Laserfiche WebLink
(C)How the decision appealed from was arbitrary and capricious, or characterized by <br /> an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. <br /> 5. The Director acted within his jurisdiction when the Director addressed the posed <br /> questions in the Order. <br /> 6. The Order correctly identified issues outside the Director's jurisdiction and <br /> discretion. <br /> 7. 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 /> 8. Appellant's argued lack of clarity and/or specifics in the Director's responses, but <br /> that did not meet the burden required for modifying or remanding the Planning Director's <br /> decisions. <br /> 9. Having considered the testimony and evidence provided, the Board unanimously <br /> concluded the Planning Director in issuing the Order did not clearly err, was not arbitrary or <br /> capricious, nor did he abuse his discretion. The Board found that the Director(1) stayed within <br /> his jurisdiction in the issues he addressed in the Order, (2) correctly identified the issues outside <br /> his discretion, and(3)that questions regarding the Development Agreement fell outside his <br /> powers outlined by the Hawaii County Charter and Planning Department Rule 3. Therefore, the <br /> Board affirmed the Appellant's appeal of Zendo Kern, Planning Director, County of Hawaii's <br /> Declaratory Order In the Matter of 1250 Oceanside, LLC, Petitioner, Docket No. 24-0002. <br /> DECISION AND ORDER <br /> Based on its consideration of the evidence and argument presented at hearing, including <br /> the Record on Appeal, the documents on file herein, and applying the reliable probative evidence <br /> and law, the Board hereby Orders as follows: <br /> The Planning Director's April 29, 2024, Zendo Kern, Planning Director, County of <br /> Hawaii's Declaratory Order In the Matter of 1250 Oceanside, LLC, Petitioner, Docket No. 24- <br /> 0002 is AFFIRMED. The above-captioned Board of Appeals case is dismissed with prejudice <br /> in its entirety. <br /> 4 <br />