My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2026-01-23 Proposed Amended FOF, COL, D&O (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)
>
2026-01-23 Proposed Amended FOF, COL, D&O (PL-BOA-2024-000104)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/23/2026 10:57:52 AM
Creation date
1/23/2026 10:57:46 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
Those findings of fact, conclusions of law otherwise proposed by the parties that are not <br /> incorporated herein, are hereby rejected. The Board of Appeals, having held a hearing on the <br /> above-entitled matter on October 11, 2024, finds, concludes and orders as follows: <br /> FINDINGS OF FACT <br /> 1. On February 7, 2024, C&J Coupe Family Limited Partnership ("Intervenor") filed <br /> its Petition for Declaratory Ruling, and on March 27, 2024, filed its Supplement to Petition for <br /> Declaratory Ruling, (collectively, "Petition")requesting declaratory rulings from the Director of <br /> the Planning Department of the County of Hawaii ("Planning Director"). <br /> 2. On April 29, 2024, the Planning Director issued Zendo Kern, Planning Director, <br /> County ofHawai`i's Declaratory Order in the Matter of C&J Coupe Family Limited <br /> Partnership, Petitioner, Docket No. 24-0001 ("Order") in response to the Petition. <br /> 3. On May 28, 2024, 1250 Oceanside, LLC ("Appellant") filed its General Petition <br /> for Appeal of Decisions by Planning Director or Public Works Director("Appeal") with the <br /> Board of Appeals, County of Hawaii ("Board") appealing the Planning Director's issuance of <br /> the Order. Appellant argued the following points of error: <br /> a. Planning Director erred by not interpreting Ord. 96-7, standing alone, because <br /> no dedication requirement is contained within Ord. 96-7; <br /> b. Planning Director erred by seemingly qualifying the 2010 dedication of the <br /> Mauka Haleki`i Extension and corresponding satisfaction of the Ordinances' <br /> conditions related to the roadway; and <br /> c. Planning Director erred by ruling that the Makai Haleki`i Extension and <br /> Connector Road have not been constructed as required under the Ordinances <br /> because (1) both roadways were constructed pursuant to plans approved by <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.