Laserfiche WebLink
O O <br /> B. Submitting Objections to the FOFCOL Would Have Been <br /> Superfluous. <br /> During the contested case hearing,the Director,through his attorney, raised the <br /> following legal arguments: <br /> 1) That if the Director fails to act on a variance application within sixty days, <br /> the variance application is deemed denied under Section 23-18 of the <br /> Subdivision Code and under 25-2-54 of the Zoning Code; <br /> 2) That HRS § 91-13.5 does not apply to the County's Subdivision Code; and <br /> 3) That HRS § 91-13.5 especially does not apply to an application for a <br /> variance from the Subdivision Code, since a variance provides an <br /> exception to what is required by the Subdivision Code at the discretion of <br /> the Director. <br /> Record on Appeal(hereinafter"ROA") at 442 and 447-449. Those legal arguments were <br /> preserved on the Record that is before this Court. <br /> Those same legal arguments were also outright rejected by the Board during the <br /> contested case hearing. In fact, some of the Board's members engaged in heated debates <br /> with the Director's attorney insisting that because the Director failed to meet the sixty <br /> days,the variance application was deemed approved pursuant to HRS § 91-13.5 with <br /> total disregard of Section 23-18 of the Subdivision Code to which the Director and the <br /> Board is bound. (ROA at 448-449.) Ultimately,this was the basis for the Board's <br /> decision. (ROA at 450-451.) Because the FOFCOL accurately reflected the reasons for <br /> the Board's decision,there was no need for the Director to object to the FOFCOL. <br /> The legal issues raised by the Director's attorney during the contested case hearing were <br /> purely questions of law,which were not affected by the facts of the case, and are freely <br /> reviewable by this Court to determine if the Board's decision was in excess of statutory <br /> 5 <br />