Laserfiche WebLink
the Development Agreement. See Exhibit"6". And Oceanside admits this as in their application <br /> for variance in 2020 and 2023 they confirm that none of the Required Public Roads were designed <br /> or constructed to dedicable standards. See Exhibits"4" & "5". <br /> Further, it is undisputed that the Makai Halekii Extension and Connector Road have not <br /> been dedicated to the County as evidence by, amongst other things, the guard facility erected at <br /> the entrance to Hokulia Lands south of the Mamalahoa Bypass Highway; and, through a County <br /> Resolution accepted some form of the Mauka Halekii Extension, such dedication was unlawful. <br /> E. Determine that the Variance and Resolution improperly amended the Development <br /> Agreement and Incorporated Ordinances. <br /> Oceanside failed to adhere to the legal process of amending a development agreement or <br /> an ordinance. Instead, Oceanside has tried to circumvent the Development Agreement and <br /> ordinance amendment requirements through a number of unpermitted and unlawful means <br /> including improper variance, in the form of Variance 10-027, attached herein as Exhibit"T', and <br /> unlawful dedication, via Resolution No. 317-12, attached herein as Exhibit"8". <br /> F. Determine that the Variance is unlawful, impermissible, and not authorized under <br /> Hawaii law. <br /> The express requirements to grant a variance were not met here as the prescribed elements <br /> to grant a variance have not been met. <br /> G. Determine that Petitioner did not receive notice of the Variance, against the express <br /> dictate of County law. <br /> Requisite procedural notice required for both Resolution and Variance were not followed <br /> by Oceanside or County. Petitioner's should have been provided specific notice as to both the <br /> Resolution and Variance, but were unlawfully denied such right. <br /> 11 <br /> 843682 <br /> 13 <br />