My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2024-07-15 1250 Oceanside LLC Position Statement on Petition to Intervene PL-BOA-2024-000108 (104)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
zCases for Past Hearings
>
PL-BOA-2024-000104 1250 Oceanside, LLC (PD)
>
2024-07-15 1250 Oceanside LLC Position Statement on Petition to Intervene PL-BOA-2024-000108 (104)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2024 12:03:08 PM
Creation date
7/24/2024 8:04:25 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Coupe's fatalistic hyperbole is both unnecessary and misleading. <br /> In reality, the issues involved in this appeal are far narrower and less sinister than Coupe <br /> suggests. For example, Oceanside has appealed only a portion of the Planning Director's ruling <br /> that"[t]aken in their entirety, the Ordinances' roadway and public access requirements expressly <br /> require the Mauka Halekii Extension, Makai Halekii Extension and Connector Road to be <br /> dedicated to the County." Specifically, Oceanside has appealed only the Planning Director's <br /> ruling that Ordinance No. 96-7 requires dedications of the roadways, where the word "dedicate" <br /> (or any variation thereof) is found nowhere is Ordinance No. 96-7. At no point before the <br /> Circuit Court or in this appeal has Oceanside challenged the dedication obligations under <br /> Ordinance No. 96-8, as Coupe seemingly suggests. <br /> Oceanside also appealed only a portion of the Planning Director's ruling that"[t]o the <br /> extent the Mauka Halekii Extension was effectively dedicated, such dedication satisfied those <br /> portions of Ordinance 96-7, Condition M(4), and Ordinance 96-8, Condition L(4), applicable to <br /> the Mauka Haleki`i Extension." Specifically, while Oceanside agrees with and has not appealed <br /> the Planning Director's ruling that the dedication of the Mauka Haleki`i Extension satisfied the <br /> requirements of the Ordinances, Oceanside has appealed the qualification the Planning Director <br /> seemingly put on the dedication. <br /> Oceanside has also appealed the Planning Director's ruling that"[i]n order to comply <br /> with the Ordinances, Oceanside must construct the Makai Haleki`i Extension and Connector <br /> Road to a condition approved by DPW . . . ." Exhibit 1 at 12. In its appeal, Oceanside points to <br /> the fact that the Ordinances do not set explicit construction standards for these roadways; that all <br /> three roadways were constructed to plans approved by DPW; and that all three roadways are <br /> subject to the Variance, which provided relief from certain requirements under the Hawai`i <br /> 4885-9189-8831.1.051730- 000584 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.