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 Planning Director's discussion pertained Order improperly consisted of declaratory to the applicability of Chapter 23 within rulings that were not issued in response to the larger context provided by Appellant. the Requests submitted in Oceanside's Planning Director did not petition for his Petition for Declaratory Ruling. own declaratory ruling. For example, in Section ITT(B)(3)(c) of the Declaratory Order, the Planning Director ruled that: "Because such a variance only excuses performance under Chapter 23, Variance 10-027 cannot and does not effect an amendment of an existing ordinance." Dkt. 18, ROA at 0041. Oceanside's Petition for Declaratory Ruling did not ask the Planning Director whether a variance can amend an ordinance generally, or whether the Variance amounted to an amendment of Ordinance Nos. 96-7 and/or 96-8 (together, the"Ordinances") specifically. The Planning Director confirmed this in testimony before the BOA,where he was unable to identify a Request from Oceanside asking "whether a variance can amend an ordinance." It therefore appears that the Planning Director issued the declaratory rulings in Section TTI(B)(3)(c) sua sponte, which he lacked authority and jurisdiction to do. See RGIS Inventory Specialist v. Hawaii C.R. Coinrn'n, 104 Haw. 158, 162-63, 86 P.3d 449, 453-54 (2004) (""[W]here an agency employee's only interest in obtaining a declaratory ruling . . . stems from her or his work as an agency employee, that interest is insufficient to satisfy HRS § 91-8's standing requirements."). The only other plausible explanation is that Section III(B)(3)(c) was erroneously included in the Declaratory Order, given that the Planning Director admitted during his testimony that it was Coupe's Petitions for- Declaratory Ruling—and not Oceanside's that asked"whether a variance could amend 7