Laserfiche WebLink
A statement explaining: <br /> (A)How the decision appealed from <br /> violates the law; or <br /> (B) How the decision appealed from is <br /> clearly erroneous; or <br /> (C) How the decision appealed from was <br /> arbitrary and capricious, or characterized <br /> by an abuse of discretion or clearly <br /> unwarranted exercise of discretion. <br /> 9. The Planning Director acted within his Like other Proposed FOFs and COLS discussed <br /> jurisdiction and discretion in the manner supra, Proposed COL 9 appears completely <br /> in which the Planning Director unrelated to this appeal, and instead is related to <br /> addressed the Appellant's posed issues raised by Oceanside in its separate appeal <br /> questions. The Planning Director was under Case No. PL-BOA-2024-000105, which <br /> not required to respond to the questions concerns Oceanside's Petition for Declaratory <br /> in the form or format posed by the Ruling. <br /> Appellant. <br /> Specifically, the Planning Director did not <br /> address "Appellant's" (or Oceanside's) "posed <br /> questions" in the Declaratory Order at issue in <br /> this appeal —those questions were posed by <br /> Coupe in its Petitions for Declaratory Ruling. <br /> The issue of whether the Planning Director was <br /> "required to respond to the questions in the <br /> form or format posed by the Appellant" is <br /> likewise not at issue in this appeal because the <br /> questions addressed in the Declaratory Order at <br /> issue in this appeal were posed by Coupe, not <br /> Oceanside. <br /> 10. The Planning Director correctly Oceanside objects to Proposed COL 10 on the <br /> identified issues and questions outside grounds that it is contrary to the substantial <br /> the Planning Director's jurisdiction and evidence in the record and the law. In the <br /> discretion. Declaratory Order, the Planning Director <br /> exceeded his authority and jurisdiction by, inter <br /> alia, ruling that the Makai Haleki`i Extension <br /> and Connector Road have not been constructed <br /> as required under Ordinance No. 96-7 and <br /> Ordinance No. 96-8. <br /> 11. The Order sufficiently addressed the Like other Proposed FOFs and COLS discussed <br /> questions raised by the Appellant even supra, Proposed COL 11 appears completely <br /> though the Order did not reflect the unrelated to this appeal, and instead is related to <br /> 16 <br /> 4906-3356-8652.1.051730-00058 <br />