Laserfiche WebLink
105 Hawaii 296, 308, 97 P.3d 372, 384 (Hawai`i 2004) (quoting In re Wai`ola O Moloka`i, Inc., <br /> 103 Hawaii 401, 421, 83 P.3d 664, 684 (2004)). "A mixed determination of law and fact is <br /> clearly erroneous when(1)the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding, or(2) <br /> despite substantial evidence to support the finding or determination, the appellate court is left <br /> with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Id. <br /> On the other hand, "[a]n agency's conclusions of law are freely reviewable to determine <br /> if the agency's decision was in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, in excess of <br /> statutory authority or jurisdiction of agency, or affected by other error of law." Curtis, <br /> 90 Hawaii at 393 (1999) (Quoting Hardin v. Akiba, 84 Hawaii 305, 310, 933 P.2d 1339, 1344 <br /> (1997)) (additional citations omitted); HRS §§ 91-14(g)(1), (2), and (4)). In this regard, "[a] <br /> conclusion of law . . . is not binding on an appellate court and is freely reviewable for its <br /> correctness. Thus, the court reviews [conclusions of law] de novo, under the right/wrong <br /> standard." Bumanglag v. Oahu Sugar Co., Ltd., 78 Hawaii 275, 279, 892 P.2d 468, 472 (1995). <br /> Similarly, "[t]he interpretation of a statute is [also] a question of law reviewable de novo." <br /> Ka Pa Akai O Ka A ina v. Land Use Comm'n, 94 Haw. 31, 41, 7 P.3d 1068, 1078 (2000). <br /> IV. ARGUMENT <br /> A. Summary of Argument <br /> The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order adopted by the Board <br /> on October 12, 2007, summarize the bases of the Board's Decision and Order, which granted the <br /> Appeal on the basis that: <br /> a. the Denial by the Planning Director was arbitrary and capricious in that he <br /> failed to consider other evidence regarding the amount of rainfall; <br /> b. the Planning Director's reliance on only the isohyet line and one rain <br /> gauge was arbitrary in that Rule 22 contemplates that there would be reliance on <br /> more than one rain gauge, and that the isohyet line was within a reasonable <br /> distance from Appellant's property. <br /> 10 <br />