Laserfiche WebLink
I. Determine whether the Resolution, as an improper attempt to amend the <br /> Development Agreement and Incorporated Ordinances, required notice to Petitioner <br /> which was not provided. <br /> Assuming the Resolution was an improper attempt to amend the Development Agreement <br /> and Incorporated Ordinances, notice of a public hearing is required for the Resolution under <br /> Paragraph 27 of the Development Agreement, Haw. Rev. Stat. §46-130, and Hawaii County Code <br /> Section 30-9. <br /> J. Determine whether County's failures to provide/require notice for the Variance and <br /> Resolution denied Petitioner procedural due process of law. <br /> The basic elements of procedural due process of law require notice and an opportunity to <br /> be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner before governmental deprivation of a <br /> significant property interest. Sandy Beach Def. Fund v. City Council of City & Cnty. of Honolulu, <br /> 70 Haw. 361, 378, 773 P.2d 250, 261 (1989) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 <br /> (1976)). Due process also includes a substantive component that guards against arbitrary and <br /> capricious government action which has no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals <br /> or general welfare. Lopez v. State, 133 Haw. 311, 322, 328 P.3d 320, 331 (2014) (quoting In re <br /> Herrick, 82 Haw. 329, 349, 992 P.2d 942, 962 (1996)). <br /> V. STATEMENT OF CONTROVERSY/UNCERTAINTY. <br /> The present controversy involves numerous compliance issues in regards to the <br /> Development Agreement and Incorporated Ordinances, as well as County's lethargy to rectify said <br /> issues. In addition, Petitioner would like clarification as to what powers the Director of the <br /> Planning Department has to rectify these issues. <br /> 9 <br /> 843682 <br /> 11 <br />