My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2026-01-26 Proposed Amended FOF, COL, D&O (PL-BOA-2024-000105)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
zCases for Past Hearings
>
PL-BOA-2024-000105 1250 Oceanside, LLC (PD)
>
2026-01-26 Proposed Amended FOF, COL, D&O (PL-BOA-2024-000105)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/23/2026 11:16:28 AM
Creation date
1/23/2026 11:16:22 AM
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
14. Planning Director's order and testimony did not"qualify"the dedication of the <br /> Mauka Halekii Extension in relation to the satisfaction of the Ord. 96-7 and 96-8 requirements <br /> as argued by Appellant. Planning Director acknowledged in his Order that the Mauka Haleki`i <br /> Extension was accepted by County Council Resolution 317-12 after input from Department of <br /> Public Works. Planning Director correctly identified that he had no authority to interpret the <br /> acceptance of the dedication of the road by County Council or Department of Public Works. <br /> 15. Neither the testimony of Mr. Vitousek nor the Planning Director needed <br /> reconciliation with the content of the Order. The testimony was irrelevant to the determination <br /> as to whether the Planning Director abused his authority and/or discretion. Nothing in Planning <br /> Department's Rules of Practice and Procedure("PRPP") Rule 3-1 or Chapter 91, Hawaii <br /> Revised Statutes, requires Planning Director to issue a declaratory ruling to the satisfaction of the <br /> petitioner for said declaratory ruling. Planning Director was not required to inform Appellant of <br /> their legal obligations with respect to the issues raised in the Petition for a Declaratory Ruling. <br /> Likewise, eliciting testimony showing Planning Director did not answer specific questions or <br /> provided additional information that was not requested did not show the Planning Director <br /> abused his authority and/or discretion. <br /> 16. The exhibits did not show the Order was issued in error or an abuse of discretion. <br /> 17. Planning Director did not err, and acted within his discretion in refusing to answer <br /> on the effect of Ord. 96-7 alone, as requested by Appellant, when Ord. 96-8 was also applicable <br /> to the Hokulea development and enacted at the same time. <br /> 18. Planning Director correctly identified questions that sought a review of actions of <br /> the Hawaii County Council, a prior Planning Director's issuance of a variance, and matters <br /> under the jurisdiction of a different department, the Department of Public Works. <br /> 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.