HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-14 PL-BOA-2025-000124 Petition h,.'..
•
yt'•�ft
�'vSr..�. •r'•
c "
EOFH'�-
County of Hawai'i
BOARD OF APPEALS
Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi, Suite 3 • Hilo,Hawai`i 96720
(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742
GENERAL PETITION FOR APPEAL OF
DECISIONS BY PLANNING DIRECTOR OR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
(Type or legibly print the requested information. See instructions attached.)
TYPE OF PETITION (check one):
OX Appeal Decision of the Planning Director El Appeal Decision of Director of Public Works
SUBJECT PROPERTY(land in question):
Tax Map Key (TMK): 3-2-002-110 to 115 & 035 Area of Property: 49.169 acres
State Land Use
Designation: Agricultural County Zoning: A-20a
Street Address: Multiple
APPELLANT INFORMATION:
Name(s): Mark Kellberg
Signature(s): Date:
Mailing Address: c/o Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert, 1003 Bishop St., 1600 Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 531-8031 Email: mmm@hawaiilawyer.com/ckh@hawaiilawyer.com
Interest in Subject Appellant owns property abutting the Subject Property
Property:
LANDOWNER INFORMATION:
Name(s): See Attachment "1"
Signature(s)1: Date:
Mailing Address:
Telephone: Email:
APPELLANT REPRESENTATIVE INFORMATION (leave blank if not applicable):
Name(s)/Title(s): Mark M. Murakami, Esq. and Clint K. Hamada, Esq.
Signature(s): Date: r /2 a2V2S
i
Mailing Address: 1003 Bishop Street, Ste. 1600, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Telephone: (808) 531-8031 Email: mmm@hawaiilawyer.com/ckh@hawaiilawyer.com
1 Not required if the Landowner is not the Appellant.
\\COH01\planning\public\BOA\Forms and Labels\Application Forms\APPEAL 2021-07-PL or PW Dir.docx Revised April 2021
Statement of the nature of Appeal and the Relief Requested. Include Director's decision and decision
date:
Appellant appeals the Planning Director's Denial of Petition for Declaratory Ruling, dated July 18,
2025, in Planning Department Docket No. 25-0001 and attached hereto. Please see
Attachment "1"
Statement of how the Director's decision violates the law; or is clearly erroneous; or is arbitrary or
capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion:
The Planning Director's Denial satisfies all three prongs of BOA Rule 8-15 and should be reversed because: (1)
Kellberg's Petition presents entirely different legal questions than his previous litigation and therefore is not
precluded; (2) Kellberg's Petition squarely complies with the purpose and requirements of petitions for declaratory
rulings; and(3) the PD Rules do not require Kellberg to make the Pruglo Lot owners "parties"to a petition for
declaratory ruling, and, in any case, they were notified of the Petition. First, whereas Kellberg's previous litigation
sought to invalidate SUB 05-00064, Kellberg's Petition and instant appeal now seek guidance on how County
Subdivision and Zoning codes apply to the Pruglo Lots' future use and development in light of SUB 05-00064 moving
forward. In other words, how do the subdivision and zoning codes reconcile with an erroneous, albeit approved,
subdivision? For example, do the drainage easement requirements of section 23-30 apply to the Pruglo Lots under
section 23-7? This is but one of the many novel questions presented in the Petition and entirely ignored by the
Planning Director. The Denial therefore violated the law by erroneously precluding the Petition. Second, the legal
issues presented in the Petition are exactly the type intended to be answered through the declaratory ruling procedure,
which is derived from HRS § 91-8. The purpose of HRS § 91-8 is to determine whether and in what way some
statute, agency rule, or order, applies to the factual situation raised by an interested person. This is exactly what the
Petition seeks a declaration of how and in what way Ch. 23 and 25 apply to the Pruglo Lots in light of SUB
05-00064. The Denial therefore clearly erred by finding that the Petition contradicted the purpose of declaratory
rulings. Last, the Denial arbitrarily determined that Kellberg needed to make the Pruglo Lot owners "parties"to the
Petition. Declaratory rulings are not adversarial proceedings, and nothing in the PD Rules requires petitions for
declaratory rulings join parties. Regardless, the Pruglo Lot owners were provided actual notice of the Petition, as
evidenced by Mr. Charles Price's email opposing the Petition on behalf of Mary and Daniel Lock. The County has a
continuing duty to enforce the aforementioned codes, making a declaratory ruling all the more imperative.
