▪ Maui Land Use Issues in the News - Twice

Two land use stories out of Maui today.  The first is a question of vested rights.  The second is about the county's "affordable housing" impact fee/exaction scheme, which I posted about earlier here and here.

Update: another angle on the impact fee/exaction scheme.

    

Comments

[Publius]

How can Ms. Suguitan have a vested rights claim when she hasn’t filed a permit? Where is her reliance on a final discretionary approval?

[inversecondemnation]

It appears from the article that zoning was the last discretionary action, and that all the property owner needed were non-discretionary/ministerial building permits. Hawaii did not adopt the building permit rule of California and other jurisdictions, criticizing the rule as "too harsh" for the property owner.

[Publius]

Zoning in itself cannot be a "final discretionary action" since zoning does not provide any entitlement that would allow the owner to develop. In as much as zoning changes from time to time, zoning alone without some type of entitlement (i.e., permit/subdivision approval) for a particular project, provides no basis for detrimental reliance.

[inversecondemnation]

It all depends upon the parcel. Under a Euclidean system, zoning does not provide entitlement, the ownership of the property does. Zoning may place reasonable limits on that right, but it is not the source of it. Many parcels have further, discretionary regulations that limit their use, but on those that do not, there should be no bar to reliance. And building permits are ministerial, meaning the government may not deny them if the property owner's proposed use conforms.