2026-04-23 Proposed Amended FOF-COL; Order on Remand v3 (PL-BOA-2024-000105)

Home

10. Appellant's witness, Michael Kaleihoku Vitousek, testified that the Planning Director's declaratory order did not provide enough or specific information for Appellant to understand how to comply with its compliance obligations under Ord. 96-7 and Ord. 96-8. See Transcript of October 11, 2024 Hearing at 20. 11. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-8 states that an interested person may petition an agency for "a declaratory order as to the applicability of any statutory provision or of any rule or order of the agency."Pursuant to Planning Department's Rules of Practice and Procedure ("PRPP") Rule 3-1(a), declaratory orders can be issued as to "the applicability of any statutory provision, ordinance, or any rule or order of the Director or the Department." Under both Chapter 91 and PRPP, the Planning Director's discretion to issue declaratory rulings is limited. 12. The declaratory ruling procedure is one "whereby an interested party could seek agency advice as to how a statute, agency rule, or order would apply to particular circumstances not yet determined." Citizens Against Reckless Development v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the City and County ofHonolulu ("CARD"), 114 Hawaii 184, 197, 159 P.3d 143, 156 (2007). "[T]he declaratory ruling procedure was not intended to be utilized to seek review of agency determinations that have already been made and which have not been timely appealed."Id., 114 Hawaii at 196, 159 P.3d at 155. 13. Planning Director testified, and his testimony was consistent with the contents of his Order. See Order (ROA at 383-96); Transcript of October 11, 2024 Hearing at 30-45. Planning Director testified he exercised discretion in not answering some questions posed by the petitions. See Transcript of October 11, 2024 Hearing at 37, 44. 14. Planning Director correctly identified questions that sought an interpretation of a development agreement in his Order. See Order at 8-9 (ROA at 390-91). Planning Director's 5