Laserfiche WebLink
CCTr, ROA-E at 156. Mr. Love acknowledged that he could accept that, but it would go the <br /> weight of the testimony. CCTr, ROA-E at 157. <br /> IL STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR DECISION <br /> 1. Does a developer waive rights to challenge a condition of a use permit, when said <br /> condition was accepted and defended by a developer, and not timely appealed? <br /> 2. Does a Contested Case Decision, not appealed, operate as res judicata to bar a <br /> later attempt to contest and change a condition of said decision? <br /> 3. Does the invocation of an agency's inherent authority to amend permit conditions <br /> revive the right to appeal imposition of the condition when betterments to the <br /> condition are denied? <br /> 4. Does a landowner who seeks reduction in permit condition obligations have <br /> standing as an aggrieved party under Hawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS") Section <br /> 91-14 when the status quo ante is maintained? <br /> 5. Did the Planning Commission violate law or abuse its discretion under the facts of <br /> this case? <br /> 6. Does the "rough proportionality" Takings Clause test of Dolan v. City of Tigard, <br /> 512 U.S. 374, 114 S.Ct. 2309 (1994) apply to non-dedicatory conditions of a <br /> discretionary permit? <br /> III. STANDARD OF REVIEW <br /> Upon review of the record the court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the <br /> case with instructions for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision and order <br /> if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative <br /> findings, conclusions, decisions or orders are: <br /> 6 <br />