The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023-02-28 Letter from John Pipan (Response to CCH Petitions) LAND'* PLANNING 194 Wiwoole St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 333-3393 H A V V A I I L L C info@landplanninghawaii.com February 28, 2023 Mr. Dennis Lin, Chairman Windward Planning Commission COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Lin: Subject: Response to Petitions for Standing in Contested Case Hearing Applicant: Academia Sinica Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics Landowner: Edmund C Olson Trust#2 Pahala, Kau, Hawaii TMK: (3) 9-6-011: 007 We are in receipt of two petitions for standing in a Contested Case Hearing regarding the subject application. With respect to the requisite Standing to request a Contested Case, Planning Commission Rule 4-6(b) details the requirements for intervention: (1) His or her interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public; or (2) That they have some property interest in the land or lawfully reside on the land; or (3) Even though they do not have an interest different than the public generally, that the proposed action will cause them actual or threatened injury in fact. Regarding the Petition submitted by Mr. Stefan Taylor three points are made: • "Inappropriate for Ka`u Ag Zone!" This statement draws no connection between Mr. Taylor and the project. It simply states an opinion of the project. • "Big structures like this bring more people up here who may damage or [sic] property or steal" The scale of the project is actually quite modest consisting of two shipping containers, two antenna arrays, a solar array, a catchment tank and a port-a-potty. With proposed screening the site would not be visible from the nearest neighboring property and even less from Wood Valley Road which has large established screening trees and orchards already blocking views of the site which is approximately 1,300 feet from Wood Valley Road and accessed by a private driveway. Mr. Taylor argues that visitors to the area trying to view the site would continue well over a mile past the site to damage property or steal. The Petitioner's address is over 8,700 ft(straight line)from the proposed Special Permit Area (Exhibit A) and proposed mitigations to block views of the site combined with the site's remoteness from public roads should be adequate to address this concern. • "Big trucks will damage bad roads (single entrance to property)" Aside from a short term increase in traffic to the site to install the required equipment, traffic impacts from the project are very modest and will not cause excessive wear on public roads. Periodic maintenance and safety check visits performed by ASIAA staff would utilize common passenger vehicles. Regarding the Petition submitted by Ms. Sandra Reha three points are made: • "This experiment is inappropriate for agricultural zone." This statement draws no connection between Ms. Reha and the project. It simply states an opinion of the project. • "Realtors assured that the value of property will diminish and affect the ability to maintain long term renter." This argument relates to the previous proposed site on the Mizuno property adjacent to Ms. Reha's. Given that the presently proposed site is over 9,200 feet(straight line) from Ms. Reha's property (Exhibit A), there is no reasonable expectation that the project would affect her property value or ability to maintain a long-term renter. • "Will damage security, safety, and sanctity. I recommend ASIAA find another location in Ka`u: in open acreage area." Ms. Reha's property is located over 9,000 feet from the proposed Special Permit area and will not be visible from the nearest public road, over 1,300 feet from the project site. Given the remoteness and inconspicuous nature of the project no impacts to area security, safety and sanctity is anticipated. Ms. Reha recommends ASIAA find another location for the project in"open acreage area." That is precisely what we have done for the current application since withdrawing the previous application to use a portion of the Mizuno property (nearby the Petitioner's property). The project site would be buffered by a surrounding 130+ acre property also owned by Olson Trust and another 115+ acre property owned by Mr. Whitney Coffman, who we have worked closely with to mitigate any potential impacts. We would respectfully point out that each of these petitions was submitted previously for the withdrawn Special Permit application that proposed to use a portion of the Mizuno property nearby the Petitioners' properties. Their arguments supporting standing would make more sense in that case where the project was proposed close by. In this case given the remoteness of the proposed Special Permit area from the Petitioner's properties, how is their position relating to the project different from the general public? Where is the actual or threatened injury in fact? Further we would like to note that modifications to both of the petitions were made in what appears to be the same handwriting and Ms. Reha's petition was notarized using witnesses in California. This seems highly irregular and would recommend inquiry into the legal validity of this Petition. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, John Pipan Planning Administrator Enclosures Exhibit A—Map of Petitioners Relative to Subject Property Copy—Academia Sinica Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics 960ODD6700DO :77" o MIZUNO,RAYAKIO MIZUNO,PAMELANAOMI 96-1448 CENTER ROAD 21.,30Acres Value 5237,200 96DOW55GODO IF 10- View Rz=-Drt I Gcct a Maps WLSEMAN,SHERRY CARPE DIEM CG LLC T.4YLOR,STEF4N T.4YLOR,STEFAN MO RG,4AN.N ICO LETTE LYN 9C-2225 NORTH ROAD 26.67Acres ValueW3,'900 View-Rz�rt Gcc fps 960060090000 f REFL,5AN DRA L 9d-1U61 CENTER ROAD 11-43 Acres Value 3442,300 View-R=-r-7rt Gccg ee Maps i r .. M f 960110070000 - ,. =. :R==-=-art l Gcc- a Maps i 1636946,€ 152739.33 C PETITIONERS' PROPERTIES RELATIVE TO SUBJECT PROPERTY EXHIBIT A