Laserfiche WebLink
10)In his October 23, 2006 letter to Kellberg,the Planning Director confirmed there were <br /> six total lots on the subject property before the consolidation and resubdivision action, <br /> and due to his department's failure to account for the non-contiguous parcel, seven lots <br /> resulted from the action. <br /> 11) Since more lots resulted from the approved action than existed before the action, <br /> SUB 05-00064 was not exempt from the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning <br /> Codes. § 23-7 and § 25-5-71. <br /> 12 ) The ongoing nuisance to Petitioner resulting from the unlawful subdivision of the <br /> Subject Property,manifest in SUB 05-00064, along with the ongoing,wholesale,violation <br /> of both the Subdivision and Zoning Codes continues,unabated, to this day. <br /> None of these facts can be disputed. The prior litigation between Petitioner and County <br /> was dismissed onprocedural , <br /> grounds, without any determination of the meets of Petitioner's <br /> claims. Therefore, the uncertainty regarding the applicability of all land use and construction <br /> related code sections should be rectified by the Planning Director so that Petitioner and the Pruglo <br /> Lots owners are clear regarding what development is allowed on the Pruglo Lots and what <br /> requirements and conditions may be placed on that development. <br /> A. Mistaken Approval Cannot Exempt Pruglo Lots from Zoning and Subdivision <br /> Codes <br /> The use of"shall" makes § 23-62 mandatory and provides the Planning Director with no <br /> discretion to accept a subdivision application that, as here, fails to comply with the zoning code. <br /> See Leslie v. Bd. of Appeals of Cnty. Of Hawaii, 109 Hawaii 384, 393-94, 126 P.3d 1071, 1080-81 <br /> (2006)(use of"shall"in various Subdivision Code provisions made the provisions mandatory and <br /> left the planning director without discretion to accept a subdivision application absent strict <br /> 14 <br /> 17 <br />