Opinion ID: 1158873
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: each appellant's property interest and status as a person aggrieved

Text: Several weeks after the above mentioned ruling, we held in Dalton v. City and County of Honolulu, supra at 403, 462 P.2d 199 that an owner whose property adjoins land subject to rezoning has a legal interest worthy of judicial recognition should he seek redress in our courts to preserve the continued enjoyment of his realty by protecting it from threatening neighborhood change. Each appellant here asserts just such a right. Zoning ordinances purposefully assure a district's harmonious development as well as foster integrative growth within an area of several districts. Studio's industrial use within appellants' residential neighborhood as sanctioned by the board's zoning variance immediately and directly affects each homeowner. With this in mind how can appellees claim appellants are not person[s] aggrieved? Quite the contrary, they are affected the most. Dispelling any further contention that appellants are merely tangentially touched by the zoning change here, the language of Hattem v. Silver, 19 Misc.2d 1091, 190 N.Y.S.2d 752 (Sup.Ct. 1959), citing Blumberg v. Hill, Sup., 119 N.Y.S.2d 855 (Sup.Ct. 1953), is apposite: [T]o be a `person aggrieved' [who may attack the validity of a zoning board decision] one must be specially, personally and adversely affected as distinguished from one who is merely in the general class of a taxpayer whose only interest is to have strict enforcement of zoning regulations for the welfare of the entire community. There must be special injury or damage to one's personal or property rights as distinguished from the role of being only a champion of causes. 19 Misc.2d at p. 1092, 190 N.Y.S.2d at p. 753. Clearly, therefore, under Hattem and Dalton, supra, each appellant as a person aggrieved within HRS § 91-14(a) must be afforded judicial review should we find each comported with all other necessary administrative procedures at the lower level. We turn now to the trial court's finding that no appellant intervened in the July 3 proceeding before the board and appellees' contention, supported by the trial court, that none was a person aggrieved    in a contested case.