Laserfiche WebLink
Proposed Conclusions of Law Objections <br /> Coupe Family's Response: To the extent that this COL may reference the appeal in PL- <br /> BOA-2024-000105, the Board may consider removing it for clarity. Coupe Family submits <br /> that any confusion or alleged issues presented by the Proposed Decision and Order will be <br /> resolved by incorporating Coupe Family's suggested edits. <br /> For the reasons set forth in Oceanside's <br /> 12.Having considered the testimony and Petition for Appeal and its Hearing Brief, <br /> evidence provided, including the as well as the evidence, testimony, and <br /> submitted exhibits, the Board argument adduced at the hearing, all of <br /> unanimously concluded that in issuing which is hereby incorporated by reference, <br /> his Order, the Planning Director in Oceanside objects to Proposed COL 12 on <br /> issuing the order did not clearly err, was the grounds that the BOA's decision to <br /> not arbitrary or capricious, nor did he affirm the Declaratory Order goes against <br /> abuse his discretion. Therefore, the the weight of the evidence and applicable <br /> Board affirmed Zen do Kem, Planning law, and constitutes reversible error. <br /> Director, County of Hawai`i's <br /> Declaratory Order in the Matter of C & <br /> J Coupe Family Limited Partnership, <br /> Petitioner, Docket No. 24-0001. <br /> Coupe Family's Response: This objection again attempts to reargue the matters before the <br /> Planning Director and is thus beyond the scope of this proceeding. This COL contains the <br /> Board's reasoning for its decision. To that end, it is both relevant and unobjectionable. <br /> iI. PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL EDITS <br /> A. Findings of Fact <br /> l. At the end of Paragraph 1: Add "BOA Record on Appeal ("ROA") at 1- <br /> 890." <br /> 2. At the end of Paragraph 2: Add"ROA at 894906." <br /> 3. in Paragraph 3, replace subsection "a" with the language used in the <br /> Remand Order so that it reads, "The Director erred by ruling that Ordinance No. 96-7 requires the <br /> dedication of three roadways because no such requirement is contained within Ordinance No. 96- <br /> 7." Add"ROA at 9752259" at the end of the first sentence. Add "ROA at 988-92" to the end of <br /> the paragraph. <br /> 15 <br />