My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2024-10-04 1250 Oceanside LLC Consolidated Hearing Brief (PL-BOA-2024-000104 & 105)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
zCases for Past Hearings
>
PL-BOA-2024-000105 1250 Oceanside, LLC (PD)
>
2024-10-04 1250 Oceanside LLC Consolidated Hearing Brief (PL-BOA-2024-000104 & 105)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/7/2024 8:52:33 AM
Creation date
10/7/2024 8:51:52 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
No. Request Argument and Relief <br /> the Hawaii County Code can be in full <br /> compliance with Chapter 23. <br /> 4. If a roadway subject to a variance is The answer to this Request is Yes. <br /> otherwise in full compliance with The BOA should remand this matter back to the <br /> Chapter 23, can the County accept Planning Director to issue the following ruling: <br /> dedication of the roadway under Section A roadway that is subject to a variance and <br /> 23-10 of the Hawaii County Code? is otherwise in full compliance with Chapter <br /> 23 can be accepted for dedication by the <br /> County under Section 23-10 of the Hawaii <br /> County Code. <br /> 5. Can a roadway subject to a variance The answer to this Request is Yes. <br /> from Sections 23-86 and 23-95 of the The BOA should remand this matter back to the <br /> Hawaii County Code be dedicated Planning Director to issue the following ruling: <br /> under Section 23-10 of the Hawaii A roadway subject to a variance from <br /> County Code? Sections 23-86 and 23-95 of the Hawaii <br /> County Code can be dedicated under Section <br /> 23-10 of the Hawaii County Code. <br /> Second, the Planning Director erred by ruling that he could not render declaratory rulings <br /> on four Requests related to the Development Agreement. The Hawai`i County Mayor <br /> promulgated Mayor Rule 1, under which authority"for the overall administration" of <br /> development agreements was delegated to the Planning Department. This necessarily includes <br /> interpreting the provisions of the Development Agreement and provides a clear basis for the <br /> Planning Director to issue declaratory rulings. The following table summarizes the Requests <br /> falling in this second category of error(none of which were answered by the Planning Director) <br /> and the relief Oceanside seeks: <br /> No. Request Argument and Relief <br /> Dedication Requirements <br /> 3. Whether the express terms of the The answer to this Request is No. <br /> Development Agreement impose any The BOA should remand this matter back to the <br /> dedication obligations for the Mauka Planning Director to issue the following ruling: <br /> Haleki`i Extension, Makai Haleki`i The express terms of the Development <br /> Extension, or Connector Road separate Agreement do not impose any dedication <br /> and apart from Ordinance No. 96-8? obligations for the Mauka Haleki`i <br /> Extension, Makai Haleki`i Extension, or <br /> Connector Road separate and apart from <br /> 4881-6366-3335.6.051730-00058 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.