Laserfiche WebLink
VI. JUSTIFICATION AND LEGAL ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING PETITIONERS' <br /> POSITION <br /> Petitioner has gone around and around with SUB05-00064 with three reviews by the <br /> Hawaii Supreme Court. Resolution of the controversy,unfortunately, could not be had because of <br /> the passage of time which allegedly caused the court system to lose jurisdiction prior to a ruling. <br /> As such, it is unclear what the Director's position is regarding the zoning, subdivision and other <br /> regulatory controls that apply on the lands subject to SUB05-00064. <br /> There are twelve truths here: <br /> 1) As a matter of County code, all subdivisions must comply with state law and county <br /> regulations. § 23-23. <br /> 2) Subdivisions have minimum lot sizes and must conform to the applicable zoning under <br /> Ch. 25. § 23-33. <br /> 3) SUB 05-00064 is located within an agricultural district, zoned A-20a. The minimum <br /> number f e o acres required by designation A-20a is twenty acres per lot. § 25-5-71. <br /> 4) SUB 05-00064 divided 48.47 acres into six lots, creating lots less than 20 acres. <br /> 5) The requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Codes do not apply to consolidation <br /> and resubdivision actions that result in the same or fewer number of lots than existed <br /> before the action. § 23-7 and § 25-2-11. <br /> 6) The Subject Property consists of a 48.47 parcel and a non-contiguous .699 acre parcel. <br /> 7) The May 22, 2000 pre-existing lot determination, honored by the Planning Director, <br /> determined that the 48.47 acre parcel had, at most, five pre-existing lots. <br /> 8) The non-contiguous parcel constituted the sixth pre-existing lot. <br /> 9) The preliminary and final plat maps submitted by the subdivider and approved by the <br /> Planning Director divided the 48.47 acre parcel into six lots. <br /> 13 <br /> 16 <br />