Laserfiche WebLink
Moving to the subdivided parcels, the Planning Director further explained that"there was <br /> a mistake in the approval of that subdivision [SUB 05-00064]" because of the failure to account <br /> for the noncontiguous lot: <br /> As Mr. Kellberg correctly points out, there was a mistake in the approval of that <br /> subdivision. One of the six recognized lots was a 0.699 acre portion of Grant <br /> 11,070. For some reason, it was not contiguous with the remainder of TMK No. 3- <br /> 2-2-35. In the con so]idation/resubdivision,the Planning Department did not notice <br /> that this noncontiguous portion had [not] been included in the lot count. Thus, it <br /> remained separate, and is now TMK No. 3-2-2-110. Thus, with the six lots in Sub. <br /> 05-00064 and parcel 110, there are now seven lots instead of six. <br /> Exhibit`B" to BOA Petition. The Planning Director continued: <br /> I am not going to do anything to undo this situation at this time. Sub. 05-00064 has <br /> received final subdivision approval and at least some of the lots have been sold. <br /> Given that parcel 110 is physically separated from the remainder of Sub. 05-00064, <br /> and from any property owned by the subdivider, I cannot see a way to erase its <br /> separate existence. <br /> Id. On February 6, 2007, Kellberg asked the Planning Director to apply Hawaii County Code 23- <br /> 74(c) to SUB 05-00064 to correct the mistake. The Planning Director did not respond. Later, in <br /> a litigation interrogatory response, the Planning Director stated that SUB 05-00064 did not satisfy <br /> the requirements and standards of the Subdivision Control Code. Exhibit"C"to BOA Petition <br /> (emphasis added). <br /> Kellberg further asked what additional requirements or standards would have been required <br /> had SUB 05-00064 not been a consolidation and resubdivision. The Director stated, "[t]he <br /> additional requirements would have been determined in the subdivision process and cannot be <br /> definitively stated because this subdivision did not go through the full normal process under <br /> Section 23-7. Generally, it would have required a county water system and an agricultural <br /> standard road, unless variances were obtained." Id. (emphasis added). <br /> 5 <br />