2026-02-09 1250 Oceanside LLC Objection to Proposed Amended FOF, COL, D&O (PL-BOA-2024-000104)

Home

testimony), and argument adduced at the contested case hearing. 14. Planning Director did not err, and acted Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 14 on the within his discretion in refusing to grounds that it appears completely unrelated to answer on the effect of Ord. 96-7 alone, this appeal. The Planning Director's failure as requested by Appellant, when Ord. and/or refusal to answer Oceanside's request for 96-8 was also applicable to the Hokulea him to determine whether Ordinance No. 96-7 development and enacted at the same requires the dedication of certain roadways is at time. issue in the separate appeal under Case No. PL- BOA-2024-000105, which concerns Oceanside's Petition for Declaratory Ruling. This appeal concerns the Planning Director's erroneous declaratory ruling that dedications are required under Ordinance No. 96-7. 15. The Planning Director correctly Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 15 on the identified questions that sought a review grounds that it appears completely unrelated to of actions of the Hawaii County this appeal. The Planning Director's Council, and matters under the determinations that certain requested jurisdiction of a different department, declaratory rulings "sought a review of actions Department of Public Works. of the Hawaii County Council, and matters under the jurisdiction of a different department, Department of Public Works" are at issue in the separate appeal under Case No. PL-BOA-2024- 000105, which concerns Oceanside's Petition for Declaratory Ruling. The Planning Director's determination that he cannot answer certain requested declaratory rulings on the grounds set forth in Proposed FOF 15 is not at issue in this appeal. 16. The Planning Director did not rule that Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 16 on the any roadway is not constructed as grounds that it is contrary to the substantial required. The Planning Director ruled evidence. in the Declaratory Order, the the roadways in question must be Planning Director ruled that"[i]n order to constructed to a condition approved by comply with the Ordinances, Oceanside must DPW, which does not take a position on construct the Makai Haleki`i Extension and whether or not any roadway is or was Connector Road to a condition approved by currently approved by DPW, and instead DPW — ." (Emphasis added). The Planning leaves those determinations to DPW and Director did so despite the fact that: (a) both the Hawai'i County Council. roads were constructed as part of Phase I of Hokuli`a, which received final subdivision approval in 1999 based on construction plans reviewed and approved by DPW; (b) both roads are subject to the Variance, which was granted b the Planning Department; and c the 11 4906-3356-8652.1.051730-00058