2026-01-26 Proposed Amended FOF, COL, D&O (PL-BOA-2024-000105)

Home

(C)How the decision appealed from was arbitrary and capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. 10. The Planning Director acted within his jurisdiction and discretion in the manner in which the Planning Director addressed the Appellant's posed questions. The Planning Director was not required to respond to the questions in the form or format posed by the Appellant. 11. Planning Director did not abuse his discretion when he relied on case law as the basis for declining to review or affirm past actions or decisions of agencies of the County and the Hawaii County Council. 12. The Planning Director correctly identified issues and questions outside the Planning Director's jurisdiction and discretion. 13. Planning Director was not required to inform the Appellant of their compliance obligations under Ord. 96-7 and Ord. 96-8, or provide the specific information sought by Appellant. 14. The Order sufficiently addressed the questions raised by the Appellant even though the Order did not reflect the level of clarity or specifics desired by the Appellant. 15. Having considered the testimony and evidence provided, including the submitted exhibits, the Board unanimously concluded the Planning Director in issuing the Order did not clearly err, was not arbitrary or capricious, nor did he abuse his discretion. Therefore, the Board affirmed Zendo Kern, Planning Director, County of Hawaii's Declaratory Order In the Matter of 1250 Oceanside, LLC, Petitioner, Docket No. 24-0002. 8