2026-01-23 Proposed Amended FOF, COL, D&O (PL-BOA-2024-000104)

Home

11. Planning Director testified, and his testimony was consistent with the contents of his Order. Planning Director testified he exercised discretion in not answering some questions posed by the petitions. Planning Director's order and testimony did not"qualify"the dedication of the Mauka Halekii Extension in relation to the satisfaction of the Ord. 96-7 and 96-8 requirements as argued by Appellant. Planning Director acknowledged in his Order that the Mauka Halekii Extension was accepted by County Council Resolution 317-12 after input from Department of Public Works. Planning Director correctly identified that he had no authority to interpret the acceptance of the dedication of the road by County Council or Department of Public Works. 12. Neither the testimony of Mr. Vitousek nor the Planning Director needed reconciliation with the content of the Order. The testimony was irrelevant to the determination as to whether the Planning Director abused his authority and/or discretion. Nothing in Planning Department's Rules of Practice and Procedure ("PRPP") Rule 3-1 or Chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes, requires Planning Director to issue a declaratory ruling to the satisfaction of the petitioner for said declaratory ruling. Planning Director was not required to inform Appellant of their legal obligations with respect to the issues raised in the Petition for a Declaratory Ruling. Likewise, eliciting testimony showing Planning Director did not answer specific questions or provided additional information that was not requested did not show the Planning Director abused his authority and/or discretion. 13. The exhibits did not show the Order was issued in error or an abuse of discretion. 14. Planning Director did not err, and acted within his discretion in refusing to answer on the effect of Ord. 96-7 alone, as requested by Appellant, when Ord. 96-8 was also applicable to the Hokulea development and enacted at the same time. 4