Laserfiche WebLink
Proposed Finding of Fact Objections <br /> "questions" that Oceanside sought to have <br /> the Planning Director address were <br /> submitted through its Petition for <br /> Declaratory Ruling, not its Petition for <br /> Appeal (or"General Petition") filed with <br /> the BOA. <br /> Oceanside further objects to Proposed <br /> FOF 20 on the grounds that it is contrary <br /> to the substantial evidence in the record <br /> and the law. As set forth in its Petition for <br /> Appeal and Hearing Brief, the Planning <br /> Director erred by, inter alia: (a)failing to <br /> rule of on eight of Oceanside's Requests <br /> despite determining they were within his <br /> authority and jurisdiction and would be <br /> answered in the Declaratory Order; (b) <br /> refusing to issue declaratory rulings on <br /> four Requests on the grounds that they <br /> concerned the Development Agreement; <br /> and (c)refusing to issue declaratory <br /> rulings on seven Requests on the grounds <br /> that they sought to review or affirm the <br /> Variance. <br /> Oceanside further objects to Proposed <br /> FOF 20 on the grounds that it misstates <br /> and mischaracterizes the grounds for <br /> Oceanside's appeal, which did not simply <br /> concern a lack"clarity or specifics <br /> desired by the [Oceanside]." This was <br /> confirmed by the Circuit Court in its <br /> Remand Order. See Exhibit A at 24, ¶28. <br /> Oceanside also objects to Proposed FOF <br /> 20 on the grounds that it is vague and <br /> ambiguous as to what is mean by <br /> "appropriately raised." <br /> Coupe Family's Response: This objection again goes beyond the scope of this <br /> proceeding because Oceanside is attempting to reargue the decision below whereas the <br /> Circuit Court only remanded for more details on the Board's decision. <br /> 17 <br />