Oral arguments are scheduled in a lawsuit in which a Milolii homeowner is suing the county, claiming its electronic processing and information center system, known as EPIC, trapped him in a permit trap that only allows him to demolish his home – that is located in a Coastal Management Area – not to convert or live in.

Counsel will be provided for Shahzaad Ausman, a principal of 88-129 KAI LLC, the plaintiff, and county corporation counsel, who represents the Board of Appeals and former Public Works Director Stephen Pause – now replaced by Hugh Ono Cases before Third Judicial District Chief Judge Wendy DeWeese at 2 p.m. Feb. 3 in Kona District Court.

“I have spoken to the new mayor, but nothing yet,” Ausman said Tuesday, referring to Mayor Kimo Alameda, who appointed Ono. “Nothing has been leaked and it looks like it is heading towards an opening rally.

“The opposing counsel hasn’t contacted us and I haven’t heard anything other than ‘We’re looking into the matter’ – quote.”

Ausman’s attorney, Patrick Wong, filed an opening motion asking the court to overturn the Appellate Division’s certification of the Department of Public Works’ revocation of a remodeling permit issued to the former homeowner two years after it was issued.

According to DPW, the revocation of the conversion permit for the house at 88-129 Kai Ave. in Milolii Beach Lots on the expiry of a building permit issued in 1987, where there was alleged to have been no final inspection of the seaside home completed in 1989.

“He’s obviously confident about the case, otherwise he probably wouldn’t have taken it,” Ausman said of Wong, a partner in Carlsmith Ball’s Kona office. “But when you go before the judge, it’s up to the judge. The best I could hope for is that, given all the delays, the county might have tried to sort things out sooner.

“We have been here for three years now. But I haven’t heard anything from the district and I’m disappointed. We are about to have a hearing and I don’t even have a proposal for an agreement yet. And what worries me is that they wait until the last minute and say, ‘We need more time,’ postpone the hearing so we can sort things out, and then they do nothing.”

Wong’s arguments are that Ausman, who purchased the property on May 6, 2021 for $275,000, “reasonably relied on the validity” of the modification permit issued in 2020, “since he received assurances from DPW that the permit would be effective as of July.” “continues to be valid and active.” 2022.”

According to the letter, between June 2021 and September 2022, Ausman “spent $138,885 on renovation-related finances, mortgage payments and related expenses.”

The brief states that “despite due diligence to confirm the existence and validity” of the 2020 approval, Ausman “will continue to suffer significant harm.”

“DPW should not be permitted to retroactively revoke a permit two years after it was issued because it could not locate the final inspection records,” the document for the original 1987 permit states.

“I hope they work on it and we don’t have to go to court and can settle the matter because I think the solution would be easy. And that would be a recognition of the permit in its current form,” Ausman said.

As of Tuesday, the Office of Corporation Counsel had not filed its own rebuttal. When asked for comment on the case in October, the company’s attorney told the Tribune-Herald that he “does not comment on pending litigation.”

Email John Burnett at [email protected].