2026-02-27 PL-BOA-2024-000104 Coupe Family's Response to 1250 Oceanside's Objections - Proposed Amended FOF-COL

Home

Proposed Finding of Fact Objections constructed as required under the Ordinances because (1)both c. The Director erred by ruling that the roadways were constructed pursuant Makai Haleki`i Extension and to plans approved by DPW and are Connector Road have not been covered by the Variance, and(2) the constructed as required under the Planning Director lacks authority to Ordinances because (1) both rule upon the sufficiency of the roadways were constructed pursuant roadway for dedication. to plans approved by DPW and are covered by the Variance, and(2) the Director lacks authority to rule upon the sufficiency of the roadways for dedication. The grounds for Oceanside's appeal of the Declaratory Order to the BOA are also set forth in the Circuit Court's Remand Order. See Exhibit A at 14,¶29. Coupe Family's Response: The only difference between the Board's proposed language and Oceanside's is found in subsection 3.a. Although the wording is different, both versions of the proposed language essentially state the same thing. The Board's version references Oceanside's arguments below whereas Oceanside's language merely recites the Circuit Court's Remand Order. The crux of Oceanside's point of error on appeal remains the same. This is a distinction without difference. It would be correct to use either of the proposed versions, and Coupe Family defers to the Board's sound discretion to determine which version to use in its Proposed Decision and Order. Using Oceanside's version would only result in consistency with the Circuit Court's Remand Order and nothing more. 9. On October 11, 2024, the Board heard oral Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 9 on arguments and presentation of evidence, the grounds that it does not specify that including exhibits, and testimony on the the BOA's hearing on October 1 l, 2024, Appeal at the West Hawaii Civic Center was a contested case hearing pursuant to with all Board Members present in person. BOA Rule 8-1 1, Part 3 of the BOA Michael Kaleihoku Vitousek, Manager of Rules, and HRS ch. 91. This was Land and Development of 1250 Oceanside, confirmed by the Circuit Court in its LLC, Derek B. Simon, Esq., and Ian R. Remand Order, which rejected the Wesley-Smith, Esq. appeared on behalf of County's argument that Oceanside's Appellant. Zendo Kem, Hawaii County appeal to, and subsequent hearing Planning Director and E. Britt Bailey, before, the BOA was not a contested Deputy Corporation Counsel, appeared on case. See Exhibit A at 22-23,¶¶10-15. behalf of the Planning Department. Charles Coupe of C&J Coupe Family Limited Oceanside further objects to Proposed FOF Partnership, Kenneth R. Ku chak, Esq., 9 on the grounds that it fails to reflect that