2026-02-05 Kellberg's Pre-Hearing Brief (PL-BOA-205-000124)

Home

the Lot Owners continue to be in limbo, and, in turn,Kellberg's rights as a neighboring landowner remain unclear. The sole objective of Kellberg's Petition is to obtain clarity on the exact limitations of the Pruglo Lot's development capabilities, and, if those limitations are wholly or partly Ch. 23 and 25 of the Hawaii County Code, the Planning Department should be instructed to expressly and precisely declare so. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Director clearly erred when he determined that the declaratory ruling procedure was improper, and the BOA should remand the Petition and instruct the Director to issue a declaratory ruling on the questions presented in the Petition. C. The Declaratory Ruling Procedure's Non-Adversarial Nature Does Not Require Joinder of the Pru& Lot Owners. The Planning Director erred when he held that the Lot Owners must be made parties to Kellberg's Petition in order to render a declaratory ruling. Contrary to the Denial's characterization, Kellberg's Petition is not "another attempt to impede or impair the lot owners' rights." Denial at 7. As stated above, the Petition seeks to neither invalidate the Subdivision nor enjoin the Lot Owners from exercising whatever property rights flow from the Subdivision. Kellberg only wants to know what those property rights exactly are in relation to the zoning and subdivision codes. As a neighboring landowner, it is Kellberg's prerogative to understand how the surrounding property may be used, and, for the same reasons, such declaratory ruling should stand to also benefit the Lot Owners. The Denial implies that the Planning Director will only opine on the Pruglo Lot Owners' property rights once Kellberg initiates an adversarial proceeding against the Pruglo Lot Owners. Specifically,the Denials states,"The declaratory ruling process has no means to compel the joinder of any party, making it an unconstitutional venue to determine the property rights of a non- participating party." Denial at 7. While the Planning Director is correct that Rule 3 of the Planning 15