Laserfiche WebLink
0 0 <br /> Moreover, it is a matter of great importance to the public to have a proper interpretation <br /> of HRS § 91-13.5 to provide guidance to the Director and the Board for similar cases in <br /> the future. <br /> II. CONCLUSION <br /> The Director is not precluded from judicial review by this Court under <br /> HRS § 91-14 for failure to submit objections to Mrs. Calvert's FOFCOL. He participated <br /> in the contested case hearing through his attorney as required by HRS § 91-14. The legal <br /> arguments made by the Director's attorney were preserved in the Record that is now <br /> before this Court. <br /> The Board exceeded its statutory authority by finding that the variance application <br /> was automatically approved contrary to the clear dictates of the Hawaii County <br /> Subdivision Code. Automatic approval does not apply to subdivision variances because <br /> they are"otherwise provided by law,"which is the Hawaii County Subdivision Code <br /> enacted by the County Council. The County Council is a legislative body specifically <br /> exempted from the provisions of HRS, Chapter 91. The Director must comply with the <br /> Hawaii County Subdivision Code. Therefore,his decision to deny the variance <br /> application is in compliance with the clear dictates of the Hawaii County Subdivision <br /> Code. <br /> Likewise, the Board's decision was clearly erroneous as HRS § 91-13.5 does not <br /> apply to the Hawaii County Subdivision Code. . <br /> Based upon all of the foregoing, the Director respectfully requests that the Court <br /> reverse the Board's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order and <br /> 9 <br />