Laserfiche WebLink
Nelson, Catherine <br /> From: Richard Standke <richard.standke@gmail.com> <br /> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 10:05 PM <br /> To: Planning Board of Appeals <br /> Subject: Claudia Rohr vs. Hawaii County and Richard Standke <br /> Attachments: Rohr screenshot jpeg; Appeals standing requirements.png <br /> Dear Board of Appeals, <br /> i have not coordinated with County counsel regarding Rohr's appeals so I feel compelled to raise a <br /> simple argument in order to dismiss the appeals. <br /> There is a simple legal argument that should result in the defeat of the Rohr appeals. <br /> Rohr has no standing to appeal. I have included two attachments. One is the definition of what is <br /> required to have standing. The other is a picture of our two homes and the distance between them. <br /> In short, Rohr must show that she has a reason to be adversely affected by my proposed building. lam <br /> only building a lanai in front of my house and a staircase connecting the top and button levels. Rohr has <br /> stated that this will cause more traffic. She does not explain how a lanai and staircase will cause more <br /> traffic. In addition, her house is not near my house. A lanai would only affect those directly next to this <br /> house. Rohr lives on a different street and faces the opposite direction. <br /> If the Board agrees that there is no connection between my proposed permit and traffic in front of the <br /> house then Rohr has no standing. <br /> Rohr has harassed me every chance she gets. The reason one needs standing is to prevent <br /> harassment. If the Board agrees that Rohr has no standing, the appeals get dismissed and all her <br /> arguments are moot. <br /> Thankyou for your work in resolving these appeals, <br /> Richard Standke <br /> i <br />