Laserfiche WebLink
• Request 8: The Director declined to answer this request because it did not <br /> designate any specific provision, rule, or order of the Director or <br /> Department as is required under PRPP Rule 3-1(b)(3). Id., at 0026. <br /> • Request 9: The Director declined to answer this request because it sought <br /> review or affirmance of Council action over which the Director has no <br /> authority. Id., at 0028. <br /> • Request 10: The Director declined to answer this request because it did <br /> not designate any specific provision, rule, or order of the Director or <br /> Department as is required under PRPP Rule 3-1(b)(3). Id., at 0026. <br /> 21. The Declaratory Order responded to Coupe's requests in its supplemental <br /> petition as follows: <br /> • The Director declined to answer requests 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, <br /> 18, and 19 as they failed to designate any specific provision, rule, or order <br /> of the Director or Department as is required under PRPP Rule 3-1(b)(3). <br /> Id., at 0027. <br /> • The Director declined to answer requests 2, 3, 4, 14, and 15 because they <br /> also did not comply with PRPP Rule 3-1(b)(3) and the requests reversed <br /> the roles of the Petitioner and Director as the Petitioner is the party that is <br /> supposed to supply the law to be applied and interpreted. Id. <br /> • The Director also declined to answer requests 11, 12, and 13 because <br /> they sought review or affirmance of a past Department action (issuance of <br /> Variance), which is no longer appealable. Id., at 0028. <br /> 1 <br />