My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2026-02-27 PL-BOA-2024-000105 Coupe Family's Response to 1250 Oceanside's Objections - Proposed Amended FOF-COL
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
zCases for Past Hearings
>
PL-BOA-2024-000105 1250 Oceanside, LLC (PD)
>
2026-02-27 PL-BOA-2024-000105 Coupe Family's Response to 1250 Oceanside's Objections - Proposed Amended FOF-COL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/4/2026 2:05:37 PM
Creation date
3/4/2026 2:05:09 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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
B. Proposed Conclusions of Law <br /> Proposed Conclusions of Law Objections <br /> 4. PRPP Rule 3-1(a) gives the Planning Oceanside objects to Proposed COL 4 on <br /> Director the discretion to "issue a the grounds that it mischaracterizes the <br /> declaratory order as to the applicability nature and extent of the Planning Director's <br /> of any statutory provision, ordinance, or authority and discretion when responding to <br /> any rule or order of the Director or the petitions for declaratory rulings pursuant to <br /> Department." PD Rule 3-1. <br /> The Hawaii Supreme Court has explained that, <br /> "[b]y empowering agencies generally with the <br /> authority to adopt rules regarding the <br /> manner in which declaratory ruling <br /> petitions shall be considered and disposed of, <br /> the legislature has granted agencies discretion <br /> with regard to the consideration of declaratory <br /> rulings. The boundaries of that discretion, <br /> which normally are defined by the legislature, <br /> may in such cases be established with <br /> reference to the agency rules themselves, or <br /> by reading the statute and the agency rules <br /> in tandem." CARD, 1 14 at 194-95, 159 P.3d <br /> at 153-54 (emphases added). <br /> An agency's decision"to refuse to issue a <br /> declaratory ruling [is] . . . reviewed under the <br /> `abuse of discretion' standard,with reference <br /> to the language of HRS § 91-8 and the bases <br /> for refusal enumerated in the [agency's] <br /> rule." Id. at 195, 159 P.3d at 154 (emphases <br /> added). In other words, the Planning <br /> Director's discretion in considering and <br /> disposing of petitions for declaratory rulings is <br /> circumscribed by PD Rule 3, and when the <br /> Planning Director acts outside of the <br /> boundaries of PD Rule 3, he commits clear <br /> error and acts without discretion, arbitrarily <br /> and capriciously, and in violation of the law. <br /> See id. ("In this case, DPP Rule § 3-5 governs <br /> DPP refusals to issue a declaratory ruling, <br /> making that decision discretionary with the <br /> DPP Director, within the parameters of five <br /> enumerated reasons.") (emphasis added). <br /> 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.