Laserfiche WebLink
decisions are not ripe for appeal; Petitioner requests that Planning provide an explanation and the <br /> legal basis therefor. <br /> 15. Petitioner requests that Planning identify the appropriate appellate tribunal to <br /> review Planning's decisions on variances. <br /> 16. Petitioner requests that Planning identify whether Oceanside was required to <br /> "provide roadway stub-outs ... to provide further connections between the [Hokuli'a <br /> Development Project] and its adjacent north and south boundaries. <br /> 17. Petitioner requests that Planning identify whether these roadway stub-outs were <br /> required so that future connections could provide access between properties adjacent to the <br /> Hokuli'a Development Project. <br /> 18. Petitioner requests that Planning identify whether Oceanside's requirement to <br /> build the "roadway stub-outs" is dependent on the development of Petitioner's property. <br /> 19. Petitioner requests that Planning state whether it will bring a zoning enforcement <br /> action against Oceanside. <br /> B. Department's Response <br /> 1. Questions Outside the Scope of the Director's Authority: Non-Compliance <br /> With Planning Rule 3-1(b) <br /> Questions posed which do not comply with the requirements of Planning Rule 3-1(b) <br /> will not be addressed in this Order. The following questions do not designate a specific <br /> provision, rule or order of the Director or the Department as Planning Rule 3-1(b)(3) requires: <br /> Initial Petition <br /> a. Question 1 does not designate any specific provision, rule or order of the <br /> Director or the Department. It seeks an interpretation of the Development Agreement but the <br /> Development Agreement is not a Department order. <br /> b. Questions 3, 8, and 10 do not designate a specific provision,rule or order <br /> of the Director or the Department. <br /> Supplemental Petition <br /> 8 <br />