Laserfiche WebLink
Limited Partnership("Coupe Family"),by and through its attorneys,Damon Key Leong Kupchak <br /> Hastert,respectfully submits its Response to 1250 Oceanside,LLC's ("Oceanside")Objections to <br /> the BOA'S Proposed Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,Decision and Order, served <br /> January 23, 2026 ("Proposed Decision and Order"), and its Proposed Supplemental Edits to the <br /> Board for consideration to incorporate into the Board's Proposed Decision and Order. A copy of <br /> the Board's Proposed Decision and Order with Coupe Family's suggested edits is attached as <br /> Exhibit"A". <br /> I. RESPONSE TO OCEANSIDE <br /> A. Proposed Findings of Fact <br /> Proposed Finding of Fact Objections <br /> 3. On May 28, 2024, Appellant filed its Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 3 on the <br /> General Petition for Appeal of grounds that it mischaracterizes and misstates <br /> Decisions by Planning Director or the grounds for Oceanside's appeal of the <br /> Public Works Director("Appeal") with Declaratory Order. <br /> the Board of Appeals, County of Hawaii <br /> ("Board") appealing the Planning As reflected in its General Petition for Appeal <br /> Director's issuance of the Order. 1250 of Decisions by Planning Director or Public <br /> Oceanside argued the following points Works Director filed on May 28, 2024 <br /> of error: ("Petition for Appeal"), Oceanside appealed <br /> the Declaratory Order on the grounds that: <br /> a. Planning Director failed to address <br /> eight of Appellant' s requests a. The Planning Director erred by failing <br /> relating to dedication requirements to issue declaratory rulings on eight of <br /> and construction standards in light Oceanside's requested declaratory <br /> of Ord. 96- 7 and Ord. 96- 8, and rulings ("Requests") despite <br /> variances under Hawaii County determining they were within his <br /> Code Chapter 23. authority and jurisdiction and would <br /> be answered in the Declaratory Order; <br /> b. Planning Director erred by stating <br /> that he could not render declaratory b. The Planning Director erred by <br /> rulings on seven requests that would refusing to issue declaratory rulings <br /> require the review or affirmation of on the four Requests concerning the <br /> a variance granted by a prior Development Agreement because the <br /> Planning Director. Planning Department has been <br /> delegated the responsibility to <br /> administer development agreements <br /> 2 <br />