2026-02-27 PL-BOA-2024-000105 Coupe Family's Response to 1250 Oceanside's Objections - Proposed Amended FOF-COL

Home

Proposed Finding of Fact Objections c. Planning Director failed to answer for the County, which provides the four questions relating to the review Planning Director with authority and and interpretation of a development jurisdiction to answer the Requests; agreement. c. The Planning Director erred by d. Planning Director erred by not refusing to issue declaratory rulings interpreting Ord. 96- 7, standing on the seven Requests because he alone, because no dedication incorrectly determined that they requirement is contained within sought to review or affirm the validity Ord. 96-7; of Variance No. 10-027 (the "Variance"); e. Planning Director erred by seemingly qualifying the 2010 d. The Planning Director erred by dedication of the Mauka Halekii issuing several declaratory rulings sua Extension and corresponding sponte and not in response to any of satisfaction of the Ordinances' the Requests submitted by Oceanside, conditions related to the roadway; which he lacks authority to do; and e. The Planning Director erred by ruling f. Planning Director erred by ruling that Ordinance No. 96-7 requires the that the Makai Haleki i Extension dedication of three roadways because and Connector Road have not been no such requirement is contained constructed as required under the within Ordinance No. 96-7; Ordinances because (1) both roadways were constructed pursuant £ The Planning Director erred by to plans approved by the seemingly qualifying the 2010 Department of Public Works of the dedication of the Mauka Haleki`i County of Hawaii ("DPW") and are Extension and corresponding covered by the Variance, and(2) the satisfaction of the Ordinances' Director lacks authority to rule upon conditions related to the roadway; and the sufficiency of the roadway for dedication. g. The Planning Director erred by ruling that the Makai Haleki`i Extension and g. Planning Director erred by issuing Connector Road have not been several declaratory rulings constructed as required under the Appellant claims are sua sponte Ordinances because (1) both roadways rulings; were constructed pursuant to plans approved by DPW and are covered by the Variance, and (2) the Planning Director lacks authority to rule upon the sufficiency of the roadways for dedication.