My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
11-02-2021 Intervenor - Exceptions to WPC Proposed FOF, COL, DO
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Board Packets
>
*Background/Recommendation Reports (June 2020-Sept 2022)
>
2021
>
2021-11-04 Windward
>
Item #3 Connections/CBESS (SPP-12-000138)
>
11-02-2021 Intervenor - Exceptions to WPC Proposed FOF, COL, DO
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2021 12:17:34 PM
Creation date
11/2/2021 12:16:56 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
water resources. Nor, has Connections demonstrated how the development of <br /> a regional charter school on the Property that does not specifically service <br /> the needs the immediate community and this is overwhelmingly objected to <br /> by the immediate community is a reasonable site for this facility. In addition, <br /> Connections has not demonstrated that the Development meets most of the <br /> criteria to be considered by the Commission in the subject application. <br /> (Emphasis added) <br /> RA: part I, 76-77. <br /> Appellant objected to this alleged error in its April 21, 2014,Joint Exceptions to Hearings <br /> Officers [sic] Report Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation Dated April 7, <br /> 2014. RA: part III, 2966-2967. See also. Sec. 91-14(8)(5), HRS;Aluminum Shake Roofing, Inc. <br /> v. Hirayascr, 110 Hawai'i 248, 252, 131 P.3d 1230, 1234 (2006); Del Monte Fresh Produce <br /> (Hawaii), Inc. v. Intl Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142, AFL-CID, 112 Hawaii 489, <br /> 499, 146 P.3d 1066, 1076 (2006) <br /> IV. <br /> STANDARD OF REVIEW <br /> Generally, appeals of an administrative agency decision is secondary appeal and the court <br /> applies the standards of Sec. 91-14(g), HRS, to determine if the trial court's decision was right or <br /> wrong: <br /> §91-14 Judicial review of contested cases. <br /> (g) Upon review of the record the court may affirm the decision of the agency or <br /> remand the case with instructions for further proceedings; or it may reverse or <br /> modify the decision and order if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have <br /> been prejudiced because the administrative findings,conclusions, decisions, or <br /> orders are: <br /> (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; or <br /> (2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or <br /> (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; or <br /> (4) Affected by other error of law; or <br /> (5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial <br /> evidence on the whole record; or <br /> (6) Arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion or <br /> clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. (Emphasis added) <br /> 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.