Laserfiche WebLink
Proposed Conclusions of Law Objections <br /> Coupe Family's Response: There is nothing in this COL that misstates the referenced rule. It <br /> is unobjectionable. <br /> Oceanside objects to Proposed COL 6 on <br /> 6. PRPP Rule 3-1(c)provides when the the grounds that PD Rule 3-1(c)is not <br /> Planning Director-shall respond to the simply a"timing"rule. Although PD Rule <br /> request for a declaratory order. 3-1(c) does set a deadline for the Planning <br /> Director to respond to petitions for <br /> declaratory ruling, it also constrains the <br /> Planning Director's discretion by limiting <br /> the ways in which the Planning Director <br /> can respond. By its plain terms, PD Rule 3- <br /> 1(c)mandates that the Planning Director <br /> respond in one of three ways: (a) "deny the <br /> petition in writing, stating the reasons for <br /> such denial;" (b)"issue a declaratory order <br /> on the matters contained in the petitions;" <br /> or(c) "set the matter for a public hearing, <br /> as provided in Sections 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4 of <br /> the PD Rules. Presumably, the Planning <br /> Director can also respond through some <br /> combination of the three. <br /> However,unlike administrative rules <br /> promulgated by other agencies, PD Rule 3 <br /> does not provide any basis or discretion for <br /> the Planning Director to refuse or fail to <br /> respond to requests for declaratory ruling <br /> that are within his jurisdiction and <br /> otherwise satisfy PD Rule 3. See CARD, <br /> 114 Haw. at 195, 159 P.3d at 154 <br /> (discussing rule granting the Honolulu <br /> planning director discretion to refuse to <br /> issue a declaratory ruling on a five <br /> enumerated grounds, including that <br /> "issuance of the declaratory ruling may <br /> adversely affect the interests of the city in <br /> any litigation which is pending or may <br /> reasonably be expected to arise" and"[fJor- <br /> other good cause."). <br /> Coupe Family's Response: This objection attempts to reargue the matters before the <br /> Planning Director and is thus beyond the scope of this proceeding. There is also nothing in <br /> this COL that misstates the referenced rule. it is unobjectionable. <br /> 21 <br />