DR. LEW ABRAMS and MARIA DE ABRAMS on behalf of THE SACRED EARTH ASSEMBLY, Appellants-Appellants, vs. MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION, Appellee-Appellee.

Listen to the audio recording

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts.

Attorney for Appellants-Appellants DR. LEW ABRAMS and MARIA DE ABRAMS on behalf of THE SACRED EARTH ASSEMBLY:
     Leslie K. Iczkovitz

Attorney for Appellee-Appellee MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION:
     Brian Bilberry, Deputy Corporation Counsel

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald, filed 01/27/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Wendy M. DeWeese in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, filed 02/04/25.

COURT: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Judge DeWeese, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused.

Brief Description:

This is a direct appeal from the Maui Planning Commission’s (MPC) decision to deny an application for a special use permit (SUP). Applicants Dr. Lew Abrams and Maria de Abrams, on behalf of the Sacred Earth Assembly (SEA), sought a SUP to conduct religious services upon land designated for agricultural use.

The MPC initially approved the SUP application with conditions in September 2019, and forwarded the matter to the Land Use Commission (LUC). The LUC remanded the matter to the MPC. Thereafter, the MPC denied the SUP application. The Abramses now appeal and, in addition to challenging certain findings by the MPC, raise the following points of error:

1. 1. The [MPC] erred when it denied/revoked SEA’s [SUP] because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held [in Spirit of Aloha Temple v. County of Maui, 49 F.4th 1180 (9th Cir. 2022)] that the Haw. [Admin.] R. § 15-15-95(c)(2) guideline that was the basis of the denial is unconstitutional and may not be used to deny a special use permit in the state of Hawaii.
   2. The [MPC] erred when it denied/revoked SEA’s [SUP] without giving any notice to SEA or to the public that rejection or revocation of SEA’s [SUP] was to be considered on the agenda of the July 14, 2020 [MPC] meeting.
   3. The [MPC] erred when it denied/revoked SEA’s [SUP] without any factual or procedural basis to do so. The [MPC’s] arbitrary and capricious denial was based upon the same factual record upon which the [MPC] had previously approved SEA’s [SUP] on August 13, 2019, without any new findings made by the [MPC].
   4. The [MPC] erred when it denied/revoked SEA’s [SUP] because the published minutes of the July 14, 2020 MPC meeting do not provide support for the Findings of Fact, the critical minutes are absent and incomplete, and they do not give a true reflection of the matters discussed at the meeting and the views of the participants.
   5. The [MPC] erred when it denied/revoked SEA’s [SUP] because it denied the Applicant and the public the opportunity to fully testify on possible revocation of SEA’s [SUP].