In Citizens Against Reckless Development v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the City and County of Honolulu (No. 27264, May 31, 2007), the Hawaii Supreme Court clarified the administrative procedures to be used in third-party challenges to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). I haven’t had a chance to digest the opinion in full, but it appears the most interesting issue in the case is whether a request for an agency to issue a declaratory ruling pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-8 can substitute for an appeal of an agency decision after contested case pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-14. The Court answered no:
[The Appellant], having failed to bring an appeal of the CUP issuance within the required thirty-day time-limit, sought review of the CUP issuance via the declaratory ruling petition procedure provided by HRS § 91-8 and accompanying DPP Rule § 3-1. Although styled as a “petition for a declaratory ruling as to the applicability of certain provisions of the [Land Use Ordinance] to the 317,000 square-foot Wal-Mart/Sam’s Club development proposed for the Keeaumoku Superblock,” in reality five out of six of its specific requests sought a declaration that the CUP was improperly issued.
Slip op. at 23. More to follow after I’ve had a chance to review the opinion in more detail. Stay tuned.