2024-10-04 Planning Director Pre-Hearing Brief (PL-BOA-2024-000104 & 105)

Home

The Director interpreted the conditions of Ordinances 96-7 and 96-8 as applied to the Project and properly and accurately responded to the requests. The Ordinances, taken together, require the Makai Haleki`i Extension and Connector Road be constructed to a condition approved by the DPW, and dedicated to the County. To the extent 1250 appeals the Director's examination of the Ordinances "in their entirety," any error would be harmless. Together, Ordinance 96-7 and Ordinance 96-8 directly state that the Haleki`i Extension and the Connector Road must be constructed to a condition approved by DPW and the roadways shall be dedicated to the appropriate government entity and 1250 must comply with both Ordinances. To suggest that, because no explicit date certain is included for such dedication the dedication is not required is absurd. The rules of statutory construction require that "first, the fundamental starting point for statutory interpretation is the language of the statute itself. Second, where the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, our sole duty is to give effect to the plain and obvious meaning." See Rosehill Tr. of Linda K. Rosehill Revocable Tr., 2024 WL 4274344 *6 (Sept. 24, 2024) (citing State v. Castellon, 144 Hawai`i 406, 411, 443 P.3d 98, 103 (2019). The plain meaning of "dedication" is to dedicate the required Project roadways to the County. In addition, 1250 asserts the Director erred in using qualifying language in ruling the Mauka Haleki`i Extension had effectively been dedicated. The Director's language, however, does not constitute error. The Director did not qualify the dedication of the Mauka Haleki`i Extension as much as he recognized that Council effected this action,not the Planning Department. See PRPP Rule 3.1 (stating the Director may issue a declaratory order as to the applicability of any statutory provision, ordinance, or of any rule or order of the Director of the Department). 17