Statement of any other relevant facts:
If there is insufficient space on this form to provide the information, then please include supplemental documents.
\\COH01\planning\public\BOA\Forms and Labels\Application Forms\APPEAL 2021-07- PL or PW Dir.docx Revised April 2021
Of Counsel:
DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT
Attorneys at Law
A Law Corporation
MARK M. MURAKAMI 7342-0
CLINT K. HAMADA 11484-0
1003 Bishop Street, Suite 1600
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
www.hawaiilawyer.com
Telephone: (808) 531-8031
Facsimile: (808) 533-2242
Attorneys for Petitioner-Appellant
MARK KELLBERG
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF HAWAII
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
In the Matter of ) DOCKET NO.
MARK KELLBERG ) ATTACHMENT "1" TO MARK
) KELLBERG'S GENERAL PETITION
) FOR APPEAL OF DECISION OF THE
) PLANNING DIRECTOR;
) EXHIBIT "1"
ATTACHMENT "1" TO MARK KELLBERG'S GENERAL PETITION FOR
APPEAL OF DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Pursuant to Rule 2-4 and Part 8 of the Rule of Practice and Procedure ("BOA Rules") for
the Hawai'i County Board of Appeal ("BOA"), Petitioner-Appellant MARK KELLBERG
("Kellberg"), by and through his counsel, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert, hereby appeals
the Denial of Petition for Declaratory Ruling ("Denial") issued by the County of Hawai'i
("County"),Planning Director Jeffrey W. Darrow("Planning Director")in Docket No. 25-0001
on July 18,2025. A copy of the Denial is attached as Exhibit"1". The Denial relates to the Petition
for Declaratory Ruling filed by Kellberg on May 23, 2025 ("Petition"), pursuant to Hawaii
915009
Revised Statutes section 91-8 and Rule 3 of the County of Hawaii Planning Department Rules of
Practice and Procedure ("PD Rules").
I. INTRODUCTION
Kellberg brought his Petition, and now this appeal,to clarify the effects that an erroneously
approved subdivision, SUB 05-00064, has on future development and construction on the subject
subdivided property. Specifically, Kellberg, as the landowner of adjacent property, seeks clarity
on whether and to what degree the County's zoning and subdivision codes limit the subdivided
property's future development, given that SUB 05-00064, itself, does not comport to said codes.
Contrary to the Planning Director's Denial, the instant matter is entirely distinct from Kellberg's
previous litigation and does not seek to rescind SUB 05-00064, even though it is warranted.
Kellberg merely seeks an interpretation of how the County's codes are to apply to the subdivided
property moving forward, in light of the novel factual backdrop of an erroneous subdivision. This
is the exact purpose of declaratory rulings under HRS section 91-8 and PD Rules Part 6, and the
Planning Director erred by denying the Petition.
II. PARTIES AND AFFECTED PROPERTY
Petitioner-Appellant: Mark Kellberg
Address: c/o Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert (MMM)
1003 Bishop Street, Suite 1600
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Telephone Numbers: Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert: (808) 531-8031
Petitioner-Appellant is the landowner of the property abutting the lands referenced in SUB
05-00064, TMK No.: (3) 3-2-002-034. The neighboring lands ("Pruglo Lots"), as of February 19,
2025, are owned, as follows:
Tax Map Number Owner Address
TMK 3-2-002-068 or 1101 Glenn Takemoto P.O. Box 107
' In 2010, SUB 05-00064 lot-110 was consolidated with TMK 3-2-002-068.
