Laserfiche WebLink
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** <br /> permit was not complete, the appeal "present [ed] an adversity of <br /> interests and possibly afford [ed] [Kona Old] an effective <br /> remedy. " Id. at 87, 734 P. 2d at 165 . This court found that <br /> even if all work under the two permits was completed, "a basis <br /> for the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction remain [ed] " <br /> because the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine <br /> would apply. 'R Id. <br /> In the present case, Appellees are correct that <br /> Special Permit Application No . SPP-16-188 was withdrawn. <br /> However, an adversity of interests continues to render the <br /> controversy "live" because either: the original conduct that <br /> prompted Bolton to submit Special Permit Application No . SPP-16- <br /> 188 remains ongoing, or, if Bolton' s development project is <br /> completed without review, similar withdrawal of permit <br /> applications subsequent to unpermitted construction is capable <br /> of repetition. There remains an adversity of interests here <br /> because the Planning Director made a "final determination" that <br /> "the evidence" showed Bolton' s construction activity was covered <br /> by its existing permits, and Hualalai has an interest in arguing <br /> 18 The public interest exception applies " [w]hen the question <br /> involved affects the public interest, and it is likely . . . that similar <br /> questions arising in the future would likewise become moot before a needed <br /> authoritative determination by an appellate court can be made[ . ] " Id. <br /> (quoting Johnston v. Ing, 50 Haw. 379, 381, 441 P.2d 138, 140 (1968) ) . This <br /> court reasoned that the questions in Kona Old were of public concern and, if <br /> they were to recur in the future, would likely become moot before a <br /> determination on appeal could be made. Id. at 87-88, 734 P.2d at 165-66. <br /> 24 <br />