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

Home

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS SUB 05-00064 concerned a 48.47 acre parcel and a non-contiguous .699 acre parcel identified prior to SUB 05-00064 as TMK 3-2-002-035. The property is located in the agricultural district and has A-20a zoning. On June 2, 2004, the Planning Director issued a determination of pre-existing lots on the 48.47 acre parcel and stated that there were only two legal lots of 26.37 and 22.7 acres each. He said, "Old plantation houses [sic] locations do not create legal lots of record." Exhibit "A". The property was sold. On April 7, 2005, a Consolidation and Resubdivision Application, SUB 05-00064, was submitted to the Planning Department.3 Changing positions from the June 2, 2004 preexisting lot determination,on June 1,2005,the Planning Director granted tentative approval of the preliminary plat map.4 On July 1, 2005, a final plat map was submitted dividing the larger, 48.7 acre, parcel into six new lots with the detached, .6 acre parcel representing a seventh legal lot of record,in and of itself On July 11, 2005,the Planning Director issued final subdivision approval of SUB 05-00064. The approval noted that"all requirements of the Subdivision Code, Chapter, 23, as modified have been met."Petitioner received no notice of the subdivision application nor of its approval until accidentally revealed by a realtor, thirty-one days after SUB 05-00064's erroneous approval. 3 The documents use SUB 05-000064, SUB 05-00064, and Sub. 05-0064. They are the same permit. 4 Apparently,the Director was convinced of the eligibility of the parcels for preexisting lot status based on a Planning Director letter in 2000. This letter was missing from County files until mysteriously rediscovered after the SUB 05-00064 applicant purchased the property. See Mol lino v. Yuen, 134 Haw. 181, 339 P.3d 679 (Haw. 2014). 3 6