2025-08-26 PL-BOA-2025-000124 COMPLETE RECORD ON APPEAL (M. KELLBERG VS. PLANNING DIRECTOR)

Home

13. Section 25-2-31 (a). Given that this section of the zoning code stipulates that " Any person whether as principal, agent, employee, or otherwise", found to be "violating or causing or permitting the violation of any of the provisions of this chapter",shall be guilty of a violation...",which of the aforementioned individuals 1)are guilty of a violation and 2)if guilty of a violation,what does the County plan to do about it going forward? Additionally,given the statutory obligations set forth in HRS §205-12 that require the Planning Director to enforce"the use classification districts adopted by the land use commission"and to "report to the commission all violations", does SUB 05-00064, as currently configured, satisfy the "restrictions on use and the conditions relating to agricultural districts"? If the answer is `no', has the Director reported the violation(s)to the commission? 14. Section 25-4-2.It is unclear whether the Pruglo lots are eligible for building permits without a County water system or other private, individual means of providing water to the building sites. It is similarly unclear whether the Pruglo Lot owners may construct a building designed or intended for human occupancy or receive a building permit when the streets, drainage improvements, water supply system, if any, and sewage disposal system, if any, have yet to be constructed, inspected and approved by the appropriate County agencies. It is also unclear whether the Pruglo Lots developer has obtained or needs to obtain a surety bond to guarantee the construction of improvements which may be required. 15. Section 25-5-71. It is unclear what the minimum lot size is for the Pruglo Lots in light of its zoning. 16. Section 25-5-74. It is unclear what the minimum building site area for the Pruglo Lots is. V. STATEMENT OF PETITIONER'S POSITION OR OPINION The approval of SUB 05-00064 violated the Subdivision and Zoning Codes and is invalid. Petitioner's attempt to obtain court rulings to clarify these issues was found to be moot. As such, there is no court decision that establishes the validity of SUB 05-00064. In light of that question, it is further unclear to what extent Ch. 23 and 25 apply to the properties covered by SUB 05-00064. It remains unclear how the zoning, subdivision, and other development and construction related codes should treat these lots. Petitioner lives next to these properties and is entitled to know what the zoning and subdivision requirements are and how the Director will address the mistaken approval when it 11 14