Laserfiche WebLink
3. Questions 6 and 7 seek review or affirmance of a past Department action, <br /> i.e., the issuance of Variance 10-027, which is no longer appealable. See CARD, 114 Hawai`i at <br /> 196, 159 P.3d at 155. <br /> 4. Question 9 seeks review or affirmance of a Council action over which the <br /> Director has no authority. <br /> Supplemental Petition <br /> 1. Questions 11, 12, and 13 seek review or affirmance of a past Department <br /> action, i.e.,the issuance of Variance 10-027, which is no longer appealable. See CARD, 114 <br /> Hawai`i at 196, 159 P.3d at 155. <br /> To avoid an unauthorized exercise of discretion, the Director will not address the <br /> Petition's above-referenced questions. <br /> 2. Questions Partially Within the Scope of the Director's Authority <br /> To the extent Initial Petition Question 4 requests the Director to interpret the <br /> Development Agreement, the question will not be addressed in this Order. To the extent that <br /> Supplemental Question 10 seeks procedural advice from the Director, the question will not be <br /> addressed in this Order. However, addressing the Ordinances' requirements and Oceanside's <br /> compliance therewith is a question which seeks Department advice on how a statute, agency rule, <br /> or order would apply to a specific set of facts. To the extent Initial Petition Question 4 and <br /> Supplemental Petition Questions 6 and 10 request an interpretation of the Ordinances' conditions <br /> as applied to the Project,those questions are within the Director's authority. <br /> a. The Ordinances' Relevant Requirements <br /> Ordinance 96-7, Conditions M(4) and M(5), require that"[p]rior to the issuance of <br /> Final Subdivision Approval for any portion of subject property", the applicant shall "construct" <br /> 10 <br />