2026-02-06 Legal Memorandum, Appendices A, A-1, B and Certificate of Service (PL-BOA-2025-000124)

Home

about the subdivision and the then-Planning Director responded on October 23, 2006, that he recognized the mistake of overlooking the 0.699 acre non-contiguous area and that he was "not going to do anything this situation at this time." See ROA at Pages 22-23. By consolidation CON-10-000168 recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances of the State of Hawaii on November 18, 2010, the 0.699 acre non-contiguous parcel was consolidated into an adjacent lot. See ROA at Page 28. Thus, as of 2010 the mistakenly approved seventh lot was eliminated. B. Brief Summary of Civil Actions. Unsatisfied with the determinations made by the Director and having not filed an appeal to this Board in 2005 within the thirty-day appeal period,Appellant filed a civil lawsuit on May 11, 2007. See ROA at Page 28-29. The lawsuit against the County in the Third Circuit Court alleged several wide-ranging counts, including Count II alleging that Appellant "was entitled to a declaratory judgment regarding the application of the [County Code] to SUB-05-00064 and [the Planning Director' s] arbitrary decision to disregard the limitations of Section 23-67 and to create seven (7) lots out of one in violation of Section 23-7 [(governing pre-existing lots)]." See ROA at Pages 28-29. The Third Circuit Court entered an order in July 2009 granting partial summary judgment and remanding three of Appellant's counts to the Board. See ROA at Page 29. In September 2009,Appellant filed a petition with the Board appealing the Director's: 1) January 12, 2005, decision to honor the Director's May 22, 2000 determination that the property consisted of six lots; (2) July 11, 2005, final subdivision approval; and (3) October 23, 2006, letter determining that he would "not do anything." See ROA at Page 29. These appeals were dismissed by the Board on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction due to 2