Laserfiche WebLink
D D. <br /> 0 0 <br /> TABLE OF CONTENTS <br /> I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..................................................................................... 1-12 <br /> A. The Water Variance Application ........................................................................2-4 <br /> B. The Appeal to the Board of Appeals ...................................................................4-7 <br /> C. The Appeal to the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit .......................................7-12 <br /> 1. Appellants Jin and Lds Motion to Dismiss Appeal ................................7-8 <br /> 2. The Director's Appeal at Circuit Court 8-9 <br /> 3. Circuit Courfs Reversal of the Boards Decision ...................................9-12 <br /> D. The Appeal to the Intermediate Court of Appeals.......................:........................ 12 <br /> II. STANDARD OF REVIEW ....................................................................................... 12-13 <br /> A. Motion to Dismiss ................................................................................................ 12 <br /> B. Secondary Appeals........................................................................................... 12-13 <br /> III. ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................................ 13-29 <br /> a <br /> A. Motion to Dismiss Appeal was Properly Denied............................................. 13-20 <br /> 1. Applicable Statutes and Rules .................................................................. 14 <br /> 2. Notice of Appeal Was Filed Upon Receipt By the <br /> i <br /> Clerk of Court Even If Not File-Stamped Until <br /> TwoDays Later ................................................................................... 14-16 <br /> 3. The Circuit Court Properly Exercised Its Inherent <br /> Power to Correct The Record to Reflect the Timely <br /> Filing of the Notice of Appeal ............................................................ 16-19 <br /> 4. Appellanfs Jin and Lds Argument that"Excusable <br /> Neglect Does Not Appl}'is Misplaced................................................. 19-20 <br /> B. The Circuit Court Correctly Concluded That Planning Department <br /> Rule 22-4 is Valid and Enforceable and the County Planners Did Not <br /> Change the Standards For Approving A Water Variance in Violation <br /> Of Chapter 91 HRS 20-26 <br /> i <br />