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

Home

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" to BOA Petition. The property was sold. On April 7, 2005, a Consolidation and Resubdivision Application, SUB 05-00064, was submitted to the Planning Department. 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.3 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. On July 11, 2005, the Planning Director issued final subdivision approval of SUB 05-00064. The approval claimed that "all requirements of the Subdivision Code, Chapter, 23, as modified have been met." Kellberg 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. In response to Kellberg's multiple inquiries, the Planning Director eventually sent a letter,see Exhibit "B"to Petition, stating that the Planning Department purportedly recognized five lots on the 48.47 acre parcel on May 22, 2000, but only recognized two lots there on June 2, 2004. The Planning Director called the June 2, 2004 letter "a mistake, because the Department should have respected the previous determination." 2 The documents use SUB 05-000064, SUB 05-00064, and Sub. 05-0064. They are the same permit. 3 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 Molfino v. Yuen, 134 Haw. 181, 339 P.3d 679 (Haw. 2014). 4