Laserfiche WebLink
a. Planning Director failed to address eight of Appellant's requests relating to <br /> dedication requirements and construction standards in light of Ord. 96-7 and <br /> Ord. 96-8, and variances under Hawaii County Code Chapter 23. <br /> b. Planning Director erred by stating that he could not render declaratory rulings <br /> on seven requests that would require the review or affirmation of a variance <br /> granted by a prior Planning Director. <br /> c. Planning Director failed to answer four questions relating to the review and <br /> interpretation of a development agreement. <br /> 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 Haleki`i 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 /> ROA at 477-91. <br /> 3 <br />