My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006-11-17_Motion_to_Dismiss_Petition_for_Declaratory_Ruling_re_Herron_Whitehead
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Court Documents
>
2006-11-17_Motion_to_Dismiss_Petition_for_Declaratory_Ruling_re_Herron_Whitehead
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2011 4:36:10 PM
Creation date
7/15/2011 4:35:25 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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).
View images
View plain text
letter. Petitioners do not point to any particular final decision made by the Director within the <br /> Director's jurisdiction as a basis for their request for a declaratory ruling. The Board has no <br /> authority to make a declaratory ruling which essentially dictates how the Director must perform <br /> the duties of his position. <br /> The Director's duties and responsibilities are provided in Section 6-4.2 of the Hawaii <br /> County Charter, which requires the Director to"administer the subdivision and zoning <br /> ordinances and regulations" and to "render decisions on proposed subdivision plans." Once the <br /> Director renders a final decision regarding matters within his jurisdiction (i.e., subdivision and <br /> zoning matters), the Board has the power to hear and determine appeals from that final decision. <br /> The issue is not relevant to some action which the Board might take in the exercise of the powers <br /> granted by the Hawaii County Charter. Therefore the Board is without authority to issue a <br /> declaratory ruling on the issue pursuant to Section 91-8, HRS. <br /> Finally, in the third issue presented in the Petition, Petitioners are asking the Board to <br /> make a declaratory ruling that the Director does not have the authority to waive the requirements <br /> of Rezoning Ordinance No. 96-117(M)(1)(b). In addition, Petitioners are asking the Board to <br /> interpret Rezoning Ordinance No. 96-117 to mean that the condition requiring the construction <br /> of the connector road Phases 1 and 3 in conjunction with the Luala`i III subdivision has already <br /> been triggered and that the Director must not take any further action on any of the Luala`i at <br /> Parker Ranch subdivision applications until Parker Ranch/Kaomalo commits to now complete <br /> Phases 1 and 3 of the connector road. Petitioners make no mention of any final decision made <br /> by the Director relating to the conditions of Rezoning Ordinance No. 96-117. <br /> There are no provisions in the Hawaii County Charter that authorize the Board to <br /> interpret an ordinance, unless it is relevant to the Board's determination of an appeal from a final <br /> 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.