Hale O Kaula Church v. Maui Planning Com'n, No. CIV. 01-00615 SPK/KSC.

• Citation: 229 F.Supp.2d 1056
• Decision Date: 24 October 2002
• Docket Number: No. CIV. 01-00615 SPK/KSC.
• Parties: HALE O KAULA CHURCH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION; et al., Defendants. and The United States of America, Intervenor.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

229 F.Supp.2d 1056

HALE O KAULA CHURCH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION; et al., Defendants. and The United States of America, Intervenor.

No. CIV. 01-00615 SPK/KSC.

United States District Court, D. Hawai`i.

October 24, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Roman Storzer, Anthony Picarello, Derek L. Guabatz, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, DC, Charles Hurd, Hurd & Luria, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiffs.

James B. Takeyesu, Victoria J. Takeyesu, Madelyn S. D'enbeau, Dept. of Corp. Counsel, County of Maui, Wailuku, HI, for Defendants.

John P. Dellera, Dept. of Atty. Gen., Honolulu, HI, for State of Hawaii.

Adam Szubin, U.S. Dept. of justice, Washington, DC, for Intervenor.

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL; AND (2) ADDRESSING OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

SAMUEL P. KING, Senior District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

In this lawsuit, Hale O Kaula Church and its Elders Daryl Arita, Thomas Foster, David Jenkins and Robert Poulson ("Plaintiffs") have alleged violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. ("RLUIPA") following the Maui County Planning Commission's August 2001 denial of a Special Use Permit sought under Haw.Rev.Stat. § 205-6. Based upon the same denial, Plaintiffs also make claims for deprivations of federal civil rights (freedom of religion, speech, assembly, equal protection, due process) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as for conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The operative complaint also contains similar state law claims under the Hawaii Constitution as well as Counts for a violation of the Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act (Count XV) and for violation of the Maui County Code ch. 19.30A (Count XVI).

The primary Defendants are the Maui Planning Commission; the County of Maui; the individual members of the Maui Planning Commission (Samuel Kalalau III, Jeremy F. Kozuki, Bernice Lu, Star Medeiros, Susan Moikeha, Herman Nascimento, Randy Piltz, Joseph Pontanilla, and Mona Richardson) in their individual and official capacities; John E. Min, the Director of the Maui Department of Planning, in his individual and official capacities; James Apana, Jr., in his official capacity as Mayor of Maui County; and Judith Neustadter-Fuqua, a Hearing Officer for the Maui Planning Commission, in her individual and official capacities.¹ The Court refers to these Defendants collectively as the "Maui County Defendants."

By order of August 29, 2002, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction because the specific relief sought in that proceeding, having not been officially denied, was not ripe as a matter of constitutional law. The present Order concerns arguments raised in the Maui County Defendants' separate Motion for Partial Dismissal. Although the relief sought in the preliminary injunction was not ripe, the legal issues dealt with in this Order are properly before the Court. The lawsuit itself presents legal questions such as immunity and the viability of causes of action related to the specific denial of the Special Use Permit sought by Plaintiffs. For the reasons set forth, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion in part and DENIES it in part.

FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND

A.

Plaintiffs own a 5.85 acre parcel on Anuhea Place in the Pukalani area on the Island of Maui. The parcel is classified as agricultural by the State of Hawaii under the statewide land use classification scheme. See generally Haw.Rev.Stat. § 205-2, Districting and classification of lands. In turn, the parcel is zoned agricultural by Maui County.

Haw.Rev.Stat. § 205-4.5(a) delineates specific "permissible uses" within state agricultural districts. It specifies uses such as crop cultivation and fish propagation and various other related things like farm dwellings, riding stables, and wind energy facilities.² In effect, anything that is not specifically permitted is prohibited, absent a special use permit. Section 205-4.5(b) states "uses not expressly permitted in subsection (a) shall be prohibited, except the uses permitted as provided in sections 205-6 and 205-8 [regarding nonconforming uses]." The state statutes do not specifically mention churches or religious uses.