2
Ninole, HI 96773
TMK 3-2-002-111 Alla Pruglo 7515 Mariposa Ave.
Citrus Heights, CA 95610
TMK 3-2-002-112 Christie Guastella& John 11232 River Highlands Dr.
Payne Saint Amant, LA 70774
TMK 3-2-002-113 Frances Santa Maria Trust 1911 Kalanianole Ave., Unit 205
Hilo, HI, 96720
TMK 3-2-002-114 Mary and Daniel Lock 913 Hog Back Rd.
Haiku, HI, 96708
TMK 3-2-002-115 Mathew Jackson and Debra 17835 Beard Ln.
Bruno Huntington Beach, CA 92647
TMK 3-2-002-035 Nikoly Pruglo2 7515 Mariposa Ave.
Citrus Heights, CA 95610
III. BACKGROUND
SUB 05-00064 concerned a 48.47 acre parcel and a non-contiguous .699 acre parcel
identified prior to SUB 05-00064 as TMK 3-2-002-035, all of which is in the agricultural district
and zoned A-20a. On June 2, 2004, the Planning Director issued a determination of pre-existing
lots on the 48.47 acre parcel and stated that there were only two legal 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". The property was sold.
On April 7, 2005, a Consolidation and Resubdivision Application, SUB 05-00064, was
submitted to the Planning Department.3 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.4 On July 1, 2005, a final plat map was submitted dividing the larger, 48.7 acre, parcel
2 There is a roadway lot, TMK No. 3-2-002-116 owned by Home Tech Construction, 7515
Mariposa Ave, Citrus Heights, CA 95610.
3 The documents use SUB 05-000064, SUB 05-00064, and Sub. 05-0064. They are the
same permit.
4 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).
3
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."
Moving to the subdivided parcels, the Planning Director further explained that "there was
a mistake in the approval of that subdivision [SUB 05-00064]" because of the failure to account
for the noncontiguous lot:
As Mr. Kellberg correctly points out, there was a mistake in the approval of that
subdivision. One of the six recognized lots was a 0.699 acre portion of Grant
11,070. For some reason,it was not contiguous with the remainder of TMK No. 3-
2-2-35. In the consolidation/resubdivision, the Planning Department did not notice
that this noncontiguous portion had [not] been included in the lot count. Thus, it
remained separate, and is now TMK No. 3-2-2-110. Thus, with the six lots in Sub.
05-00064 and parcel 110, there are now seven lots instead of six.
Exhibit"B"to Petition. The Planning Director continued:
I am not going to do anything to undo this situation at this time. Sub. 05-00064 has
received final subdivision approval and at least some of the lots have been sold.
Given that parcel 110 is physically separated from the remainder of Sub. 05-00064,
and from any property owned by the subdivider, I cannot see a way to erase its
separate existence.
Id. On February 6, 2007, Kellberg asked the Planning Director to apply Hawaii County Code 23-
74(c) to SUB 05-00064 to correct the mistake. The Planning Director did not respond. Later, in
4
a litigation interrogatory response,the Planning Director stated that SUB 05-00064 did not satisfy
the requirements and standards of the Subdivision Control Code. Exhibit "C" to Petition
(emphasis added).
Kellberg further asked what additional requirements or standards would have been required
had SUB 05-00064 not been a consolidation and resubdivision. The Director stated, "[t]he
additional requirements would have been determined in the subdivision process and cannot be
definitively stated because this subdivision did not go through the full normal process under
Section 23-7. Generally, it would have required a county water system and an agricultural
standard road, unless variances were obtained." Id. (emphasis added).
SUB 05-00064 divided the 48.47 parcel into six lots while retaining the non-contiguous
.699 acre portion of TMK 3-2-002-035 as an independent lot of record, in and of itself
The current tax map shows:
w \ .
