2025-08-14 PL-BOA-2025-000124 Petition

Home

Statement of the nature of Appeal and the Relief Requested. Include Director's decision and decision date: Appellant appeals the Planning Director's Denial of Petition for Declaratory Ruling, dated July 18, 2025, in Planning Department Docket No. 25-0001 and attached hereto. Please see Attachment "1" Statement of how the Director's decision violates the law; or is clearly erroneous; or is arbitrary or capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion: The Planning Director's Denial satisfies all three prongs of BOA Rule 8-15 and should be reversed because: (1) Kellberg's Petition presents entirely different legal questions than his previous litigation and therefore is not precluded; (2) Kellberg's Petition squarely complies with the purpose and requirements of petitions for declaratory rulings; and(3) the PD Rules do not require Kellberg to make the Pruglo Lot owners "parties"to a petition for declaratory ruling, and, in any case, they were notified of the Petition. First, whereas Kellberg's previous litigation sought to invalidate SUB 05-00064, Kellberg's Petition and instant appeal now seek guidance on how County Subdivision and Zoning codes apply to the Pruglo Lots' future use and development in light of SUB 05-00064 moving forward. In other words, how do the subdivision and zoning codes reconcile with an erroneous, albeit approved, subdivision? For example, do the drainage easement requirements of section 23-30 apply to the Pruglo Lots under section 23-7? This is but one of the many novel questions presented in the Petition and entirely ignored by the Planning Director. The Denial therefore violated the law by erroneously precluding the Petition. Second, the legal issues presented in the Petition are exactly the type intended to be answered through the declaratory ruling procedure, which is derived from HRS § 91-8. The purpose of HRS § 91-8 is to determine whether and in what way some statute, agency rule, or order, applies to the factual situation raised by an interested person. This is exactly what the Petition seeks a declaration of how and in what way Ch. 23 and 25 apply to the Pruglo Lots in light of SUB 05-00064. The Denial therefore clearly erred by finding that the Petition contradicted the purpose of declaratory rulings. Last, the Denial arbitrarily determined that Kellberg needed to make the Pruglo Lot owners "parties"to the Petition. Declaratory rulings are not adversarial proceedings, and nothing in the PD Rules requires petitions for declaratory rulings join parties. Regardless, the Pruglo Lot owners were provided actual notice of the Petition, as evidenced by Mr. Charles Price's email opposing the Petition on behalf of Mary and Daniel Lock. The County has a continuing duty to enforce the aforementioned codes, making a declaratory ruling all the more imperative. Statement of any other relevant facts: If there is insufficient space on this form to provide the information, then please include supplemental documents. \\COH01\planning\public\BOA\Forms and Labels\Application Forms\APPEAL 2021-07- PL or PW Dir.docx Revised April 2021