My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2026-04-20 Corrected Prop Amd FOF-COL; Order on Remand - Redline Suggested Edits (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)
>
2026-04-20 Corrected Prop Amd FOF-COL; Order on Remand - Redline Suggested Edits (PL-BOA-2024-000105)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/7/2026 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
5/7/2026 3:14:39 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
10. Appellant's witness, Michael Kaleihoku Vitousek, testified that the Planning <br /> Director's declaratory order did not provide enough or specific information for Appellant to <br /> understand how to comply with its compliance obligations under Ord. 96-7 and Ord. 96-8. See <br /> Transcript of October 11, 2024 Hearin at�20. <br /> 11. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-8 states that an interested person ma petition an agency for <br /> "a declaratory order as to the applicabili . of any statutory provision or of any rule or order of <br /> the agency."Pursuant to Planning_Department's Rules of Practice and Procedure ("PRPP") Rule <br /> 3-1(a), declaratory orders can be issued as to "the applicability of any statutory provision, <br /> ordinance, or any rule or order of the Director or the Department." Under both Chapter 91 and <br /> PRPP, the Planning Director's discretion to issue declaratory rulings is limited. <br /> 12. The declaratory ruling procedure is one "whereby an interested party could seek <br /> agency advice as to how a statute, a._e�ncy rule, or order would apply to particular circumstances <br /> not yet determined." Citizens Against Reckless Development v. Zoning Board ofAppeals of the <br /> City and County ofHonolulu ("CARD"), 114 Hawaii 184, 197, 159 P.3d 143, 156 (2007). <br /> "f The declaratory ruling procedure was not intended to be utilized to seek review of agency <br /> determinations that have already been made and which have not been timely appealed."Id., 114 <br /> Hawaii at 196, 159 P.3d at 155. <br /> 44,13. Planning Director testified, and his testimony was consistent with the contents of <br /> his Order. See Order (ROA at 383-96); Transcript of October 11, 2024 Hearing at 30-45. <br /> Planning Director testified he exercised discretion in not answering some questions posed by the <br /> petitions. See Transcript of October 11, 2024 Hearing at 37, 44. <br /> 4-2,14. Planning Director correctly identified questions that sought an interpretation of a <br /> development agreement in his Order. See Order at 8-9 (ROA at 390-91). Planning Director's <br /> 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.