2024-10-04 1250 Oceanside LLC Consolidated Hearing Brief (PL-BOA-2024-000104 & 105)

Home

No. Request Argument and Relief 4. As of January 31, 2011, did Chapter 23 The answer to this Request is Yes. allow for any person aggrieved by the The BOA should remand this matter back to the decision of the Planning Director in the Planning Director to issue the following ruling: administration of Chapter 23 to file an As of January 31, 2011, Chapter 23 allowed appeal with the Hawaii County Board for any person aggrieved by the decision of of Appeals within thirty days of the the Planning Director in the administration Planning Director's written decision? of Chapter 23 to file an appeal with the Hawaii County Board of Appeals within thirty days of the Planning Director's written decision. 5. As of January 31, 2011, did Chapter 23 The answer to this Request is No. or any other statute, ordinance, rule, or The BOA should remand this matter back to the order within the Planning Director's Planning Director to issue the following ruling: jurisdiction authorize an appeal of the As of January 31, 2011, neither Chapter 23 Planning Director's decision on a nor any other statute, ordinance, rule, or variance application other than by filing order within the Planning Director's an appeal with the Board of Appeals jurisdiction authorized an appeal of the within thirty days of the Planning Planning Director's decision on a variance Director's written decision on the application other than by filing an appeal variance application? with the Board of Appeals within thirty days of the Planning Director's written decision on the variance application. Finally, the Planning Director erred by sua sponte issuing certain rulings in Section III(B)(3)(c) of the Oceanside Order related to variances under HCC Chapter 23 that were neither requested nor argued by Oceanside, which he lacks authority to do. Ex. 105-1 at 12. The BOA should remand this matter to the Planning Director to rescind Section III(B)(3)(c) in its entirety. B. Summary of Errors Common to both Orders and Appeals: Incorrect Rulings By the Planning Director. The following summarizes the errors common to both the Oceanside Order and Coupe Order that Oceanside has appealed, which concern erroneous rulings issued by the Planning Director. Oceanside requests that the BOA either remand these rulings back to the Planning Director to correct his errors, or modify the Orders to do the same. First, in both Orders, the Planning Director ruled that "[t]aken in their entirety, the Ordinances' roadway and public access requirements expressly require the Mauka Halekii 4881-6366-3335.6.051730-00058 8