12-2-2021 Opinion of the Supreme Court

Home

*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** 66 . The permit authorized the property owner to develop the property by consolidating his two parcels, installing utility lines and roadways, and subdividing the property into residential lots . Id. at 84, 734 P. 2d at 163-64 . The Planning Director moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that there was no "contested case-16 and Kona Old was not a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of HRS § 91-14 . Id. at 86, 734 P. 2d at 165 . The circuit court granted the dismissal, 17 and Kona Old appealed to this court . Id. While Kona Old' s appeal was pending, in anticipation of a sale, the landowner procured and completed work under a grubbing permit for the property. Id. The landowner then argued that the appeal should be dismissed as moot because the work under the grubbing permit had been completed. Id. The supreme court declined to dismiss the appeal as moot, holding that the appeal was a live controversy and "retain [ed] vitality" because, so long as the construction authorized under the original special management area minor use 16 In Kona Old, the Planning Director issued to the landowner a "special management area minor use permit" as opposed to a "special management area use permit." Id. at 84, 734 P.2d at 164. On appeal, the supreme court noted that the rules governing the issuance of special management area minor use permits did not mandate a hearing preceding the Planning Director' s issuance of such permits. Id. at 90, 734 P.2d at 167. Thus, as a hearing was not required by statute or agency rules, there was no contested case within the meaning of HRS § 91-14 (a) . Id. 17 Although the circuit court did not give a reason for dismissal, this court stated that the circuit court dismissed the appeal "obviously on jurisdictional grounds." Kona Old, 69 Haw. at 89, 734 P.2d at 166. 23