Laserfiche WebLink
13. The Planning Director correctly identified issues and questions outside the <br /> Planning Director's jurisdiction and discretion. <br /> 14. Planning Director was not required to inform the Appellant of their compliance <br /> obligations under Ord. 96-7 and Ord. 96-8, or provide the specific information sought by <br /> Appellant. <br /> 15. The Order sufficiently addressed the questions raised by the Appellant even <br /> though the Order did not reflect the level of clarity or specifics desired by the Appellant. <br /> 16. Having considered the testimony and evidence provided, including the submitted <br /> exhibits, the Board unanimously concluded the Planning Director in issuing the Order did not <br /> clearly err, was not arbitrary or capricious, nor did he abuse his discretion. Therefore, the Board <br /> affirmed Zendo Kern, Planning Director, County of Hawai'is Declaratory Order In the Matter of <br /> 1250 Oceanside, LLC, Petitioner, Docket No. 24-0002. <br /> DECISION AND ORDER <br /> Based on its consideration of the evidence and argument presented at hearing, including <br /> the Record on Appeal, the documents on file herein, and applying the reliable probative evidence <br /> and law, the Board hereby Orders as follows: <br /> The Planning Director's April 29, 2024, Zendo Kern, Planning Director, County of <br /> Hawai'is Declaratory Order In the Matter of 1250 Oceanside, LLC, Petitioner, Docket No. 24- <br /> 0002 is AFFIRMED. The above-captioned Board of Appeals case is dismissed with prejudice <br /> in its entirety. <br /> Dated: , Hawai`i, ) 2026. <br /> By: <br /> Cathy Lewis, Chair <br /> Board of Appeals, County of Hawaii <br /> State of Hawai'i <br /> 10 <br />