Laserfiche WebLink
C. Potential Effect on Non-Party Landowners <br /> While the Board of Appeals procedure has allowed for the technical joinder of the current <br /> owners of the lots comprising the subdivision, the Planning Department's Declaratory Ruling <br /> procedure does not provide for the joinder of additional parties besides the petitioner and any <br /> parties who actively seek intervention. See Planning Department Rules of Practice and <br /> Procedure, Rule 3, Appendix B. Any determination other than to maintain the prior Director's <br /> decisions may adversely affect the landowners of the subdivided lots. Without their active <br /> participation in the process, the County would potentially be depriving those owners of their <br /> property rights without due process, which is problematic as recognized by the Hawaii <br /> Intermediate Court of Appeals in Kellberg v Kern: <br /> That is the problem. If Kellberg prevailed against the County, and <br /> the County tried to enjoin Lot Owners from erecting dwellings, Lot <br /> Owners could sue the County for depriving them of <br /> constitutionally protected property interests. Kellberg a Kern, No. <br /> CRAP-19-0000833, June 27, 2024 (SDO) <br /> The Hawaii intermediate Court of Appeals further stated that: <br /> The relief Kellberg seeks cannot bind Lot Owners.Any declaratory <br /> or injunctive relief Kellberg obtained against the County and <br /> Planning Director couldn't be enforced against Lot Owners. <br /> Kellberg a Kern, No. CAA P-19-0000833, June 27, 2024 (SDO) <br /> Appellant's continued attempts to misuse yet another venue to attempt to overturn the <br /> 2005 subdivision approval, twenty years later, is not only harmful to the County it is potentially <br /> harmful to the owners of the subdivided lots today and an ongoing abuse of the system. <br /> 111. Conclusion <br /> The Director respectfully requests that this Board affirm the Director's denial of the <br /> Petition and dismiss this appeal. The Director's decision as set forth in the denial complied fully <br /> with Rule 3-1 in that it was timely filed and set forth the Director's reasoning for the denial. The <br /> 6 <br />