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

Home

The annual rainfall at the property and the property's boundary on Mamalahoa Highway or South Kona Belt Road is probably about 4 P'. Therefore, the proposed 6-lot subdivision does not receive minimum 60'annual rainfall and the applicanfs request to allow individual rainwater catchment systems for potable and emergency is not allowed or eligible pursuant to Rule 22-Water Variance which requires the proposed subdivision to receive minimum 60'annual rainfall. VARIANCE DECISION In view of the above, the proposed variance would not fulfill the intent of the Subdivision Code and does not meet with all the requirements or Rule 22-Water Variance. Therefore, the applicanfs variance application to allow proposed 6-lot subdivision without providing a water supply pursuant to Chapter 23, Subdivisions, Article 6, Division 2, Improvements Required, Section 23-84, Water Supply, (1)(2), or request to allow the proposed subdivision to be served by private catchment systems is denied. 4. The Director provided a statement of factual findings supporting his decision denying Jin and Lds Water Variance application as he is required to do under Section 23-18 of the Subdivision Code. (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 004 at 150-154.) The Director considered information provided in the Water Variance application, USGS rainfall data, and rain data from the active rain-gauge station OPIHIHALE 2 and determined that the actual rainfall at the proposed subdivision is well under sixty inches, which he fully explained in his denial letter to Appellants Jin and Lu. (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 004 at 150-154.) In doing so, the Director complied with Section 23-18 of the Subdivision Code in denying Appellants Jin and Lifs Water Variance application. Based on the foregoing findings, the Circuit Court correctly concluded that there is no evidence in the record that Appellants Jin and Ltfs property receives an average annual rainfall of not less than sixty inches as required by Rule 22 and therefore, Appellants Jin and Lu failed to meet their burden of proof pursuant to section 91-10(5), HRS,to show that the Director's decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and/or violated law. 29