Laserfiche WebLink
Haleki`i Extension, and Connector Road must be built to? <br /> o Request 2: Whether the express terms of the Ordinances require <br /> compliance with Sections 23-86 and 23-95 of the Hawai`i County Code <br /> for the Haleki`i Extension, Makai Haleki`i Extension, and Connector <br /> Road? <br /> o Request 5: Whether the express terms of the Ordinances prohibit <br /> variances under Chapter 23 for the Haleki`i Extension, Makai Haleki`i <br /> Extension, and Connector Road? <br /> • Variances Under Chapter 23: <br /> o Request 3: Can a roadway subject to a properly granted variance from <br /> Sections 23-86 and 23-95 of the Hawai`i County Code be in full <br /> compliance with Chapter 23? <br /> o Request 4: If a roadway subject to a variance is otherwise in full <br /> compliance with Chapter 23, can the County accept dedication of the <br /> roadway under Section 23-10 of the Hawai`i County Code? <br /> o Request 5: Can a roadway subject to a variance from Sections 23-86 and <br /> 23-95 of the Hawai`i County Code be dedicated under Section 23-10 of <br /> the Hawai`i County Code? <br /> Ex. 105-1 at 9-10. <br /> However, the Planning Director failed to render declaratory rulings on each of these <br /> Requests. For example, the Oceanside Order does not rule on, inter alia, whether Ordinance No. <br /> 96-8 requires dedication of the Mauka Haleki`i Extension, Makai Haleki`i Extension, or <br /> Connector Road by a date certain or a development milestone; whether the Ordinances set <br /> express construction standards for these roadways; or whether a roadway subject to a properly <br /> granted variance from HCC §§ 23-86 and 23-95 can be in full compliance with HCC Chapter 23. <br /> Once a petition for declaratory ruling is filed, the Planning Director can respond in only <br /> one of two ways; he can either: (a) "deny the petition in writing, stating the reasons for such <br /> denial;" or(b) "issue a declaratory order on the matters contained in the petition." PD Rule 3- <br /> 1(c). The Planning Director's failure to rule upon these Requests — after acknowledging that <br /> they were properly before him under PD Rule 3 —was not grounded in HRS § 91-8 or any <br /> provision of PD Rule 3, and was therefore arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of his discretion. <br /> 4881-6366-3335.6.051730-00058 14 <br />