Laserfiche WebLink
H. Determine that obligations in a development agreement cannot be excused by <br /> variance under the Hawaii Constitution, HRS, Hawaii Charter, County Code, and <br /> Development Agreement. <br /> Nothing in the HRS, Hawaii Charter, County Code, or Development Agreement,provides <br /> that a development agreement's express obligations and requirements can be alleviated or excused <br /> through simple variance. <br /> L Determine that Oceanside failed to provide Petitioner with notice of the Resolution. <br /> Oceanside's attempt to amend the Development Agreement and Incorporated Ordinances <br /> required notice to Petitioner, which Oceanside failed to provide. <br /> J. Determine that County's failures to provide notice for the Variance and Resolution <br /> denied Petitioner procedural due process of law. <br /> Petitioner was denied procedural due process due to multiple failures to be provided <br /> notice of a deprivation of significant property interest. <br /> VII. JUSTIFICATION AND LEGAL ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING PETITIONERS' <br /> POSITION <br /> A. Planning Director has the authority to determine—under the HRS, Hawaii <br /> Charter, County Code, and the Development Agreement—whether Oceanside is <br /> currently in compliance with the terms of the Development Agreement. <br /> Section 49 of the Development Agreement states that if, during annual review, <br /> "the Planning Department finds compliance by OCEANSIDE with the terms of this Agreement, <br /> the Planning Department shall issue a certificate of compliance[.]" Thus, the initial onus of <br /> compliance to the Development Agreement was instilled to the Planning Department. <br /> Yet despite the flaws mentioned above and to be further explained below, compliance to <br /> the Development Agreement by the Planning Department has not been ensured. <br /> 12 <br /> 843682 <br /> 14 <br />