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

Home

showing Planning Director did not answer specific questions or provided additional information that was not requested did not show the Planning Director abused his authority and/or discretion. 16. The exhibits did not show the Order was issued in error or an abuse of discretion. 17. Planning Director did not err, and acted within his discretion in refusing to answer on the effect of Ord. 96-7 alone, as requested by Appellant, when Ord. 96-8 was also applicable to the Hokulea development and enacted at the same time. Ordinances 96-7 and 96-8 established the zoning for the Project's approximate 1,500-acre master planned community. The Ordinances contain the conditions for the rezoning of the Project, and have been read together as applicable to the entirety of the Project. 18. The Planning Director correctly identified questions that sought a review of actions of the Hawaii County Council, and matters under the jurisdiction of a different department, Department of Public Works. 19. The Planning Director did not rule that any roadway is not constructed as required. ROA at 903-05. The Planning Director ruled the roadways in question must be constructed to a condition approved by DPW, which does not take a position on whether or not any roadway is or was currently approved by DPW, and instead leaves those determinations to DPW and the Hawaii County Council. 20. The Board finds that the Order addressed the questions raised by the Appellant in its appeal, even if the Planning Director did not provide the level of clarity or specifics desired by the Appellant. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Hawaii Revised Statues Section 91-8 allows that: Any interested person may petition an agency for a declaratory order as to the applicability of any statutory provision or of any 6