My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2026-04-23 Proposed Amended FOF-COL; Order on Remand v3 (PL-BOA-2024-000105)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
zCases for Past Hearings
>
PL-BOA-2024-000105 1250 Oceanside, LLC (PD)
>
2026-04-23 Proposed Amended FOF-COL; Order on Remand v3 (PL-BOA-2024-000105)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2026 1:12:09 PM
Creation date
4/23/2026 1:12:01 PM
Metadata
该页面上没有批注。
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
discussion of the development agreement in the Order was only background, and was labeled as <br /> such. See Order at 8-9 (ROA at 393); Transcript of October 11, 2024 Hearing at 38-39. <br /> 15. Planning Director's discussion as to the effect of a variance on existing law and <br /> authority of other county entities in his Order was not a sua sponte ruling. See Order at 10, 12 <br /> (ROA at 392, 394). Planning Director's discussion pertained to the applicability of Chapter 23 <br /> within the larger context provided by Appellant.Id. Planning Director did not petition for his <br /> own declaratory ruling. <br /> 16. Planning Director's order and testimony did not"qualify"the dedication of the <br /> Mauka Haleki`i Extension in relation to the satisfaction of the Ord. 96-7 and 96-8 requirements <br /> as argued by Appellant. See Order at 11 (ROA at 393); Transcript of October 11,2024 Hearing <br /> at 41. Planning Director acknowledged in his Order that the Mauka Haleki`i Extension was <br /> accepted by County Council Resolution 317-12 after input from Department of Public Works. <br /> See Order at 9, 11 (ROA at 391, 393). Planning Director correctly identified that he had no <br /> authority to interpret the acceptance of the dedication of the road by County Council or <br /> Department of Public Works.Id. <br /> 17. Neither the testimony of Mr. Vitousek nor the Planning Director needed <br /> reconciliation with the content of the Order. The testimony was irrelevant to the determination <br /> as to whether the Planning Director abused his authority and/or discretion. Nothing in PRPP <br /> Rule 3-1 or Chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes, requires Planning Director to issue a <br /> declaratory ruling as the decision to issue a declaratory ruling is discretionary. Likewise, there is <br /> no requirement that Planning Director must issue declaratory rulings to the satisfaction of the <br /> petitioner. Planning Director was not required to inform Appellant of their legal obligations with <br /> respect to the issues raised in the Petition for a Declaratory Ruling. Likewise, eliciting testimony <br /> 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.