Summary
The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court held that the Board of Land and Natural Resources effectively rendered a final decision and order when it approved a conservation district use permit without first holding a contested case hearing requested by Kilakila ʻO Haleakalā. The court concluded that the appeal was not moot because the permit remained in effect and could still be challenged. It reversed the dismissal of the agency appeal and held that the circuit court had jurisdiction under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 91-14.
Holdings
- The appeal was not moot because the permit remained in effect and the reviewing court could still grant effective relief, including a stay or reversal of the permit.
- When an agency votes to grant a permit while a valid request for a contested case hearing is pending, the agency's failure to grant or deny the request becomes an effective denial, and the permit vote constitutes a final decision and order appealable under HRS § 91-14.
- A contested case hearing was required by law because the BLNR chairperson determined under HAR § 13-5-40(a)(4) that the scope of the project or the public interest required a public hearing, and the governing rules required the agency to conduct the required hearing.
- Kilakila ʻO Haleakalā satisfied the requirements by following the applicable agency rules and sufficiently alleging injury to its Native Hawaiian traditional and customary, aesthetic, and environmental interests; it therefore had standing to appeal.
Questions Presented
- Whether the appeal was moot after the Board later granted Kilakila ʻO Haleakalā's request for a contested case hearing while leaving the permit in effect.
- Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 91-14 when the Board issued a final permit decision without first holding or formally denying a requested contested case hearing.
- Whether the administrative proceedings satisfied the requirements for an appeal under the PASH/Kaleikini test, including a hearing required by law, final agency action, compliance with agency procedures, and standing.
Disposition
vacated
Cases Cited (14)
- Kaleikini v. Thielen, 124 Hawaiʻi 1, 237 P.3d 1067 (2010)(followed)
- Pub. Access Shoreline Haw. v. Haw. Cnty. Planning Comm'n, 79 Hawaiʻi 425, 903 P.2d 1246 (1995)(followed)
- Kaniakapupu v. Land Use Comm'n, 111 Hawaiʻi 124, 139 P.3d 712 (2006)(followed)
- Aames Funding Corp. v. Mores, 107 Hawaiʻi 95, 110 P.3d 1042 (2005)(followed)
- Ka Paʻakai O Ka ʻAina v. Land Use Comm'n, 94 Hawaiʻi 31, 7 P.3d 1068 (2000)(followed)
- Citizens for the Prot. of the N. Kohala Coastline v. County of Hawaiʻi, 91 Hawaiʻi 94, 979 P.2d 1120 (1999)(followed)
- Pele Defense Fund v. Paty, 73 Haw. 578, 837 P.2d 1247 (1992)(followed)
- Life of the Land v. Land Use Commission, 63 Haw. 166, 623 P.2d 431 (1981)(followed)
- Mahuiki v. Planning Commission, 65 Haw. 506, 654 P.2d 874 (1982)(followed)
- East Diamond Head Ass'n v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 52 Haw. 518, 479 P.2d 796 (1971)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 14.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…