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

Home

rainfall records or any other evidence to show that they meet the rainfall requirement of Rule 22-4 when they submitted their Water Variance application for consideration by the Director; (2) Rule 22-4 provides methods for applicants to show that they meet the rainfall requirement provided in Rule 22-4, but it does not prohibit other methods of showing that they meet the rainfall requirement; and (3)while Appellants Jin and Lifs expert witness provided criteria for catchment systems in general, he did not provide evidence that the property meets the rainfall requirement provided in Rule 22-4. (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 021 at 914.) D. The Appeal to Intermediate Court of Appeals On May 30, 2008, Appellants Jin and Lu filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal the Circuit Courts decision to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (2CA). (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 024.) II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A. Motion to Dismiss Review of a decision made by the circuit court on a motion to dismiss is a matter of law and is reviewed de novo under the right/wrong standard of review. Bremner v. City & County of Honolulu, 96 Hawafi 134, 28 P.3d 350 (2001). B. Secondary Appeals `Review of a decision made by the circuit court upon its review of an agenc} s decision is a secondary appeal" Colony Surf, Ltd. v. Director of the Department of Planning and Permitting, 116 Hawaii 510, 514, 174 P.3d 349, 353 (2007) (citing Citizens Against Reckless Dev. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City and County of Honolulu, 114 Hawaii 184, 193, 159 P.3d 143, 153 (2007)). The standard of review in a secondary appeal is``vhether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in HRS § 91-14(g) (1993) to the agenc} s decision" See id. 12