Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Director testified that both roads are <br /> already constructed and exist today. <br /> The Planning Director's ruling in the <br /> Declaratory Order that Oceanside "must <br /> construct"both roadways "to a condition <br /> approved by DPW" directly contradicts the <br /> purported finding in Proposed FOF 16 that the <br /> Planning Director did"not take a position on <br /> whether or not any roadway is or was currently <br /> approved by DPW." <br /> 17. The Board finds that the Order Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 17 on the <br /> addressed the questions raised by the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to <br /> Appellant in its appeal, even if the what is meant by "the Order addressed the <br /> Planning Director did not provide the questions raised by [Oceanside] in its appeal." <br /> level of clarity or specifics desired by Oceanside's appeal did not"raise" questions <br /> the Appellant. that were purportedly addressed by the <br /> Declaratory Order. The questions "addressed" <br /> in the Declaratory Order-at issue in this appeal <br /> were raised in Coupe's Petitions for Declaratory <br /> Ruling. Oceanside appealed the Declaratory <br /> Order because the Planning Director made <br /> several errors in the Declaratory Order. <br /> Oceanside further objects to Proposed FOF 17 <br /> on the grounds that it misstates and <br /> mischaracterizes the grounds for Oceanside's <br /> appeal, which did not simply concern a lack <br /> "clarity or specifics desired by the <br /> [Oceanside]." This was confirmed by the <br /> Circuit Court in its Remand Order. See Exhibit <br /> A at 25-26,¶29. <br /> B. PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br /> Oceanside submits the following specific objections to the BOA'S proposed conclusions <br /> of law: <br /> Proposed Finding of Fact Objections <br /> 1. Hawai`i Revised Statues Section 91-8 n/a <br /> allows that: <br /> Any interested person may etition an <br /> 12 <br /> 4906-3356-8652.1.051730-00058 <br />