My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2025-08-26 PL-BOA-2025-000124 COMPLETE RECORD ON APPEAL (M. KELLBERG VS. PLANNING DIRECTOR)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
PL-BOA-2025-000124 Mark Kellberg (PD)
>
2025-08-26 PL-BOA-2025-000124 COMPLETE RECORD ON APPEAL (M. KELLBERG VS. PLANNING DIRECTOR)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/26/2025 1:12:27 PM
Creation date
8/26/2025 1:11:45 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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
receives future permit or license applications. It is Petitioner's position that all development of <br /> the lots created by SUB 05-00064 should be required to fulfill all requirements of Hawaii County <br /> Code Chapters 23 and 25. Petitioner's position is that several regulatory requirements in Chapter <br /> 23 and Chapter 25 remain unfulfilled. SUB05-00064 did not,and could not,change the zoning of <br /> the parcels from A-20a. Therefore, all the lots created by SUB05-00064 violate the zoning code. <br /> Based on our review of County's online permit records, it appears that all of the lots <br /> purportedly approved by SUB05-00064 remain undeveloped, so it is an appropriate juncture for <br /> Petitioner to obtain clarity as to what development and construction is allowed. SUB05-00064 <br /> and its flawed history raises several ambiguities which should be clarified now to stop the ongoing <br /> nuisance and violation of County Code. <br /> To be sure, all of the harms flowing from the zoning and subdivision code violations <br /> continue to this day. The Pruglo Lots should have numbered TWO and so Petitioner faces <br /> increased density,increased traffic,non-existent drainage easements and roadways. The small lot <br /> sizes virtually guarantee that these lots will not be able to be used for meaningful agriculture but <br /> will be residential in nature. Petitioner owns property that should only have neighboring properties <br /> of twentyor more acres in size. SUB05-00064 now raises the prospect of some n p p umber of houses <br /> close to his property lot line with the potential noise nuisances that are associated with residential <br /> habitation; i.e. barking dogs, roosters, and any and all the other noises typically associated with <br /> residential human activity. Finally, SUB05-000024 did not, and does not, address the issue that <br /> Pruglo did not obtain P-30-a easement rights to access his Property, leaving Petitioner to suffer a <br /> daily trespass by an indeterminate number of pedestrians and vehicles. <br /> 12 <br /> 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.