Ordinance No. 4517, which was enacted on October 28, 1975, detailed land use maps merely implemented the general plan and did not have any meaningful function separate and apart from the general plan.

Furthermore, the Puunui-Nuuanu-Dowsett DLUM was not a zoning ordinance, nor did it have any effect as a zoning ordinance, because its title did not state that the subject therein was zoning. The title of that ordinance read:

AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT A DETAILED LAND USE PLAN (BEING ELABORATIONS OF THE LAND USE PATTERN INDICATED ON THE GENERAL PLAN MAP) AS SHOWN ON THE MAP DESIGNATED “1967 GENERAL PLAN DETAILED LAND USE MAP PUUNUI-NUUANU-DOWSETT” AS THE DETAILED LAND USE PLAN FOR THE SAID PUUNUI-NUUANU-DOWSETT AREA; AND TO ADOPT THE MAP DESIGNATED “1967 GENERAL PLAN DETAILED LAND USE MAP PUUNUI-NUUANU-DOWSETT” AS THE DETAILED LAND USE MAP FOR THE SAID PUUNUI-NUUANU-DOWSETT AREA OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Layton v. Howard County Board of Appeals
922 A.2d 576 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2007)
State v. Kwak
909 P.2d 1112 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1995)
Kaiser Development Co. v. City & County of Honolulu
649 F. Supp. 926 (D. Hawaii, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
630 P.2d 107, 63 Haw. 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nuuanu-neighborhood-assn-v-department-of-land-utilization-of-the-city-haw-1981.