My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2024-10-04 1250 Oceanside LLC Consolidated Hearing Brief (PL-BOA-2024-000104 & 105)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
zCases for Past Hearings
>
PL-BOA-2024-000104 1250 Oceanside, LLC (PD)
>
2024-10-04 1250 Oceanside LLC Consolidated Hearing Brief (PL-BOA-2024-000104 & 105)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/7/2024 8:52:33 AM
Creation date
10/7/2024 9:10:09 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
been brought into consideration." CARD, 114 Hawai`i at 194-95, 159 P.3d at 153-54 (emphasis <br /> added). Oceanside's Petition specifically noted that it was being filed"to ensure Oceanside has <br /> certainty as it continues to develop Hokuli`a." Ex. 105-2 at 12. Oceanside's Requests asked the <br /> Planning Director to provide his official interpretation of specific provisions of the County Code, <br /> where those interpretations are at present unknown, subject to dispute between parties, and <br /> "ha[ve] not been brought into consideration." The Requests do not reference the Variance, much <br /> less ask the Planning Director to review or affirm the Variance. <br /> The Planning Director acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and abused his discretion in <br /> refusing to rule on these Requests. Oceanside requests that the BOA remand the matter back to <br /> the Planning Director with instructions to modify the Oceanside Order to issue the declaratory <br /> rulings on these Requests set forth in Oceanside's Petition, or modify the Oceanside Order itself. <br /> D. The Planning Director Erred by Sua Sponte Issuing Declaratory Rulings that <br /> were not Requested by Oceanside. <br /> In Section III(B)(3)(c) of the Oceanside Order, the Planning Director states, inter alia, <br /> that: (a) "[b]ecause such a variance only excuses performance under Chapter 23, Variance 10- <br /> 027 cannot and does not effect an amendment of an existing ordinance;" (b) "a Chapter 23 <br /> variance cannot and does not . . . extinguish the authority of the DPW to set standards for or <br /> make determination regarding street construction standards . . . or usurp Council's authority to <br /> accept or reject the dedication of public infrastructure subject to the DPW Director's approval;" <br /> and (c) "variances provide relief only from Chapter 23's requirements: they do not relieve <br /> [Oceanside] from the Ordinance's conditions." Ex. 105-1 at 11-12. <br /> However, Oceanside's Petition did not request the Planning Director to issue declaratory <br /> rulings on these issues, including whether the Variance excused or amended the conditions <br /> imposed under the Ordinances, or whether the Variance extinguished or usurped the roles played <br /> 4881-6366-3335.6.051730-00058 22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.