\\\\ " ': 4 W
o
cam \,,,,,‘ . ��~ �� -- - _ _ �Z E
-f _ , T 116-27--'-- ,„.---,.:A, 7.,
114 -� �•
ti,o {1Q a,..•T
o u
—77- A ti \.` 55 ,o
`3' _i X './mac
``�� � 5-7-3,4- o-186.2 e4c-
—5
5
Lots 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, and 35 all exist within the 48.47 acre parcel. This is more
lots than existed before SUB 05-00064.
On May 11, 2007, Kellberg filed suit against the County of Hawaii challenging SUB 05-
00064. On July 29, 2024, the Intermediate Court of Appeals issued a judgment on appeal which
terminated the litigation between Kellberg, County, and the neighboring owners. As to Kellberg's
claims against the County, the Intermediate Court of Appeals found Kellberg's claims moot and
did not rule on the substantive merits. There has been no court ruling or decision as to whether
HCC § 23-7 applies to exempt these lots from the zoning and subdivision codes going forward.
There is also no court ruling, ordinance, or agency decision that outlines what the development,
construction, and other code requirements or conditions apply to the contested lots.
In the absence of such guidance, Kellberg's Petition and instant appeal seek answers as to
how Chapters 23 and 25 will govern the Pruglo Lots.
IV. RELIEF REQUESTED
Kellberg requests that the BOA reverse the Planning Director's Denial and remand the
Petition to the Planning Department so that the Planning Director may issue a proper declaratory
ruling. A copy of this General Petition for Appeal will be sent to the above Pruglo Lot owners
and/or their known representatives via U.S. mail or email.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, August 14, 2025.
DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT
/s/Clint K. Hamada
MARK M. MURAKAMI
CLINT K. HAMADA
Attorneys for Petitioner
MARK KELLBERG
6
BEFORE THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF HAWAI`I
STATE OF HAWAI`I
In the Matter of DOCKFT NO. 25-0001
MARK KELLBERG, DENIAL OF PETITION FOR
DECLARATORY RULING
Petitioner
JEFFREY W. DARROW, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
COUNTY OF HAWAII'S DENIAL OF PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner, Mark Kellberg, ("Petitioner") filed his Petition for Declaratory Ruling
("Petition")with the County of Hawai'i,Planning Department ("Department") on May
23, 2025,requesting a declaratory ruling from the Director of the Department
("Director")regarding the applicability of various sections of the Hawai'i County
subdivision and zoning codes (Hawai'i County Code, Chapters 23 and 25) to a
subdivision approved in 2005, SUB-05-00064 ("Subdivision").
A. The Subdivision
The property at issue involves land located at Waikaumalo,North Hilo, Hawaii,
formerly designated as Tax Map Key Parcel No. (3) 3-2-002-035, being 49.070 acres
including a non-contiguous portion being 0.699 acre. On May 22, 2000, the Department
sent a letter to the landowner stating that the Department recognized six pre-existing lots
of record within the property. In response to a December 24, 2003 request to recognize
seven lots, the Department mistakenly stated that only 2 lots existed. When the prior six-
EXHIBIT " 1 "
lot determination was brought to the attention of the Director, the Director stated that he
would honor the previous six-lot determination in conformance with general Department
policy.
In 2005, the landowner submitted an application for subdivision of the property and,
on July 11, 2005, the Director issued final subdivision approval for the division of TMK
(3)3-2-002-035 into six lots. As noted in the Director's letter dated October 23, 2006,
attached to the Petition as Exhibit B, this approval was a mistake as it failed to account
for the non-contiguous 0.699 acre portion, designated at that time as TMK
(3)3-2-002-110, which meant the property had been subdivided into seven lots rather than
six, or one lot in excess of the pre-existing lot determination number. In his 2006 letter,
the Director determined that he was "not going to do anything to undo this situation at
this time."
By consolidation CON-10-000168 recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances of the
State of Hawaii on November 18, 2010, TMK(3)3-2-002-110, the non-contiguous 0.699
acre parcel, was consolidated into TMK(3)3-2-002-068. Thus, as of 2010 the seventh lot
was eliminated and the property consists of six lots.
