Laserfiche WebLink
the matter. In particular, the refusal of a betterment of long existing conditions, in the course of <br /> extending a permit, may be purely discretionary. And a purely discretionary hearing cannot, by <br /> definition, be a contested case, since it is not required by law. Pele Defense Fund v. Puna <br /> Geothermal Venture, 77 Hawaii 64, 68, 881 P.2d 1210, 1214 (1994)). <br /> Since the Planning Commission here has not changed Condition No. 7, imposition of that <br /> Condition cannot be attacked by a new appeal at this juncture, 12.5 years after its appeal period <br /> has run. Any other holding would expose permit conditions to constant challenge and appeal, for <br /> the life of the permit. That would also chill administrative review and amendment of conditions <br /> where warranted. Such would be contrary to the policies underlying administrative jurisdiction, <br /> which provide for very short appeal periods (HRS Section 91-14(b)), and limited review of <br /> administrative decisions made by expert boards with specialized knowledge. Nakamura v. State <br /> ofHawai`i, 98 Hawaii 263, 268, 47 P.3d 730, 735 (2002); Kona Old Hawaiian Trails <br /> Group v. Lyman, 69 Haw. 81, 94, 734 P.2d 161, 169 (1987). <br /> ADC provides no authority on point for its claims to create new appeal periods by merely <br /> asking for removal of an existing condition, which it actually defended and failed to timely <br /> appeal for over a decade. Res judicata bars ADC's attempt to relitigate imposition of Condition <br /> No. 7, and the appeal should be denied and dismissed. <br /> 5. ADC's Constitutional Claims Are Waived and Barred By Res Judicata <br /> ADC further seeks to dodge res judicata by claiming that the imposition of Condition <br /> No. 7 in 1992 was unconstitutional and void ab initio. ADC relies on Gay v. Zoning Board of <br /> Appeals of the Town of Westport, 59 Conn.App. 380, 388, 757 A.2d 61, 65 (2000). This lone <br /> decision is inapposite. <br /> First, Gay is factually and legally distinguishable. In Gay, the condition in question <br /> required restrictions (no building)to be placed on a completely different, unrelated lot from the <br /> 15 <br />