12-2-2021 Opinion of the Supreme Court

Home

*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** that the evidence showed otherwise . Namely, Hualalai has an interest in arguing that Bolton' s construction activity exceeded the conditions of its existing grading and stockpiling permits (Permit Nos . 092524, 092525, and 092529) and, therefore, required an additional special permit . 19 Analogous to the appeal in Kona Old, Hualalai' s appeal also "retains vitality" because the appeal "possibly affords [it] an effective remedy [ , ] " that is, remand to the LPC for a hearing to determine whether Hualalai' s petition to intervene should be granted or denied. Id. Thus, under the facts of this case, Appellees' withdrawal of Special Permit Application No . SPP-16-188 does not render moot Hualalai' s appeal to this court . 2 . Pursuant to HRS §§ 205-19 and 91-14 , this court may exercise judicial review because Hualalai is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case, participated in the contested case, followed LPC Rules, and has established standing. Appellees argue that this court lacks jurisdiction over Hualalai' s appeal pursuant to HRS §§ 205-19 and 91-14 because the LPC did not issue a final decision in a contested case hearing and Hualalai was not injured by the LPC' s failure to issue a decision on Hualalai' s petition or the LPC' s withdrawal of Special Permit Application No . SPP-16-18 . HRS 19 For example, evidence showing that Bolton' s excavation and removal of natural building material from the property was, in fact, for commercial purposes, as prohibited by HCC § 25-5-72 (c) without a special permit. 25