2008-10-06_Chris Yuen_v_Board_of_Appeals_and_Edmund_Jin_and_Eva_Lu_-_Answering brief-Civil_No_07-1-261K

Home

0 0 (2)The Board's Conclusion of Law No. 6 exceeds the bounds of reason because it is unsupported by any clearly articulated Findings of Fact and it erroneously placed the burden on the Director to prove that the variance application did not meet the rainfall requirement of Rule 22. (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 009 at 745-750.). Appellants Jin and Lds Answering Brief was timely filed with the Court on February 20, 2008, which presented the following arguments: I (1)Conclusion of Law No. 6 is valid and is supported by substantial evidence in the records. (2)The Board did not shift the burden of proof to the Director. (3)Rule 22-4 is invalid and unenforceable because the Director did not comply with the rule making procedures of Chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes, when it deviated from the rule. (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 014 at 810, 815-823.) The Boards Answering Brief was timely filed with the Court on February 25, 2008, which presented the following arguments: (1) Appellant did not properly preserve for appeal either of the issues presented. (2) The Board did not shift the burden of proof to the Director. (3) The Boards decision was not arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or clearly erroneous due to the inclusion of Conclusion of Law No. 6 in the Boards Decision and Order. (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 015 at 828, 837-842.) 3. Circuit Court's Reversal of the Board's Decision Oral arguments were heard by the Court on this matter on March 6, 2008, and on I April 14, 2008, the Court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order Reversing the Board of Appeals Decision and Order Dated October 18, 2007. I (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 021 at 906, 896.) The Court entered final judgment in favor of the i 9