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
Proposed Conclusions of Law Objections <br /> Coupe Family's Response: This COL is quoting PRPP Rule 3-1(a) directly. There is <br /> nothing in this COL that is mischaracterizing the nature and extent of the Planning Director's <br /> authority. it is unobjectionable. <br /> In response to Proposed COL 5, Oceanside <br /> 5. PRPP Rule 3-1(a) does not require the incorporates by reference its objections to <br /> Planning Director to answer all Proposed COL 4, supra. <br /> questions posed in a petition once the <br /> Planning Director decides to issue a While the Planning Director may have <br /> declaratory ruling on a petition. The some discretion"in the manner and method <br /> Planning Director has discretion in the in addressing questions posed for a <br /> manner and method in addressing declaratory ruling,"his discretion is <br /> questions posed for a declaratory ruling. circumscribed by PD Rule 3, and when the <br /> Planning Director acts outside of the <br /> boundaries of PD Rule 3 —as he did here— <br /> he commits clear error and acts without <br /> discretion, arbitrarily and capriciously, and <br /> in violation of the law. CARD, 114 Haw. at <br /> 194-95, 159 P.3d at 153-54 (`By <br /> 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 <br /> of, the legislature has granted agencies <br /> discretion with regard to the consideration <br /> of declaratory rulings. The boundaries of <br /> that discretion, which normally are defined <br /> by the legislature, may in such cases be <br /> established with reference to the agency <br /> rules themselves, or by reading the statute <br /> and the agency rules in tandem."). <br /> Nothing in PD Rule 3 gave the Planning <br /> Director discretion to: (a) fail to issue <br /> declaratory rulings on eight of Oceanside's <br /> Requests after determining that they were <br /> within his jurisdiction and would be <br /> answered in the Declaratory; (b)refuse to <br /> issue declaratory rulings on matters within <br /> his authority and jurisdiction; or(c)answer <br /> Oceanside's Requests in a manner that <br /> avoids addressing the substance of what is <br /> being asked. <br /> 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.