My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2026-04-23 Proposed Amended FOF-COL; Order on Remand v3 (PL-BOA-2024-000104)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
zCases for Past Hearings
>
PL-BOA-2024-000104 1250 Oceanside, LLC (PD)
>
2026-04-23 Proposed Amended FOF-COL; Order on Remand v3 (PL-BOA-2024-000104)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2026 1:14:04 PM
Creation date
4/23/2026 1:13:58 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
The board of appeals may affirm the decision of the director, or it may <br /> reverse or modify the decision or remand the decision with appropriate <br /> instructions if based upon the preponderance of evidence the board finds <br /> that: <br /> (1) The director erred in its decision; or <br /> (2) The decision violated this chapter or other applicable law; or <br /> (3) The decision was arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse <br /> of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. <br /> 8. Board of Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedures, Rule 8-4(4)requires that a <br /> general petition for an appeal must include: <br /> A statement explaining: <br /> (A)How the decision appealed from violates the law; or <br /> (B)How the decision appealed from is clearly erroneous; or <br /> (C)How the decision appealed from was arbitrary and capricious, <br /> or characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly <br /> unwarranted exercise of discretion. <br /> 9. The Planning Director acted within his jurisdiction and discretion in the manner in <br /> which the Planning Director addressed the questions posed to him. The Planning Director was <br /> not required to respond to the questions in the form or format posed to him. <br /> 10. The Planning Director correctly identified issues and questions outside the <br /> Planning Director's jurisdiction and discretion. <br /> 11. The Planning Director's reliance on caselaw to justify not answering questions <br /> outside of the planning director's jurisdiction and discretion was not erroneous or an abuse of <br /> discretion. <br /> 12. The Order sufficiently addressed the questions raised by the Appellant even <br /> though the Order did not reflect the specifics desired by the Appellant. <br /> 13. Having considered the testimony and evidence provided, including the submitted <br /> exhibits, the Board unanimously concluded that in issuing his Order, the Planning Director in <br /> 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.