Laserfiche WebLink
d. Planning Director erred by not interpreting Ord. 96-7, standing alone, because <br /> no dedication requirement is contained within Ord. 96-7; <br /> e. Planning Director erred by seemingly qualifying the 2010 dedication of the <br /> Mauka Halekii Extension and corresponding satisfaction of the Ordinances' <br /> conditions related to the roadway; and <br /> f. Planning Director erred by ruling that the Makai Haleki i Extension and <br /> Connector Road have not been constructed as required under the Ordinances <br /> because (1) both roadways were constructed pursuant to plans approved by <br /> the Department of Public Works of the County of Hawaii ("DPW") and are <br /> covered by the Variance, and(2) the Director lacks authority to rule upon the <br /> sufficiency of the roadway for dedication. <br /> g. Planning Director erred by issuing several declaratory rulings Appellant <br /> claims are sua sponte rulings; <br /> 4. Appellant's Appeal sought to modify the Order or have the Order remanded to the <br /> Planning Director to correct alleged errors. <br /> 5. On July 3, 2024, C&J Coupe Family Limited Partnership ("Intervenor") filed its <br /> Petition to Intervene in General Petition for Appeal of Decision by the Planning Director <br /> ("Petition to Intervene"). <br /> 6. On July 15, 2024, Appellant filed its Position Statement on Petition to Intervene <br /> in General Petition for Appeal of Decision by Planning Director, dated July 3, 2024. <br /> 7. On July 17, 2024, the County filed its County ofHawai`i Planning Director's <br /> Statement of No Position to Petition to Intervene in General Petition for Appeal of Decision of <br /> Planning Director, dated July 3, 2024. <br /> 3 <br />