12-2-2021 Opinion of the Supreme Court

Home

*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Appellee Planning Director to act for the Commission"; and (5) "The Appellee Planning Director erred when he concluded that the county grading permit (issued in 2015 after Special Permit 1047 had expired in 2010) `controlled' and that the flood channelization project is a permitted use in the State Agriculture Land Use District . " Hualalai requests the following relief : This court should vacate the Appellee Planning Director' s letters of September 21, 2016 . . . and October 4, 2016 . . . to the extent that they constitute an agency order herein and should remand the contested case to the Appellee Leeward Planning Commission with instructions that (1) the Commission conduct a hearing on the Appellant' s Petition for Standing in a Contested Case, (2) that the Commission either grant or deny the petition and, thereafter and [sic] (3) the Commission take action on the Appellee-Applicant Bolton, Inc. ' s Application, including any request that the Appellee-Applicant might make to withdraw the Application, giving the Appellant the opportunity to participate in the agency proceeding on remand if the Appellee Leeward Planning Commission votes to admit the Appellant as a party in the contested case. Hualalai contends this court has jurisdiction to consider its appeal under HRS § 205-19, which governs appeals of contested cases arising before the land use commission and applies the provisions in HRS chapter 91 to such appeals . Appellees argue that this court lacks jurisdiction over the LPC' s "non-action, " that the issue became moot when Special Permit Application No . SPP-16-188 was withdrawn, and that Hualalai lacks standing. Appellees argue that this court also lacks jurisdiction because Hualalai should appeal the Planning Director' s decision to the Board of Appeals . Finally, Appellees 19