2024-05-28 PL-BOA-2024-000104 Coupe Order Exhibits COMBINED_v1

Home

2. Determine whether the Planning Director has the authority—under the HRS, Hawaii Charter, County Code and Development Agreement—to determine material breaches of the Development Agreement. 3. Determine which County official, if any, has the power to excuse a breach of the Development Agreement. 4. Determine whether Oceanside has, within the timeframe allotted, completed the following: a. designed and constructed/built the roads required under the Development Agreement and Incorporated Ordinances; and b. dedicated the roads required under the Development Agreement and Incorporated Ordinances. 5. Determine whether Resolution 317-12 and the Variance improperly amended the Development Agreement and Incorporated Ordinances. 6. Determine whether the Variance is unlawful, impermissible, and not authorized under Hawaii law. 7. Whether Petitioner received notice of the Variance, as required under the express dictate of County law. 8. Determine whether obligations in a development agreement can be excused by Variance under the Hawaii Constitution, HRS, Hawaii Charter, County Code, and Development Agreement. 9. Determine whether Resolution 317-12, as an improper attempt to amend the Development Agreement and Incorporated Ordinances,required notice to Petitioner which was not provided. 10. Determine whether the failures to provide notice of the Variance and Resolution were violations of Petitioner's right to due process of law. By its Supplemental Petition, Petitioner has requested the Director to issue a declaratory ruling as to the following additional questions: 1. Petitioner requests that Planning determine and declare whether Planning has primary jurisdiction to render decisions on the following issues: • Interpretation of Development Agreement • Interpretation, administration, and enforcement of Ordinances and Conditions 6