Laserfiche WebLink
Proposed Finding of Fact Objections <br /> insufficiency can be remedied by incorporating Coupe Family's proposed edits as set forth <br /> below and in Exhibit A. <br /> 18. Planning Director correctly identified Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 18 <br /> questions that sought a review of actions of on the grounds that it is contrary to the <br /> the Hawaii County Council, a prior Planning substantial evidence in the record and the <br /> Director's issuance of a variance, and matters law. As set forth in Oceanside's Petition <br /> under the jurisdiction of a different for Appeal and Hearing Brief, none of its <br /> department, the Department of Public Works. Requests asked the Planning Director to: <br /> (a)review the actions of the Hawaii <br /> County Council; (b)review or affirm the <br /> Variance; or(c)review or opine on <br /> matters under the jurisdiction of the <br /> Department of Public Works. <br /> With respect to the Variance, Oceanside's <br /> Requests did not seek the "review or <br /> affirmance" of the Variance—they sought <br /> the Planning Director's interpretation of <br /> specific provisions of the County Code. <br /> Petitions for declaratory rulings are <br /> intended for situations "where the <br /> applicability of relevant law is unknown, <br /> either because the agency has not yet <br /> acted upon particular factual <br /> circumstances, or for some other reason <br /> the applicability of some provisions of <br /> law have not been brought into <br /> consideration." CARD, 114 Hawaii at <br /> 194-95, 159 P.3d at 153-54 (emphasis <br /> added). <br /> Oceanside further objects to Proposed <br /> FOF 18 on the grounds that it is vague <br /> and ambiguous as to what Requests from <br /> Oceanside that purportedly "sought a <br /> review of actions of the Hawai`i County <br /> Council" and"matters under the <br /> jurisdiction of a different department, the <br /> Department of Public Works" are being <br /> referenced or alluded to. <br /> 15 <br />