500 P.3d 426
Haw.2021Background
- Bolton, Inc. sought a special permit (SPP-16-188) to authorize use of an agricultural parcel for an equipment base yard, security dwelling, and stockpiling/crushing of natural materials after earlier permits and a 2000 Special Permit (No. 1047) pertained to adjacent parcels.
- The Leeward Planning Commission (LPC) agenda and LPC Rule 4-6 required that any petition to intervene be filed seven days before the first meeting and that the Commission hold a hearing and grant or deny intervention before further action.
- The Community Associations of Hualalai (Hualalai) timely filed a petition to intervene and paid the fee; residents testified at the LPC meeting about noise, dust, traffic, and property-value impacts.
- The Planning Director conducted extensive, largely nonpublic fact-finding and a site inspection with Bolton, then issued a letter concluding the activity was covered by existing grading/stockpiling permits and that the special-permit application would be withdrawn.
- The LPC never ruled on Hualalai’s petition to intervene and the Planning Director’s withdrawal effectively closed the proceeding; Hualalai appealed directly to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court challenging the failure to rule and the withdrawal process.
- The Supreme Court found Appellees used unlawful procedure and abused discretion by ending the contested-case without resolving Hualalai’s intervention petition and by engaging in ex parte communications, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / Mootness: whether withdrawal of SPP-16-188 moots the appeal | Withdrawal did not moot the case because controversy remained (ongoing conduct or repeatability) and court can grant effective relief (remand for hearing). | Application withdrawal ended controversy so appeal is moot and no effective relief available. | Not moot. Court retained jurisdiction because live controversy and relief (remand for LPC hearing on intervention) is possible. |
| Contested-case / Final decision: whether proceedings constituted a contested case and whether agency action was a final decision | Proceeding was a contested case (hearing required by LPC rules/HRS) and the LPC/Director’s ending of the matter constituted a final decision (effective denial). | No formal hearing occurred so there was no contested case; Appellees’ inaction was not a final appealable decision. | Proceeding was a contested case; LPC/Director’s termination of proceedings was a final decision under HRS §91-14(a). |
| Compliance with agency rules & participation: whether Hualalai followed LPC rules and may seek judicial review | Hualalai complied (timely petition, fee, oral participation) and thus is entitled to review even without formal admission as party. | Hualalai lacked proper standing/party status and should have sought other remedies (e.g., Board of Appeals). | Hualalai complied with LPC rules, participated, and met PASH requirements for judicial review. |
| Procedural fairness / abuse of discretion: whether Planning Director’s withdrawal and LPC’s failure to rule violated chapter 91 (ex parte, unlawful procedure) | Planning Director engaged in ex parte, nonpublic fact-finding with applicant and withdrew application without allowing intervention hearing, violating LPC Rule 4-6 and chapter 91 protections. | Bolton voluntarily withdrew and LPC simply let matter close; no prejudicial agency action or abuse of discretion. | Agency used unlawful procedure and abused discretion: LPC must rule on intervention before further action; Planning Director’s ex parte contacts and unilateral withdrawal were improper. Remand ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kona Old Hawaiian Trail Group v. Lyman, 69 Haw. 81, 734 P.2d 161 (1987) (appeal retained vitality where administrative action was not complete; public-interest/mootness considerations)
- Pub. Access Shoreline Hawai‘i v. Hawai‘i Cnty. Planning Comm’n, 79 Hawai‘i 425, 903 P.2d 1246 (1995) (four-part PASH test for judicial review under HRS §91-14: contested case, finality, compliance, standing)
- Kilakila ʻO Haleakalā v. Bd. of Land & Natural Res., 131 Hawai‘i 193, 317 P.3d 27 (2013) (agency failure to grant/deny contested-case request can be treated as effective denial when agency proceeds to final decision)
- Town v. Land Use Comm’n, 55 Haw. 538, 524 P.2d 84 (1974) (ex parte communications and introduction of evidence without opponents’ opportunity to confront/rebut constitute prejudicial error)
- Life of the Land, Inc. v. Land Use Comm’n, 61 Haw. 3, 594 P.2d 1079 (1979) (environmental/aesthetic injuries to members can establish standing to appeal)
- Liberty Dialysis–Haw., LLC v. Rainbow Dialysis, LLC, 130 Hawai‘i 95, 306 P.3d 140 (2013) (administrative rule interpretation: apply plain meaning unless inconsistent with statute/policy)