2026-04-23 Proposed Amended FOF-COL; Order on Remand v3 (PL-BOA-2024-000104)

Home

BOA-2024-000105, Planning Director testified he exercised discretion in not answering some questions posed in that Petition. See Transcript of October 11, 2024 Hearing at 37,44.. 13. The Planning Director refused to answer several questions based on cited caselaw that"[T]he declaratory ruling procedure was not intended to be utilized to seek review of agency determinations that have already been made and which have not been timely appealed." Citizens Against Reckless Development v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the City and County of Honolulu ("CARD"), 114 Hawaii 184, 196, 159 P.3d 143, 155 (2007). 14. Planning Director's order and testimony did not"qualify"the dedication of the Mauka Haleki`i Extension in relation to the satisfaction of the Ord. 96-7 and 96-8 requirements as argued by Appellant. ROA at 905; Transcript of October 11, 2024 Hearing at 41. Planning Director acknowledged in his Order that the Mauka Haleki`i Extension was accepted by County Council Resolution 317-12 after input from Department of Public Works. Planning Director correctly identified that he had no authority to interpret the acceptance of the dedication of the road by County Council or Department of Public Works. 15. Neither the testimony of Mr. Vitousek nor 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. Nothing in PRPP Rule 3-1 or Chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes, requires Planning Director to issue a declaratory ruling as the decision to issue a declaratory ruling is discretionary. Likewise, there is no requirement that Planning Director must issue declaratory rulings to the satisfaction of the petitioner. Planning Director was not required to inform Appellant of their legal obligations with respect to the issues raised in the Petition for a Declaratory Ruling. Likewise, eliciting testimony 5