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 The next sentence ("Planning Director was not required to inform Appellant of their [sic] legal obligations with respect to the issues raised in the Petition for a Declaratory Ruling") can be deleted to the extent it references Oceanside's appeal in PL-BOA-2024-000105. Oceanside's objection to the first two sentences of this FOF again misconstrues the purpose of this proceeding ("Neither the testimony of Mr. Vitousek not-the Planning Director needed reconciliation with the content of the Order. The testimony was irrelevant to the determination as to whether the Planning Director abused his authority and/or discretion."). It bears repeating that the reason Oceanside and Coupe Family sought declaratory rulings was because the Circuit Court ordered Coupe Family to do so, citing primary jurisdiction. The purpose of the declaratory ruling process was to get the Planning Director's opinion, not the Board's or the Circuit Court's opinion. The Planning Director has rendered his opinion, which was then put before the Board for review in Oceanside's two appeals. As the Planning Director's Declaratory Orders turn on his interpretation of rules and laws, these are matters of law and thus the Board's examination of these Orders does not turn on the credibility of witnesses' testimonies. Rather, the question before the Board was whether the Planning Director interpreted the rules and laws correctly in applying them to a certain set of facts submitted by the petitioner. These two sentences simply clarify this point and provide the rationale that the Circuit Court requested on remand. 13. The exhibits did not show the Order was Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 13 on issued in error or an abuse of discretion. the grounds that it is contrary to the substantial evidence in the record, including the exhibits, which demonstrates that the Planning Director committed numerous errors and abused his discretion. Because Proposed FOF 16 fails identify any specific exhibits or specify how the exhibits purportedly did not show that the Planning Director erred or abused his discretion, Oceanside incorporates by reference its Petition for Appeal, its Consolidated Hearing Brief filed October 4,2024 ("Hearing Brief"), the evidence in the record(including exhibits and testimony), and argument adduced at the contested case hearing. Coupe Family's Response: This objection again goes beyond the scope of this proceeding because Oceanside is attempting to reargue the decision below whereas the Circuit Court only remanded for more details on the Board's decision. Coupe Family submits that any purported insufficiency can be remedied by incorporating Coupe Famil 's proposed edits as set forth below and in Exhibit A. 8