B. The Lawsuits
Petitioner is the owner of a lot adjacent to the six-lot subdivision. Following the
Director's issuance of final subdivision approval for the six-lot subdivision on July 11,
2005, Petitioner did not file an appeal of the Director's decision to the County Board of
Appeals ("BOA")within the 30-day appeal period.
Instead, on May 11, 2007, Petitioner filed a lawsuit against the County of Hawai'i
("County")in the Third Circuit Court alleging six wide-ranging counts. Specifically, in
2
Count II Petitioner"alleged that he 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) ]."'Kellberg v.
Yuen, 131 Haw. 513, at 519, 319 P.3d 432, at 438. The Third Circuit Court entered an
order in July 2009 granting partial summary judgment and remanding three of
Petitioner's counts to the BOA.
In September 2009,Petitioner filed a petition with the BOA 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." These appeals
were dismissed by the BOA on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction due to Petitioner's
failure to file within the 30-day deadline.
Petitioner did not appeal the BOA's dismissal. Petitioner also did not file a BOA
appeal following the consolidation of TMK(3)3-2-002-068 and-110 in 2010.
Following the County's filing of a motion for summary judgment on all claims, the
Third Circuit entered a Final Judgment in favor of the County and against Petitioner in
2012.
Petitioner appealed the Third Circuit Court's decision to the Hawai'i Intermediate
Court of Appeals ("ICA"). The ICA vacated the lower court's Final Judgment and
remanded for an order of dismissal. Petitioner applied to the Hawai'i Supreme Court
("HISC"), and in 2014 ("Kellberg I")the HISC opined only on the appealability of the
Director's decisions and remanded the case to the ICA for consideration of the remaining
issues.
On remand, the ICA vacated the Third Circuit Court's judgment and remanded to the
Third Circuit Court. Before the Third Circuit Court ruled, the County petitioned to the
HISC asking the Court: whether it was error to declare the subdivision invalid when it
now consisted of six, not seven, lots; whether the ICA should have considered all the
County's arguments; and whether the owners of the lots in the affected subdivision must
be joined as parties prior to voiding the subdivision.
The HISC, in its April 15, 2015 decision("Kellberg II"), vacated the ICA's judgment
and the Third Circuit Court's judgment and remanded the case to the Third Circuit once
again. Finding that the lots owners were indispensable parties, the HISC directed that the
Third Circuit Court order that they be made parties if feasible.
On remand at the Third Circuit Court, Petitioner filed an amended complaint on
December 2, 2015, adding the lot owners as defendants and, among other counts, seeking
a finding that SUB-05-00064 is invalid. On July 23, 2019, the Third Circuit Court issued
its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order as to Counts I Through
V (Inclusive) of the First Amended Complaint. The Third Circuit Court stated that
because Counts I through V, inclusive, of the First Amended Complaint were all
predicated upon a determination as to whether SUB 05-00064 is invalid and Petitioner
was not entitled to relief on such a determination, all of Counts I through V, inclusive
were dismissed with prejudice. Final Judgment in favor of the County was issued on
November 4, 2019.
4
Petitioner appealed once again and the ICA issued a Summary Disposition Order on
June 27, 2024, affirming the Third Circuit Court's Final Judgment for the County
("Kellberg III"). The HISC rejected Petitioner's application for writ certiorari on
November 27, 2024.
Having failed to get the relief he sought, to invalidate the subdivision approval,
through the BOA or the courts in Kellberg I, Kellberg II, or Kellberg III,Petitioner filed
the Petition with the Department on May 23, 2025.
II. APPLICABLE RULES
Pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-8 (2012):
[a]ny interested person may petition an agency for a declaratory order as to the
applicability of any statutory provision or of any rule or order of the agency.
Each agency shall adopt rules prescribing the form of the petitions and the
procedure for their submission, consideration, and prompt disposition. Orders
disposing of petitions in such cases shall have the same status as other agency
orders.
