« 2007 Land Use in Review: CARD v. ZBA - Administrative Procedures in Land Use Cases | Main | 2007 Land Use in Review: Hawaii Supreme Court Lowers the Bar in Equal Protection "Rational Basis" Analysis »

January 08, 2008

2007 Land Use in Review: Estoppel and Shoreline Setbacks

In Brescia v. North Shore Ohana (No. 27211, July 12, 2007), the Hawaii Supreme Court held that a property owner was not entitled to rely upon a county planning commission's determination of the location of a shoreline setback when the planning commission retained the authority to give official assurances.  The case involved Kauai property within the coastal "Special Management Area."  The SMA is, generally speaking, the land nearest the shoreline, as defined in Hawaii's Coastal Zone Management Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 205A. The CZMA established special controls for this strip of land, and the counties have authority to regulate uses within the SMA, including the location of the "shoreline setback," which is (like other setbacks) an unbuildable zone that "sets back" structures from the shoreline.  The statewide minimum setback is established by the CZMA, but the individual counties are permitted to establish greater setbacks, which vary from county-to-county.  More here.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1062290/24946664

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 2007 Land Use in Review: Estoppel and Shoreline Setbacks:

Comments

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

this blog is...

  • devoted to recent developments and commentary on regulatory takings, eminent domain, inverse condemnation, property rights, and Hawaii land use law

Author

Subscribe

Search


  • web
    inversecondemnation.com


add IC to your site

latest hawaii appellate opinions

recent posts from hawaiioceanlaw

recent posts from insurance law hawaii

August 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

Disclaimer

  • This blog is not legal advice. But you knew that already. Reading this blog does not make you a client, nor are any posts or comments on this blog subject to the attorney-client privilege. For legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

    This blog is not sponsored by the author's firm, and the views expressed by the author are just that; they are not the views of his clients, his firm or its clients, or anyone but for the author.

    © 2005-2008. All rights reserved.

Blog powered by TypePad