Laserfiche WebLink
"An agency's decision carries a presumption of validity and the appellant has the heavy <br /> burden of making a convincing showing that the decision is invalid because it is unjust and <br /> unreasonable in its consequences." Kim v. Contractors License Board, 88 Hawaii 264, 268, <br /> 965 P.2d 806, 810 (1998). <br /> IV. ARGUMENT <br /> A. THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY WAIVER AND RES JUDICATA <br /> 1. Summary of An-ument <br /> The goal of ADC's appeal is to reduce the cost of the road improvement <br /> Condition No. 7, of Use Permit No. 106, which it applied for and received from the County <br /> Planning Commission. That Use Permit was dated November 9, 1992. ADC agreed to <br /> Condition No. 7 at that time. ADC could have, but did not appeal Condition No. 7 within 30 <br /> days of November 9, 1992. Use Permit No. 106 actually was appealed by other parties, all the <br /> way through affirmance by the Hawaii Supreme Court. Further, ADC failed to appeal the <br /> continued imposition of Condition No. 7 in its two prior extensions of Use Permit No. 106. <br /> Therefore, ADC is barred by waiver and res judicata from contesting the imposition of Condition <br /> No. 7. The Planning Commission's discretionary extension of time for completion of conditions, <br /> and removal of a different, unrelated condition, does not revive any right to appeal the <br /> imposition of Condition No. 7, over 12 years after it was imposed. <br /> 2. ADC Waived Its Rights to Appeal Imposition of Condition No. 7 <br /> It is well established that failure to timely appeal imposition of a condition of use, waives <br /> the user's right to later contest that condition. <br /> In U. S. Aluminum Corporation of Pennsylvania v. Borough of Marietta, 123 Pa.Cmwlth. <br /> 376, 553 A.2d 1046 (1989), U.S. Aluminum operated a shredder under a setback exception, <br /> conditioned on limited hours of operation. U.S. Aluminum twice sought to have the hours of <br /> 8 <br />