Laserfiche WebLink
discussion of the development agreement in the Order was only background, and was labeled as <br /> such. See Order at 8-9 (ROA at 393); Transcript of October 11, 2024 Hearing at 38-39. <br /> 4-3,15. Planning Director's discussion as to the effect of a variance on existing law and <br /> authority of other county entities in his Order was not a sua sponte ruling. See Order at 10, 12 <br /> (ROA at 392, 394). Planning Director's discussion pertained to the applicability of Chapter 23 <br /> within the larger context provided by Appellant.Id. Planning Director did not petition for his <br /> own declaratory ruling. <br /> 4416. Planning Director's order and testimony did not"qualify"the dedication of the <br /> Mauka Haleki`i Extension in relation to the satisfaction of the Ord. 96-7 and 96-8 requirements <br /> as argued by Appellant. See Order at 11 (ROA at 393); Transcript of October 11,2024 Hearing <br /> at 41. Planning Director acknowledged in his Order that the Mauka Haleki`i Extension was <br /> accepted by County Council Resolution 317-12 after input from Department of Public Works. <br /> See Order at 9, 11 (ROA at 391, 393).Planning Director correctly identified that he had no <br /> authority to interpret the acceptance of the dedication of the road by County Council or <br /> Department of Public Works.Id. <br /> 4-5,17. Neither the testimony of Mr. Vitousek nor the Planning Director needed <br /> reconciliation with the content of the Order. The testimony was irrelevant to the determination <br /> as to whether the Planning Director abused his authority and/or discretion. Nothing in <br /> Dep fftffie t'S R„RleS Of Pfaetiee ra Pff)eo"fe ("PRPP)Rule 3-1 or Chapter 91, Hawaii Revised <br /> Statutes, requires Planning Director to issue a declaratory ruling as the decision to issue a <br /> declaratory ruling is discretionary. Likewise, there is no requirement that Planning Director must <br /> issue declaratory rulings to the satisfaction of the petitioner f6f said deelafatefy fuli . Planning <br /> Director was not required to inform Appellant of their legal obligations with respect to the issues <br /> 6 <br />