Gutschmidt v. Maui Planning Commission

Summary

The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court reviewed the Maui Planning Commission’s denial of appellants’ untimely petition to intervene in a special-use-permit proceeding concerning a proposed rock-crushing and aggregate-storage operation. The court held that the appellants failed to show good cause for filing their petition less than twenty-four hours before the public hearing and therefore did not reach the merits of their challenge to the permit.

Holdings

1. Under Maui Planning Commission Rule 12-201-40, good cause for an untimely petition to intervene means a sufficient reason for the late filing, evaluated in light of the circumstances and within the Commission's discretion. The stricter good-cause standard applicable to setting aside an entry of default does not govern agency intervention petitions.
2. The Maui Planning Commission did not abuse its discretion in finding that Appellants failed to show good cause for filing their petition to intervene less than twenty-four hours before the hearing.
3. The Maui Planning Commission was not required to conduct a separate contested-case hearing on whether to accept Appellants' untimely intervention petition.
4. The record did not establish that the Maui Planning Commission based its denial of intervention on Appellants' residency status.
5. The court did not reach Appellants' challenge to the merits of the special use permit because Appellants were not admitted as parties to the underlying contested case and therefore failed the requirement that a claimant be involved in the contested case.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Maui Planning Commission properly interpreted the term good cause in its rule governing untimely petitions to intervene.
2. Whether the Commission abused its discretion by finding that Appellants lacked good cause for filing their intervention petition less than twenty-four hours before the public hearing.
3. Whether the Commission was required to conduct a separate contested-case hearing on the untimely petition to intervene.
4. Whether the Commission denied intervention based on Appellants' residency status in violation of equal-protection guarantees.
5. Whether Appellants could challenge the merits of the special use permit approval despite not being admitted as parties to the contested case.

Disposition

affirmed