Laserfiche WebLink
legislature has granted agencies discretion with <br /> regard to the consideration of declaratory <br /> rulings. The boundaries of that discretion, <br /> which normally are defined by the legislature, <br /> may in such cases be established with <br /> reference to the agency rules themselves, or <br /> by reading the statute and the agency rules <br /> in tandem." Citizens Against Reckless Dev. v. <br /> Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City & Cnty. of <br /> Honolulu, 114 Haw. 184, 194-95, 159 P.3d 143, <br /> 153-54 (2007). In other words, the Planning <br /> Director's discretion in considering and <br /> disposing of petitions for declaratory rulings is <br /> circumscribed by PD Rule 3, and when the <br /> Planning Director acts outside of the boundaries <br /> of PD Rule 3, he commits cleat-error and acts <br /> without discretion, arbitrarily and capriciously, <br /> and in violation of the law. <br /> 5. PRPP Rule 3-1(a) does not require the Oceanside objects to Proposed COL 5 on the <br /> Planning Director to answer all grounds that it appears completely unrelated to <br /> questions posed in a petition once the this appeal. The Planning Director's failure <br /> Planning Director decides to issue a and/or refusal to issue declaratory rulings on <br /> declaratory ruling on a petition. The certain questions is at issue in the separate <br /> Planning Director has discretion in the appeal under Case No. PL-BOA-2024-000105, <br /> manner and method in addressing which concerns Oceanside's Petition for <br /> questions posed for a declaratory ruling. Declaratory Ruling. It is therefore unclear what <br /> relevance, if any, the proposed finding that <br /> "PRPP Rule 3-1(a) does not require the <br /> Planning Director to answer all questions posed <br /> in a petition" has in this appeal. <br /> This appeal likewise does not concern "the <br /> manner and method" in which the Planning <br /> Director answered the questions posed in <br /> Coupe's Petitions for Declaratory Ruling; this <br /> appeal concerns numerous errors the Planning <br /> Director made in the Declaratory Order. <br /> 6. PRPP Rule 3-1(c)provides when the Like other Proposed FOFs and COLS discussed <br /> Planning Director shall respond to the supra, Proposed COL 6 appears completely <br /> request for a declaratory order. unrelated to this appeal, and is instead related to <br /> the issues raised by Oceanside in its separate <br /> appeal under Case No. PL-BOA-2024-000105, <br /> which concerns Oceanside's Petition for <br /> Declaratory Ruling. <br /> 14 <br /> 4906-3356-8652.1.051730-00058 <br />