Laserfiche WebLink
the condition of those approvals. Morgan v. Planning Dept, 86 P.3d 982, 984 (Haw. 2004); <br /> Sheehan v. Cry. of Kauai, 337 P.3d 53 (Haw. App. 2014)(memo. op.).8 <br /> VII. CONCLUSION <br /> In light of the foregoing, Petitioners respectfully requests the Director issue a declaratory <br /> ruling that confirms or clarifies the interpretation of Hawaii County Code §§ 23-7, 23-30, 23-62, <br /> 23-74, 23-84, 23-85, 23-95, 25-2-2, 25-2-11, 25-2-30, 25-4-2, 25-5-71, 25-5-74. <br /> DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 23, 2025. <br /> DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT <br /> /s/Mark M. Murakami <br /> MARK M. MURAKAMI <br /> CLINT K. HAMADA <br /> Attorneys for Petitioner <br /> MARK KELLBERG <br /> $Since the Hawaii Supreme Court recognized that the Kauai County Planning Commission <br /> had the authority to modify a VALIDLY issued permit, it assuredly would recognize County's <br /> authority to revisit and modify one with as flawed an approval history as SUB 05-00064. See <br /> Morgan, 86 P.3d at 984. <br /> 17 <br /> 20 <br />