Gatri v. Blane
88 Hawai‘i 108 (1998)
Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs' Attorneys:
  1. Gatri
  1. Paul I. Horikawa
Defendants: Defendants Attorneys:
  1. David Blane, Department of Planning of the County of Maui
  1. Kelly A. Cairns, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Court: Supreme Court of Hawai‘i
Opinion by: Nakayama, Justice
Other Jurists: Court Below:
  • Moon, C.J.
  • Klein
  • Levinson
  • Ramil JJ
 Second Circuit Court of Maui
Key laws involved:
  • Hawai‘i Revised Statute (HRS), §§ 205A-21, 205A-22, 205A-26(2)(C), 226-58
  • Hawai‘i Revised Statute (HRS), §§ 91-14(a), 91-14(g)
Summary:
  1. The defendant appealed an order issued by the Second Circuit Court that reversed his decision not to issue a special management area permit (SMAP) to the plaintiff because the plaintiff’s proposed plan was inconsistent with the community plan. In 1992, the plaintiff proposed to develop a commercial restaurant park in Kihei, Maui. The area was zoned as B-R Resort/Commercial; the plaintiff’s proposed plan was an allowable use in this zone. In contrast, the Kihei/Makena Community Plan (KMCP) had designated the area as single family residential; there were two single-family residence in the area at the time of the plaintiff’s application. The plaintiff’s application was deferred until the Maui county council had voted on potential changes to the community plan. In 1996, the plaintiff submitted another application for a minor SMAP to develop a commercial snack shop. The defendant denied the application because the plaintiff’s proposed plan was inconsistent with the KMCP.
  2. One of the defendant’s arguments was the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the matter because the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not first appealing to the Maui Planning Commission. The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i found that the Director had the power to make final decisions for minor SMAP and, that once a final decision was made, the applicant was entitled to judicial review. Therefore, the plaintiff was not required to initially appeal to the Maui Planning Commission, and the circuit court had jurisdiction over the appeal.
  3. The defendant contended that the circuit court erred in reversing the defendant’s decision not to issue a SMAP to the plaintiff because the proposed plan was inconsistent with the KCMP. The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i found that a proposed plan had to be consistent with both the general plan of the area and the zoning. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i found that the circuit court had erred by ruling that a Community Plan does not have the force and effect of law.
  4. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i REVERSED the Second Circuit Court’s decision and AFFIRMED the defendant’s decision denying the plaintiff a SMAP.