Laserfiche WebLink
a. Questions 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 19 do not designate any <br /> specific provision, rule or order of the Director or the Department. <br /> b. Questions 2, 3, 4, 14, and 15 do not designate any specific provision,rule <br /> or order of the Director or the Department and are an inappropriate reversal of the Petitioner's <br /> and Director's roles pursuant to Rule 3-1(b) in that, rather than providing the Director with the <br /> law to be applied and interpreted, Petitioner requests the Director cite to the applicable law. <br /> 2. Questions Outside the Scope of the Director's Authority: Requesting <br /> Review of Prior Reviewable Actions <br /> The following questions are focused on concrete agency decisions or past actions, <br /> whether by the Department or another agency of the County, for which other means of review <br /> are or were available. These requests are inconsistent with the purpose of Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 91 <br /> and Planning Rule 3, see CARD, 114 Hawai`i at 197, 159 P.3d at 156, and, therefore, they will <br /> not be addressed in this Order: <br /> Initial Petition <br /> 1. Question 2 seeks an interpretation of the Development Agreement but the <br /> Development Agreement is not a Department order. <br /> 2. Question 5 seeks an interpretation of the Development Agreement but the <br /> Development Agreement is not a Department order, and/or seeks review or affirmance of a <br /> Council action over which the Director has no authority, and/or seeks review or affirmance of a <br /> past Department action, i.e., the issuance of Variance 10-027, which is no longer appealable. See <br /> CARD, 114 Hawai`i at 196, 159 P.3d at 155 (explaining declaratory ruling procedure not for <br /> review of past agency decisions which are no longer appealable). <br /> 9 <br />