My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2024-09-25 C&J Coupe Exhibit List, Exhibits 1-5 (PL-BOA-2024-000105)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
zCases for Past Hearings
>
PL-BOA-2024-000105 1250 Oceanside, LLC (PD)
>
2024-09-25 C&J Coupe Exhibit List, Exhibits 1-5 (PL-BOA-2024-000105)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/26/2024 10:04:26 AM
Creation date
9/26/2024 9:29:46 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
540
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
34. Oceanside sought a variance to the above mentioned requirements in <br /> contravention of the law. However, as neighboring property owner to Oceanside, Plaintiff was/is <br /> directly affected by said variance. Recognizing the effect of variances on neighboring property <br /> owners, the Hawaii County Code expressly requires variance applicants to provide neighboring <br /> property owners of their attempts to circumvent County Code, whether lawfully or unlawfully <br /> requested. Plaintiff was provided no notice of the variance whatsoever. <br /> 35. Following the variance (which required public notice) County and Oceanside <br /> once again attempted to remove the County's dedication standards from the terms of the deal. <br /> Specifically, Oceanside dedicated the Mauka Halekii Extension to the County, and the County <br /> accepted said dedication pursuant to a County resolution. Dubiously, the Mauka Halekii <br /> Extension was not built to dedicable standard as required by the Code as well as the <br /> Development Agreement and Incorporated Ordinances. <br /> 36. This was not a proper dedication and was, in actually, a thinly vailed attempt to <br /> once again amend the Development Agreement and Incorporated Ordinances, this time without <br /> any notice to the public. Because this "dedication", amended the Development Agreement and <br /> Incorporated Ordinances, proper notice should have been provided to the Plaintiff and the public <br /> at large. <br /> 37. This display of lethargy and evasion of legal requirements cannot continue. The <br /> Development Agreement and Incorporated Ordinances were enacted in order to provide essential <br /> benefits to the community, including the Plaintiff. Oceanside knew what was expected, required, <br /> and agreed to, and, therefore, must be held to the negotiated terms, and the County, in the interest <br /> of the Plaintiff and the community at large, must be commanded to enforce the terms. <br /> 38. After all, this project was meant to be constructed to create a residential <br /> community as well as provide very important public infrastructure to the residents of the <br /> 9 <br /> 710088 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.