2005-04-01 TVURICH - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

SPRINGER:Mr. Schneider, we have your Petition for Standing in this contested case hearing before us now. Can you please explain to us how your interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public? SCHNEIDER:My property is 125 feet away from the proposal, the proposed expansion. It is also, from the corner of my lot, 125 feet away from the original storage facility. And I feel that the closeness of these proposed commercial facilities have a definite impact on my property value insofar as it is my major source of equity; and I do not wish to see it degraded by having more commercial facilities next door to me or within one lot, Im sorry, within one lot of me. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Schneider. Mr. Torigoe, do you have any additional citations that you might share with us to help us evaluate Mr. Schneiders concern? TORIGOE:Only that you may want to refer to the rule that the Chairperson hasbeenreferringto,whichisyourRule4-7,Paragraph(b).Itsalistofthosefive categories of basis for standing as a party. And the Chairperson was referring to (b) 1), which is that His or her interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public. The other one that seems that might be applicable is No. 4, That even though they do not have an interest different from the public generally, that the proposed action would cause an actual them threatened injury in fact. Also, just, again, that is the Petitioners burden to show that they do have standing. Generally speaking, looking at some of the recent Hawaii Supreme Court decisions, the Supreme Court has recognized that things such as diminished property values, deterioration of air equality, even aesthetic and environmental injuries, these can be the basis of standing; but you have to take each one, each case on its individual facts. And, so, you need to, you know, if you have any questions about the extent of the impacts, then you should be asking questions like that of the applicant. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:One question of Mr. Torigoe and then a question of the testifier. Would viewplanes be included in the impacts youre talking about, Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:I would say that to the extent that there is some kind of substantial aesthetic harm, that you could take that into account. SIRACUSA:Okay. Zeroing right in on that one, can you see the current storage facility from your home or any part of your property? SCHNEIDER:Definitely from parts of my property. I could see it in its entirety from my upstairs lanai on the back of my home. However, I planted numerous plants, particularly areca palms, which I planted close together and, which has obscured most of the view of the current facility. But there are places from my bedroom window where I can see it, there are places walking around in the yard where I can see it. I have 6