2026-02-06 Legal Memorandum, Appendices A, A-1, B and Certificate of Service (PL-BOA-2025-000124)

Home

Article 11) and invalidate the subdivision. Appellant's attempt to attain new and different determinations today on agency actions taken on July 11, 2005 (the issuance of final subdivision approval) and on October 23, 2006 (the Director's letter reaffirming that he would "not do anything") fools no one. II. The Director's Denial Complies With Law This appeal must be limited to this Board's review of the Director's current decision to deny the Petition and is not an opportunity reopen appeal periods which lapsed 20 years ago. Unless this Board determines that: (1) denial of the Petition violates the law; (2) denial of the Petition is clearly erroneous; or (3) denial of the Petition is arbitrary or capricious, characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion, the Board must uphold the Director's denial of the Petition. The "arbitrary and capricious" standard is synonymous with the "abuse of discretion" standard. Under these standards, there need only be "rational foundation" for an action of the Director; this means that the actions of the Director must be upheld as long as there is a rational connection between the facts found and the conclusions drawn from those facts. Motor Vehicle Mfgrs. Ass'n a State Fame Mutl. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 4243 (1983). The party challenging the Director's action bears the burden of proof, including the burden of producing evidence and burden of persuasion. See Hawaii Revised Statutes § 91-10(5); BOA Rules § 8- I I(g). In this instance, the Director's denial of the Petition was entirely legal, reasonable, and well within his discretion and Appellant has produced no evidence otherwise. A. The Denial Complied with Planning Department Rule 3-1 Rule 3-1(a)provides the Director the discretion to either answer or decline to answer questions posed via a declaratory petition. The Rule 3-1(c) requirement that the Director provide 4