Laserfiche WebLink
No. Request Argument and Relief <br /> Ordinance No. 96-8. <br /> Construction Standards <br /> 3. Whether the express terms of the The answer to this Request is No. <br /> Development Agreement set specific The BOA should remand this matter back to the <br /> construction standards to which the Planning Director to issue the following ruling: <br /> Mauka Haleki`i Extension, Makai The express terms of the Development <br /> Haleki`i Extension, and Connector Road Agreement do not set specific construction <br /> must be built to? standards to which the Mauka Haleki`i <br /> Extension, Makai Haleki`i Extension, and <br /> Connector Road must be built to. <br /> 4. Whether the express terms of the The answer to this Request is No. <br /> Development Agreement require The BOA should remand this matter back to the <br /> compliance with Sections 23-86 and 23- planning Director to issue the following ruling: <br /> 95 of the Hawaii County Code for the The express terms of the Development <br /> Haleki`i Extension, Makai Haleki`i Agreement do not require compliance with <br /> Extension, and Connector Road? Sections 23-86 and 23-95 of the Hawaii <br /> County Code for the Haleki`i Extension, <br /> Makai Haleki`i Extension, and Connector <br /> Road. <br /> 6. Whether the express terms of the The answer to this Request is No. <br /> Development Agreement prohibit The BOA should remand this matter back to the <br /> variances under Chapter 23 for the Planning Director to issue the following ruling: <br /> Haleki`i Extension, Makai Haleki`i The express terms of the Development <br /> Extension, and Connector Road? Agreement do not prohibit variances under <br /> Chapter 23 for the Haleki`i Extension, <br /> Makai Haleki`i Extension, and Connector <br /> Road. <br /> Third, the Planning Director erred by ruling that he could not render declaratory rulings <br /> on seven Requests because they purportedly sought to review or affirm prior actions taken by the <br /> Planning Director. None of these Requests mention, much less ask the Planning Director to <br /> review or affirm, prior Planning Director actions. Instead, each simply sought the Planning <br /> Director's official interpretation of the County Code as of a specific date. The following table <br /> summarizes the Requests falling in this third category of error (none of which were answered by <br /> the Planning Director) and the relief Oceanside seeks: <br /> // <br /> 4881-6366-3335.6.051730-00058 6 <br />