The Department's Rules of Practice and Procedure ("Planning Rules") govern the
declaratory ruling process. Rule 3.1(c)thereof gives the Director authority to deny the
petition in writing, stating the reasons for such denial.
III. REASONS FOR DENIAL
This Petition is DENIED for the following reasons:
A. The Purpose of the Declaratory Ruling Procedure
The declaratory ruling procedure is one "whereby an interested party could seek
agency advice as to how a statute, agency rule, or order would apply to particular
circumstances not yet determined." Citizens Against Reckless Development v. Zoning
Board of Appeals of the City and County of Honolulu ("CARD"), 114 Hawai`i 184, 197,
5
159 P.3d 143, 156(2007). "[The declaratory ruling procedure] was not intended to allow
review of concrete agency decisions for which other means of review are available. Id.,
114 Hawai`i at 197, 159 P.3d at 156.
The Director's determination about this subdivision was made upon the issuance of
final subdivision approval in 2005. This determination has been extensively litigated
through Petitioner's various attempts to invalidate the subdivision for nearly 20 years at
the County Board of Appeals, the Third Circuit Court, the ICA and HISC. The
declaratory ruling procedure is not intended to provide yet another opportunity to appeal
a long-settled determination when all other avenues have been exhausted because
Petitioner is unsatisfied with the previous results.
B. Preclusion
It is well settled that preclusion is a doctrine that limits a litigant to one opportunity to
litigate aspects of a case to prevent inconsistent results and multiplicity of suits and to
promote finality and judicial economy. Exotics Hawai'i-Kona, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont De
Nemours & Company, 90 P.3d 250, 256, 104 Hawaii 358, 364. The Third Circuit in its
2019 Final Judgment dismissed with prejudice Count I of the First Amended Complaint which
sought a declaratory judgment that SUB-05-00064 was invalid for violating the County Code.
The ICA affirmed this final judgment and the HISC denied Petitioner's application for writ of
certiorari. This Petition makes the same claim that the subdivision is invalid. See Petition at
Page 11, Section V[Statement of Petitioner's Position or Opinion]. The parties to this Petition
are the same as the parties to Petitioner's lawsuit: The County of Hawaii and Petitioner,with the
notable absence of any owners of the lots at issue. The declaratory ruling procedure is not
intended as a substitute for the courts when Petitioner is precluded from raising the same claim,
against the same parties following a final judgement in a prior action.
6
C. Still Missing Lot Owners
In Kellberg II,the HISC made clear that the owners of the lots in the affected subdivision
were necessary parties to Petitioner's suit against the County attempting to invalidate the
subdivision. "Because invalidating the subdivision may impair or impede the lot owners'
respective property rights, and there is no indication that it is not feasible to join the lot owners,
the ICA should have vacated the circuit court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions
to order that the lot owners be joined." Kellberg v. Yuen, 349 P.3d 343, 361, 135 Hawai'i 236,
254. Petitioner never effectively joined the lot owners in court and the lot owners are not now
parties to this Petition. As this Petition is another attempt to impeded or impair the lot owners'
rights,it is equally imperative that the lot owners be present,which they are not. 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.
PURSUANT TO PLANNING RULE 3-1(c), THIS PETITION IS DENIED.
So Ordered,July 18,2025
Jeffrey Imo. Darrow
Jeffrey W.Darrow(Jul 18,2025 10:47 HST )
Jeffrey W. Darrow, Planning Director
7
BEFORE THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF HAWAI`I
STATE OF HAWAI`I
In the Matter of DOCKFT NO. 25-0001
MARK KELLBERG, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Petitioner
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document
was served upon the party below by email on the date below:
Delivered by electronic mail:
Mark M.Murakami
Clint K. Hamada
Attorneys for Petitioner
Dated: Hilo, Hawaii July 18, 2025
JEFFREY W. DARROW
PLANNING DIRECTOR
COUNTY OF HAWAI'I
By:
Jean K. Campbell
Deputy Corporation Counsel
8