Laserfiche WebLink
similarly comply with the code. HCC §§ 25-2-2, 25-2-30. Notwithstanding the effects of <br /> Kellberg's prior litigation on the Subdivision's approval, these continuing obligations remain <br /> unaffected by the ICA's SDO or any preceding court order. No conflict exists whatsoever between <br /> the ICA's SDO (leaving the Subdivision's approval untouched) and the County declaring which <br /> requirements the Lot Owners must now comply with(still leaving approval untouched). Like any <br /> other landowner, the Lot Owners are bound by the zoning and subdivision codes when using their <br /> properties, and the County must uniformly uphold these codes just like it would against any other <br /> landowner. <br /> VII. CONCLUSION <br /> Based on the foregoing,Appellant respectfully requests the Board of Appeals to vacate the <br /> Planning Director's Denial and remand Kellberg's Petition to the Planning Department with <br /> instructions to issue a declaratory ruling clarifying and interpreting Hawaii County Code §§ 23-7, <br /> 23-30, 23-62, 23-74, 23-84, 23-85, 23-95, 25-2-2, 25-2-11, 25-2-30, 25-4-2, 25-5-71, 25-5-74 to <br /> the Pruglo Lots. <br /> DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, February 5, 2026. <br /> DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT <br /> /s/Mark M. Murakami <br /> MARK M. MURAKAMI <br /> CLINT K. HAMADA <br /> Attorneys for Appellant <br /> MARK KELLBERG <br /> 950846 <br /> 17 <br />