Laserfiche WebLink
into six new lots with the detached .6 acre parcel representing a seventh legal lot of record. On <br /> July 11, 2005, the Planning Director issued final subdivision approval of SUB 05-00064. The <br /> approval claimed that "all requirements of the Subdivision Code, Chapter, 23, as modified have <br /> been met." <br /> Kellberg received no notice of the subdivision application nor of its approval until <br /> accidentally revealed by a realtor, thirty-one days after SUB 05-00064's erroneous approval. In <br /> response to Kellberg's multiple inquiries,the Planning Director eventually sent a letter,see Exhibit <br /> "B"to Petition, stating that the Planning Department purportedly recognized five lots on the 48.47 <br /> acre parcel on May 22, 2000, but only recognized two lots there on June 2, 2004. The Planning <br /> Director called the June 2, 2004 letter"a mistake, because the Department should have respected <br /> the previous determination." <br /> Moving to the subdivided parcels, the Planning Director further explained that "there was <br /> a mistake in the approval of that subdivision [SUB 05-00064]" because of the failure to account <br /> for the noncontiguous lot: <br /> As Mr. Kellberg correctly points out, there was a mistake in the approval of that <br /> subdivision. One of the six recognized lots was a 0.699 acre portion of Grant <br /> 11,070. For some reason,it was not contiguous with the remainder of TMK No. 3- <br /> 2-2-35. In the consolidation/resubdivision, the Planning Department did not notice <br /> that this noncontiguous portion had [not] been included in the lot count. Thus, it <br /> remained separate, and is now TMK No. 3-2-2-110. Thus, with the six lots in Sub. <br /> 05-00064 and parcel 110, there are now seven lots instead of six. <br /> Exhibit"B"to Petition. The Planning Director continued: <br /> I am not going to do anything to undo this situation at this time. Sub. 05-00064 has <br /> received final subdivision approval and at least some of the lots have been sold. <br /> Given that parcel 110 is physically separated from the remainder of Sub. 05-00064, <br /> and from any property owned by the subdivider, I cannot see a way to erase its <br /> separate existence. <br /> Id. On February 6, 2007, Kellberg asked the Planning Director to apply Hawaii County Code 23- <br /> 74(c) to SUB 05-00064 to correct the mistake. The Planning Director did not respond. Later, in <br /> 4 <br />