Laserfiche WebLink
Proposed Finding of Fact Objections <br /> condition approved by DPW,which does comply with the Ordinances, Oceanside must <br /> not take a position on whether or not any construct the Makai Haleki`i Extension and <br /> roadway is or was currently approved by Connector Road to a condition approved by <br /> DPW, and instead leaves those DPW — ." (Emphasis added). The Planning <br /> determinations to DPW and the Hawai'i Director did so despite the fact that: (a) both <br /> County Council. roads were constructed as part of Phase I of <br /> Hokuli`a, which received final subdivision <br /> approval in 1999 based on construction plans <br /> reviewed and approved by DPW; (b)both <br /> roads are subject to the Variance, which was <br /> granted by the Planning Department; and(c) <br /> the Planning Director testified that both roads <br /> are 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 /> Coupe Family's Response: This objection again attempts to reargue the decision below, which <br /> goes beyond the scope of this proceeding. It also misconstrues this FOF which explains the <br /> Board's review of the Planning Director's Order and states the basis of the Planning Director's <br /> decision. Again, this FOF supplements the Board's Decision and Order with the detail that the <br /> Circuit Court requested on remand. <br /> 17. The Board finds that the Order addressed Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 17 <br /> the questions raised by the Appellant in its on the grounds that it is vague and <br /> appeal, even if the Planning Director did ambiguous as to what is meant by "the <br /> not provide the level of clarity or specifics Order addressed the questions raised by <br /> desired by the Appellant. [Oceanside] in its appeal." <br /> Oceanside's appeal did not"raise" <br /> questions that were purportedly <br /> addressed by the Declaratory Order. The <br /> questions "addressed"in the Declaratory <br /> Order at issue in this appeal were raised in <br /> Coupe's Petitions for Declaratory Ruling. <br /> Oceanside appealed the Declaratory <br /> Order because the Planning Director made <br /> several errors in the Declaratory Order. <br /> 10 <br />