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 14. Planning Director did not err, and acted Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 14 on the within his discretion in refusing to answer grounds that it appears completely unrelated to on the effect of Ord. 96-7 alone, as this appeal. The Planning Director's failure requested by Appellant,when Ord. 96-8 and/or refusal to answer Oceanside's request was also applicable to the Hokulea for him to determine whether Ordinance No. development and enacted at the same time. 96-7 requires the dedication of certain roadways is at issue in the separate appeal under Case No. PL-BOA-2024-000105, which concerns Oceanside's Petition for Declaratory Ruling. This appeal concerns the Planning Director's erroneous declaratory ruling that dedications are required under Ordinance No. 96-7. Coupe Family's Response: To the extent that this FOF references Oceanside's appeal in PL- BOA-2024-000105, a simple revision will remedy such issue. Coupe Family respectfully submits that its proposed edits to this FOF as set forth below and in Exhibit A will address Oceanside's objection. 15. The Planning Director correctly identified Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 15 on the questions that sought a review of actions grounds that it appears completely unrelated of the Hawaii County Council, and to this appeal. The Planning Director's matters under the jurisdiction of a determinations that certain requested different department, Department of declaratory rulings "sought a review of Public Works. actions of the Hawaii County Council, and matters under the jurisdiction of a different department, Department of Public Works" are at issue in the separate appeal under Case No. PL-BOA-2024000105, which concerns Oceanside's Petition for Declaratory Ruling. The Planning Director's determination that he cannot answer certain requested declaratory rulings on the grounds set forth in Proposed FOF 15 is not at issue in this appeal. Coupe Family's Response: This objection misstates the contents of the Planning Director's Declaratory Order in response to Coupe Family's Petition, which does include determinations that certain requests were outside the Planning Director's authority because they seek review of a different governmental entity such as the Hawaii County Council and the Department of Public Works. 16. The Planning Director did not rule that any Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 16 on the roadway is not constructed as required. grounds that it is contrary to the substantial The Planning Director ruled the roadways evidence. in the Declaratory Order, the in question must be constructed to a Planning Director ruled that"[i]n order-to 9