My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2025-08-18 3CCV-25-0000025 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Vacating and Remanding to BOA (PL-BOA-2024-000104)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
zCases for Past Hearings
>
PL-BOA-2024-000104 1250 Oceanside, LLC (PD)
>
2025-08-18 3CCV-25-0000025 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Vacating and Remanding to BOA (PL-BOA-2024-000104)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2025 2:01:03 PM
Creation date
1/23/2026 10:29:43 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
(2) The decision violated this chapter or other applicable law; or <br /> (3) The decision was arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse <br /> of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. <br /> • 4) Board of Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedures, Rule 8- 4(4) <br /> requires that a general petition for an appeal must include: <br /> A statement explaining: <br /> (A) How the decision appealed from violates the law; or <br /> (B) How the decision appealed from is clearly erroneous; or <br /> (C) How the decision appealed from was arbitrary and capricious, or <br /> characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of <br /> discretion. <br /> • 5) The Director acted within his jurisdiction when the Director addressed <br /> the posed questions in the Order. <br /> • 6) The Order correctly identified issues outside the Director's jurisdiction <br /> and discretion. <br /> • 7) The Order sufficiently addressed the questions raised by the Appellant <br /> even though the Order did not reflect the specifics desired by the <br /> Appellant. <br /> • 8) Appellant's [sic] argued lack of clarity and/ or specifics in the Director's <br /> responses, but that did not meet the burden required for modifying or <br /> remanding the Planning Director's decision. <br /> • 9) Having considered the testimony and evidence provided, the Board <br /> unanimously concluded that in issuing his Order, the Planning Director <br /> 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.