The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled on May 22, 2026, that the Maui Planning Commission (MPC) properly denied a group of residents' request to intervene in a public hearing regarding a special use permit (SUP) for a rock-crushing operation. The case, Gutschmidt v. Maui Planning Commission (SCOT-23-0000516), affects residents of the Makila Plantation neighborhood in Launiupoko, Maui, who expressed concerns about the potential impacts of the proposed operation.
The court's ruling is significant as it establishes the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines in administrative hearings. The decision emphasizes that late petitions to intervene must demonstrate good cause, which the court found the appellants failed to do.
Background
The appellants in this case are Drew Gutschmidt, Andrew Black, Michael Morrison, Terri Morrison, Ash Saulsbury, and Lila Tretikov, all of whom are residents or property owners in the Makila Plantation neighborhood. They challenged the MPC's decision to grant a special use permit to Goodfellow Bros., LLC, which sought to use a twelve-acre site for rock-crushing operations. The site is located about a mile from their homes.
Goodfellow applied for the SUP in January 2021, proposing to establish a temporary rock-crushing facility to provide aggregate for local construction projects. The operation was expected to produce dust and noise, prompting concerns from nearby residents. Despite these concerns, Goodfellow argued that the project was necessary to reduce traffic from construction vehicles and divert rocks from illegal dumping.
The MPC held a public hearing on August 8, 2023, to discuss the SUP application. Prior to the hearing, Goodfellow engaged in community outreach, including an informational meeting with homeowners. However, the appellants did not file their petition to intervene until August 7, 2023, just hours before the hearing, claiming they only recently learned about the application and its potential impacts.
The Ruling
The Hawaii Supreme Court upheld the MPC's decision to deny the appellants' petition to intervene, stating that they did not demonstrate good cause for their late filing. The court noted that the appellants had sufficient notice of the public hearing and ample time to prepare their petition. The ruling stated, "The MPC properly denied Appellants’ petition to intervene because Appellants did not show good cause as to why they waited until the eve of the public hearing to file a petition to intervene."
Chief Justice McKenna, along with Justices Ginoza and Eddins, issued the opinion. The court emphasized that procedural rules concerning intervention are intended to ensure timely participation in administrative processes.
Impact
This ruling reinforces the necessity for parties wishing to intervene in administrative hearings to adhere to established deadlines. It clarifies that late petitions must provide adequate justification for their tardiness, which the court found lacking in this case. The decision may deter similar late interventions in future cases, as it underscores the importance of timely participation in the regulatory process.
The ruling affects not only the appellants but also sets a precedent for future cases involving public participation in administrative hearings in Hawaii. It highlights the balance between community involvement and the need for regulatory bodies to operate efficiently.
What's Next
The appellants have the option to appeal the decision to a higher court, although details about any potential appeal were not provided in the court filing. There are no related cases pending at this time.