Laserfiche WebLink
Proposed Finding of Fact Objections <br /> Oceanside also objects to Proposed FOF 12 <br /> to the extent it finds that"[n]othing in <br /> Planning Department's Rules of Practice <br /> and Procedure ("PRPP") Rule 3-1 or <br /> Chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes, <br /> requires Planning Director to issue a <br /> declaratory ruling to the satisfaction of the <br /> petitioner for said declaratory ruling." <br /> Although it is not clear what is meant by <br /> "to the satisfaction of the petitioner," <br /> Oceanside was not the "petitioner" for the <br /> Declaratory Order at issue in this appeal. In <br /> any event, the Declaratory Order is an <br /> appealable order subject to review by both <br /> the BOA and the courts pursuant to the BOA <br /> Rules and HRS § 91-14. <br /> Oceanside further objects to Proposed FOF <br /> 12 to the extent that it finds that"[n]either <br /> the testimony of Mr. Vitousek not-the <br /> Planning Director needed reconciliation with <br /> the content of the Order," as it is contrary to <br /> the Circuit Court's Remand Order, which <br /> recognized that the BOA was required to <br /> reconcile the evidence received at the <br /> contested case hearing. See Exhibit A at 26, <br /> ¶30 ("None of the FOFs provide the Court <br /> with the necessary insight into how the <br /> BOA reconciled the evidence received as <br /> part of the contested case hearing."). <br /> Coupe Family's Response: The last sentence of this FOF starting with "Likewise, eliciting <br /> testimony showing Planning Director did not answer specific questions . . ." can be deleted <br /> to the extent that it references the portion of the Planning Director's testimony where he was <br /> being questioned specifically about Oceanside's Petition that is the subject of Oceanside's <br /> appeal in PL-BOA-2024-000105. Coupe Family objects to Oceanside's characterization of <br /> the Planning Director's Declaratory Order on Oceanside's Petition as containing "sua <br /> sponte"rulings Planning Director did not issue sua sponte rulings. <br /> There is nothing objectionable in the following sentence: "Nothing in Planning <br /> Department's Rules of Practice and Procedure ("PRPP") Rule 3-1 or Chapter 91, Hawai`i <br /> Revised Statutes, requires Planning Director to issue a declaratory ruling to the satisfaction <br /> of the petitioner for said declaratory ruling." This sentence adds to the Board's rationale <br /> behind its decision, which is what was requested by the Circuit Court on remand. <br /> 7 <br />