My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006-11-22_Answering_Brief_re_Calvert
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Court Documents
>
2006-11-22_Answering_Brief_re_Calvert
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2011 4:40:02 PM
Creation date
7/15/2011 4:37:27 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
remedies before seeking judicial review, is even more compelling where, as in the instant case, <br /> the appellant was given an opportunity to objection even before the final order was entered. We <br /> read HRS Section 91-11 to be in furtherance of the rule by specifically granting a party adversely <br /> affected by a proposed decision the right to file exception and to make argument to the agency." <br /> See also Waikiki Resort Hotel, Inc. v City and County of Honolulu, 63 Haw 222, 624 P.2d 1253 <br /> (1981). <br /> B. County Provisions Cannot Contradict Statutory Provisions <br /> Rule 6 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Planning Department governs <br /> variance procedures before the Director. Section 6-7 of that rule provides that: <br /> (a) Within sixty days after the filing of a proper application or <br /> within a longer period as may be agreed to by the petitioner, <br /> the Director shall deny the application or approve it subject to <br /> conditions. The conditions imposed by the Director shall bear <br /> a reasonable relationship to the variance granted. <br /> (b) All actions shall contain a statement of the factual findings <br /> supporting the decision. <br /> (c) If the Director fails to act within the prescribed period, the <br /> application shall be considered as having been denied. <br /> The section of the rule that provides for an automatic denial is in direct contradiction to <br /> the statutory mandate that if no action is taken within the prescribed time period that the <br /> application is to be deemed approved. <br /> HRS Section 91-13.5 provides: <br /> §91-13.5 Maximum time period for business or development-related <br /> permits, licenses, or approvals; automatic approval; extensions. (a) Unless <br /> otherwise provided by law, an agency shall adopt rules that specify a maximum <br /> time period to grant or deny a business or development-related permit, license, or <br /> approval; provided that the application is not subject to state administered permit <br /> programs delegated, authorized, or approved under federal law. <br /> (b) All such issuing agencies shall clearly articulate informational <br /> requirements for applications and review applications for completeness in a <br /> timely manner. <br /> (c) All such issuing agencies shall take action to grant or deny any <br /> application for a business or development-related permit, license, or approval <br /> 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.