2026-05-11 DPW Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing (PL-BOA-2025-000121)

Home

have standing to appeal" in order for court to have jurisdiction to decide issues presented). To establish standing under BOA Rule 8-2, an appellant must show: 1. An interest in the subject matter that is directly and immediately affected; 2. An interest that is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public; and 3. That they are or will be adversely affected by the decision. Where, as here, a party challenges the government's regulation of a third party (Mr. Standke), the burden to establish standing is "substantially more difficult" to meet. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 562 (1992). The Appellant must provide concrete evidence—not mere conjecture—that the Board has the authority to redress. B. Appellant's Arguments Are Speculative and Fail the "Injury in Fact" Test Appellant appears to assert that the construction of a porch and internal staircase will increase the use of the subject property to the point of causing traffic congestion on OeOe Street that will somehow affect her walks to the beach and access to her driveway and emergency services. See Appellants Petition, pages 1-8. However, Appellant has offered no evidence to support this claim. Under Lujan, an injury must be "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (citation and internal punctuation omitted). A speculative increase in traffic from a residential porch does not constitute an"injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and(b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Id. C. The Alleged Injury is a Generalized Grievance Common to the Public Even if the BOA accepted the traffic allegations as true, they fail under BOA Rule 8-2 because traffic on a public street is a shared community concern. Appellant has not shown how her interest in public road flow is "clearly distinguishable from that of the general public." BOA 3