Laserfiche WebLink
producing evidence as well as the burden of persuasion. The degree or quantum of proof shall be <br /> a preponderance of the evidence." HRS Section 91-10(5) (2003). Indisputably, ADC initiated <br /> the request for amendment of conditions and extension of Use Permit No. 106. Hence, it was <br /> ADC which had the burdens of producing evidence and persuasion. <br /> Here, ADC had the burden of proving that after 12.5 years of living with, and even <br /> legally defending the permit and conditions, it was suddenly entitled to relief from most of its <br /> road mitigation duties. ADC had sought and received two prior permit extensions in 1994 and <br /> 1998, without questioning Condition No. 7. The Hearings Officer, Colin Love, noted the lack of <br /> direct evidence of financial inability, noting that the hearsay nature of Mr. Fuke's testimony <br /> would affect its weight. ADC fails to point out any new substantial evidence which would <br /> support its extraordinary claim. (It should not be allowed to attempt to do so in its Reply Brief, <br /> to which the Appellees will have no opportunity to respond). <br /> Instead, ADC makes a limited attack on whether its 1992 "representations" of road <br /> improvements and"community support" were or could be the basis for Use Permit No. 106, or <br /> the continuation of Condition No. 7. Opening Brief, p. 17. In substance, this attempts to attack <br /> the validity of the permit. <br /> In response, it is essential to keep in mind again that the 1992 granting of Use Permit <br /> No. 106 and the imposition of Condition No. 7 are not currently at issue. The Permit's <br /> performance deadlines have run out, and ADC is seeking its third time extension, and reduction <br /> of its condition burdens. Hence, the basis for the original conditions is not currently at issue. It <br /> remains, however, ADC's burden to prove that something has changed to now justify the <br /> reduction of its duties. It has not carried that burden. <br /> However, the Planning Commission's findings that nothing has changed to justify <br /> amendment of Condition No. 7 are supported by substantial evidence. ADC claims that its <br /> 18 <br />