Laserfiche WebLink
M;I = <br /> does Ordinance No. 96-7 incorporate by reference any of the requirements of Ordinance 96-8. <br /> See Exhibit A,passim. Simply put, there is no requirement under the express terms of Ordinance <br /> No. 96-7 that the roadways required under Conditions M(4)and M(5)be dedicated to the <br /> County. <br /> 2. Whether the express terms of Ordinance No. 96-8 require the dedication <br /> of the Mauka Haleki`i Extension, Makai Haleki'i Extension, or Connector <br /> Road by a date certain or any milestone in the development of Hokuli'a? <br /> No. Ordinance No. 96-8 does not contain any deadline or development milestone for the <br /> dedication of the Makai Haleki`i Extension, Mauka Haleki'i Extension, or Connector Road. See <br /> Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 142 Hawai`i at 449, 420 P.3d at 380 ("`The fundamental starting point <br /> of statutory interpretation is the language of the statute itself,' and `where the statutory language <br /> is unambiguous, our duty is to give effect to its plain and obvious meaning."). Ordinance No. <br /> 96-8 provides only that the"roadway improvements stated in Condition L of this ordinance shall <br /> be dedicated to the County of Hawaii." Exhibit B at 26.2 <br /> 3. Whether the express terms of the Development Agreement impose any <br /> dedication obligations for the Mauka Haleki Extension, Makai Haleki <br /> Extension, or Connector Road separate and apart from Ordinance No. 96- <br /> 8? <br /> No. The Development Agreement lacks any express dedication requirement for the <br /> Makai Haleki`i Extension, Mauka Haleki`i Extension, or Connector Road. See Wong v. <br /> Cayetano, 111 Hawaii 462,481, 143 P.3d 1, 20(2006) ("[W]hen the terms of a contract are <br /> definite and unambiguous there is no room for interpretation.")(citation omitted). The <br /> 2 In its Complaint and Petition, Coupe conflates the timing for the construction of these roadways <br /> with their dedication in an attempt to manufacture an artificial dedication deadline,and <br /> completely ignores that Ordinance No. 96-8 provides that a subdivision agreement and bond or <br /> other appropriate security could be used"[dr' lieu of actual construction" for the purpose of <br /> obtaining final subdivision approval. Exhibit B at 26. <br /> 4862-5574-8005.3.051730-00058 -17- <br /> 21 <br />