COM 0056.001 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

POP: gatri v. blane Page 5 of 11 Maui SMA rules § 12-202-14 (1994) (emphases added). It is clear from the above rules that the Maui Planning Commission has delegated the authority to review and make a final decision regarding a SMA minor permit application to the Director, as authorized by HRS § 205A-22. HRS § 91-14(a) (1993) provides that: Any person aggrieved by a final decision and order in a contested case or by a preliminary ruling of the nature that deferral of review pending entry of a subsequent final decision would deprive appellant of adequate relief is entitled to judicial review thereof under this chapter,. The decision of the Director not to process GATRI's application is a final decision equivalent to a denial of the application. Therefore, it is appealable under HRS § 91-14(a). Our decisions in Kona Old Hawaiian Trails Group v Lyman, 69 Haw. 81, 734 P.2d 161 (1987), and Hawaii's Thousand Friends v City and County of Honolulu, 75 Haw. 237, 858 P.2d 726 (1993), support our holding that GATRI was not required to appeal the Directors decision to the Commission before filing an action in circuit court. In Kona, the Hawaii County Charter specifically provided that the Board of Appeals "shall hear and determine all appeals from the actions of the planning director and plannin¢ commission." 69 Haw. at 91 n.l 1, 734 P.2d at 167 n.l l (emphasis in original}. We therefore held that the appeal of the decision of the planning director to the circuit court "should not have preceded the resolution by the Board of Appeals of the question of whether the planning director's action in [not issuing the SMA permit] was proper." Id. at 94, 374 P.2d at 169. In Thousand Friends, we distinguished Kona because of the different language contained in the Revised Charter of the City and County of Honolulu. The Honolulu charter established a procedure for appeals from actions of the Department of Land Utilization (DLU) to the Zoning Board of Appeals only for those DLU actions concerning the administration of the zoning and subdivision ordinances and any rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto." Thousand Friends, 75 Haw. at 243, 858 P.2d at 730. The challenged action involved an environmental group's petition for a declaration that the City had to obtain a SMA permit for its proposed demolition of structures within the coastal zone management area. The Honolulu charter did not specifically provide for appeals of declaratory judgments regarding the necessity for obtaining a SMA permit. Therefore, we held that the circuit court had jurisdiction to entertain a direct appeal of the DLU action. There is no express procedure provided in the Maui charter or the Maui SMA rules for an appeal of the Directors decision on a minor permit application to the Commission. The Commission has delegated the authority to render a final decision on a minor permit application to the Director. The Director is required to notify the Commission of permits which he has granted. Based on Thousand Friends, we hold that, under this scheme, the circuit court had jurisdiction over this appeal of a final decision of the Director. Therefore, GATRI exhausted its administrative remedies. B. The Director's decision not to~rocess GATRI's a$plication because it was inconsistent with the general plan was not erroneous http://www.hawaii.gov/jud/20385.htm 12/22/2006