Laserfiche WebLink
• 8) Whether obligations in a development agreement can be excused by <br /> Variance under the Hawaii Constitution, HRS, Hawaii Charter, County <br /> Code, and Development Agreement. <br /> • 9) Determine whether the Resolution, as an improper attempt to amend <br /> the Development Agreement and Incorporated Ordinances, required <br /> notice to Petitioner which was not provided. <br /> • 10) Determine whether the failures to provide notice of the Variance and <br /> Resolution were violations of Petitioner's right to due process of law. <br /> Id. <br /> 15. In the Supplemental Petition, Coupe posed nineteen (19) additional <br /> requests to the Director. Dkts. 36-37, ROA at 0794-0806. <br /> 16. The requests in the Supplemental Petition were: <br /> • 1) Petitioner requests that Planning determine and declare whether <br /> Planning has primary jurisdiction to render decisions on the following <br /> issues: interpretation of Development Agreement; interpretation, <br /> administration, and enforcement of Ordinances and Conditions; (and) <br /> validity/propriety of Variance No. VAR 10 027 ("Variance") and whether <br /> final decision on Variance has been made. <br /> • 2) If Planning determines that it has authority to render decisions on the <br /> issues listed above, Petitioner requests that Planning identify the source of <br /> its authority. <br /> 7 <br />