2024-12-03 1250 Oceanside LLC Objection to Proposed FOF, COL, D&O (PL-BOA-2024-000105)

Home

violates the law; or (B) How the decision appealed from is clearly erroneous; or (C) How the decision appealed from was arbitrary and capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. 5. Having considered the testimony and For the reasons set forth in Oceanside's General evidence provided, the Board unanimously Petition for Appeal of Decisions by Planning ruled the Planning Director in issuing the Order Director or Public Works Director filed on May did not clearly err, was not arbitrary or 28, 2024 and its Consolidated Hearing Brief capricious, nor did he abuse his discretion. The filed October 4, 2024, as well as the evidence, Board found that the Director (1) stayed within testimony, and argument adduced at the his jurisdiction in the issues he addressed in the hearing, all of which is hereby incorporated by Order, (2) correctly identified the issues outside reference, Ocean objects to Proposed COL 5 on his discretion, and (3) that questions regarding the grounds that the BOA's decision to affirm the Development Agreement fell outside his the decision of the Planning Director goes powers outlined by the Hawai`i County Charter against the weight of the evidence and and Planning Department Rule 3. Therefore, the applicable law, and constitutes reversible error. Board denied the Appellant's appeal of Zendo Kern, Planning Director, County of Hawai'i's Oceanside further objects to Proposed COL 5 Declaratory Order In the Matter of 1250 on the grounds that, although Proposed COL 5 Oceanside, LLC, Petitioner, Docket No. 24- states that the BOA "considered the testimony 0002. and evidence provided,"none of the Planning Director's proposed FOFs make any actual factual findings, much less identify the evidence and testimony that such findings were based on. See Helco, 60 Haw. at 642, 594 P.2d at 623 (In order for courts to "be informed of the factual basis upon which the [agency] relies, the [agency]'s findings of Ultimate facts must be supported by findings of Basic facts which in turn are required to be supported by the evidence in the record."). Oceanside also objects to Proposed COL 5 on the grounds that nothing in the BOA Rules allows the BOA to "deny" an appeal. See BOA Rule 8-13 ("[T]he Board shall render its decision in an appeal proceeding,by either affirming the decision appealed from, or reversing or modifying the decision, or remanding the case to the Director for further proceedings and action); BOA Rule 8-15 ("[T]he Board of Appeals may affirm the decision of the director; or it may reverse or 8 4897-0598-6819.1.00DBS 1-00001