My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2026-02-27 PL-BOA-2024-000104 Coupe Family's Response to 1250 Oceanside's Objections - Proposed Amended FOF-COL
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
zCases for Past Hearings
>
PL-BOA-2024-000104 1250 Oceanside, LLC (PD)
>
2026-02-27 PL-BOA-2024-000104 Coupe Family's Response to 1250 Oceanside's Objections - Proposed Amended FOF-COL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/4/2026 2:02:48 PM
Creation date
3/4/2026 2:02:26 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
12. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-8 states that an interested <br /> person may petition an agency for "a declaratory order as to the <br /> applicability of any statutory provision or of any rule or order of the <br /> agency."Pursuant to Planning Department's Rules of Practice and <br /> Procedure ("PRPP") Rule 3-1(a), declaratory orders can be issued <br /> as to "the applicability of any statutory provision, ordinance, or any <br /> rule or order of the Director or the Department."It is established that <br /> under both Chapter 91 and PRPP,the Planning Director's discretion <br /> to issue declaratory rulings is limited. <br /> 10. Add a new paragraph after that, as follows: <br /> 13. The declaratory ruling procedure is one"whereby an <br /> interested party could seek agency advice as to how a statute, agency <br /> rule, or order would apply to particular circumstances not yet <br /> determined." Citizens Against Reckless Development v. Zoning <br /> Board of Appeals of*the City and County of Honolulu ("CARD"), <br /> 114 Hawaii 184, 197, 159 P.3d 143, 156 (2007). "[T]he declaratory <br /> ruling procedure was not intended to be utilized to seek review of <br /> agency determinations that have already been made and which have <br /> not been timely appealed." Id. at 196, 159 P.3d at 155. Put another <br /> way, declaratory rulings are forward-looking whereas appeals of an <br /> agency's order or action looks at the past. Id. at 19495, 159 P.3d at <br /> 15354 ("where the applicability of relevant law is unknown, either <br /> because the agency has not yet acted upon particular factual <br /> circumstances, or for some other reason the applicability of some <br /> provisions of law have not been brought into consideration."). <br /> Further, examinations of the correctness of prior actions have <br /> specific appeal procedures which had expired just as the declaring <br /> of defaults under the Development Agreement is beyond the scope <br /> of the of the Planning Director's authority pursuant to Hawaii <br /> County Code § 30-6(a) and because it is not an action of Director, <br /> but rather a contract signed by the Mayor. HCC § 30-6(a) ("If, at <br /> any time, the office of the mayor finds and determines that the <br /> principal has committed a material breach of the terms or conditions <br /> of the agreement, the office of the mayor shall serve notice in <br /> writing, within thirty days after the finding of a material breach . . <br /> ."). Thus, the Planning Director's authority to issue declaratory <br /> rulings under Chapter 91 and PRPP does not include the authority <br /> to review the actions or orders of another department or government <br /> agency, or things that are not a Planning Department order. <br /> 11. The third sentence of the old paragraph 11 becomes new paragraph 14: It <br /> starts with "Planning Director's order and testimony did not `qualify"'... At the end of that <br /> 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.