Laserfiche WebLink
raised in the Petition for a Declaratory Ruling. Likewise, eliciting testimony showing Planning <br /> Director did not answer specific questions or provided additional information that was not <br /> requested did not show the Planning Director abused his authority and/or discretion. <br /> 4-6-.18. The exhibits did not show the Order was issued in error or an abuse of discretion. <br /> 4-719. Planning Director did not err, and acted within his discretion in refusing to answer <br /> on the effect of Ord. 96-7 alone, as requested by Appellant, when Ord. 96-8 was also applicable <br /> to the Hokulea development and enacted at the same time. Ordinances 96-7 and 96-8 established <br /> the zoning for the Project's approximate 1500-acre master planned community. The Ordinances, <br /> contain the conditions for the rezoning of the Project, and have been read together as applicable <br /> to the entirety of the Project. <br /> 4-8-.20. Planning Director correctly identified questions that sought a review of actions of <br /> the Hawaii County Council, a prior Planning Director's issuance of a variance, and matters under <br /> the jurisdiction of a different department, the Department of Public Works. Order at 5-9 (ROA <br /> at 387-91). <br /> 4-9-.21. The Planning Director did not rule that any roadway is not constructed as <br /> required. Order at 10-11 (ROA at 392-93). The Planning Director ruled the roadways in <br /> question must be constructed to a condition approved by DPW, which does not take a position on <br /> whether or not any roadway is or was currently approved by DPW, and instead leaves those <br /> determinations to DPW and the Hawaii County Council. Id. <br /> 22. The Board finds that the Order addressed the questions appropriately raised by the <br /> Appellant in its General Petition, even if Planning Director did not provide the level of clarity or <br /> specifics desired by the Appellant. <br /> 20 <br /> 7 <br />