In turn, section 205-6 deals with "special use permits."³ The power to grant special use permits has been delegated by the State to the counties under Haw.Rev. Stat. § 205-6(a) ("The county planning commission may permit certain unusual and reasonable uses within agricultural ... districts other than those for which the district is classified"), subject to approval by the state Land Use Commission if the land exceeds 15 acres. See Haw. Rev. Stat § 205-6(d).⁴ (Similarly, the power to enforce restrictions on uses in agriculturally-classified lands has also been delegated to the counties. See Haw. Rev.Stat. § 205-12.)⁵

Under this statutory scheme, a special use permit may be granted for "certain unusual and reasonable uses within agricultural and rural districts other than those for which the district is classified." Haw.Rev.Stat. § 205-6(a); see also Maha`ulepu v. Land Use Com'n, 71 Haw. 332, 790 P.2d 906, 909 (1990) (describing special use permit process). In turn, the Land Use Commission has promulgated Haw. Admin. Rule 15-15-95(b), which gives general guidelines for an "unusual and reasonable use" including "adversely affect[ing] surrounding property" and "unreasonably burden[ing] public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewers, water drainage and school improvements, and police and fire protection."⁶

An administrative appeal to a state circuit court is allowed. If a county planning commission denies a special use permit, such denial "shall be appealable to the circuit court of the circuit in which the land is situated and shall be made pursuant to the Hawaii rules of civil procedure." Haw.Rev.Stat. § 205-6(e); see also Haw. Admin. R. § 15-15-96(c) (same).

In 1999, Plaintiffs applied to the Maui County Planning Commission for a special use permit both to expand their facility and to hold religious services. Specifically, the application to the Planning Commission was for a "Land Use Commission Special Use Permit application to use an existing structure and construct a second floor to hold church services." The proposal was to conduct church functions as well as to renovate an existing agricultural building, add a new gravel parking lot, add a new gravel driveway, and add a 30,000 gallon water tank as there is no county water service to the area. [County Exh. 131, Plaintiff's Application for a Land Use Commission Special Use Permit]. The County Planning Commission, after intervention by several interested parties, appointed a hearing officer and eventually denied the permit.

The hearing officer, Judith Neustadter-Fuqua (a named Defendant), found that:

I. The use of the subject property sought by Applicant would adversely affect the properties of intervenors, properties along Anuhea Place, a private dead end street, by creating unacceptable levels of traffic and noise in the isolated agricultural neighborhood.

J. The use of the Subject Property sought by Applicant would burden Public agencies to provide water, police, and fire protection.

K. The land upon which the proposed use is sought is suitable for agriculture in view of the agricultural uses the intervenors have made of their properties, starting in 1976, for cattle, horses, and fruit trees. Further, the inspection of the property by the Hearing Officer and the parties revealed an agricultural use of the property by Applicant, which had a garden and potted plants in a hothouse.

The hearing officer concluded that "the use of the Subject Property sought by Applicant is not an `unusual and reasonable' use within the State Agricultural District, the County Community Plan Agricultural District, and the County Agricultural Zoning District under the provisions of § 15-15-95(b) of the Rules of the Land Use Commission of the State of Hawaii." She therefore, on April 30, 2001, respectfully recommended "denial of Applicant's application for a special use permit for church use." Her findings and recommendation were adopted by the Maui Planning Commission per motion on June 27, 2001, and signed by all commissioners on August 14, 2001, "Filed and effective on: 8/20/01."

Plaintiffs had moved for the hearing officer's disqualification for bias because of certain statements attributed to her during a settlement conference, but she denied that motion without referring the matter to someone else. Section 12-201-54(b), which provides for the hearing officer's powers, appears to contemplate that such motions need not be reassigned. Plaintiffs' attorney protested the proceeding, objected to its continuation, refused to call any witnesses or to offer evidence other than that already stipulated or filed, and failed to submit proposed findings and conclusions in support of their position. Nevertheless, the record is sufficient for the Court to consider both parties' positions here.

After denial of the permit, Plaintiffs chose not to file an administrative appeal in state court under Haw.Rev.Stat. § 205-6(e) and Haw. Admin. R. § 15-15-96(c). Instead, they filed the present federal action. The County Defendants submitted a Motion for Partial Dismissal and the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. An evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction was conducted on July 24, 2002, and, as mentioned earlier, was denied by order of August 29, 2002. The Court took under submission the remaining issues regarding the Motion for Partial Dismissal.

B.

Although the suit also involves more general constitutional civil rights claims (primarily freedom of religion), much has been made of RLUIPA — the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. RLUIPA provides in pertinent part:

§ 2000cc. Protection of land...