The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2026-6-26 APPELLANTS OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED ORDER_v1.pdfClaudia Rohr 369 Nene St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808)640-5976 crohr4@gmail.com Appellant, pro se BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII CLAUDIA ROHR, Appellant, vs. JEFFREY DARROW, PLANNING DIRECTOR; RICHARD STANDKE; DEBORAH STANDKE, Appellees No. PL-BOA-2025-000119 APPELLANT'S OBJECTIONS TO APPELLEE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, DECISION AND ORDER; AND APPELLANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; DECLARATION; EXHIBITS A-F; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE APPELLANT'S OBJECTIONS TO APPELLEE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, DECISION AND ORDER; AND APPELLANTS SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Appellant, Claudia Rohr, respectfully submits APPELLANT'S OBJECTIONS TO APPELLEE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, DECISION AND ORDER AND APPELLANTS SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, pursuant to DCC Sylvia Wan's verbal instructions issued May 15, 2026 in the zoom hearing, as represented in the zoom transcript received May 20, 2026. 1 I. Rohr's General Objections. Appellant's Objections To The Proposed Conclusions Of Law Appellant submits her formal objections to the Proposed Conclusion of Law regarding standing. Specifically, Appellant objects to the conclusion that she "failed to plead sufficient, non -speculative facts to establish that she is an aggrieved person pursuant to BOA Rule 8-2." A. Appellant's Objections To The Proposed Factual Findings The Proposed Order Fails to Acknowledge the Ultimate Fact: The Planning Director's conduct that is the cause of Rohr's threatened injury -in -fact from hazardous road conditions on Oeoe St. is his issuance of a SMA exemption without a condition for off-street parking on the building plans that STVRs are required to construct. The Proposed Order Erred By Ignoring Specific Factual Injuries: The Director's proposed Order, like the Motion to Dismiss, fails to acknowledge that because Rohr relies on Oeoe Street to take her walks down to Leleiwi and Richardson's beaches, to access her driveway at 369 Nene Street, and to receive emergency services, including fire trucks that hook up to a fire hydrant on the corner of Oeoe Street and Kalanianaole Street, Rohr will suffer an actual or threatened injury -in -fact from hazardous road conditions on Oeoe St. directly traceable to STVR guests backing out of the driveway at 14 Oeoe St for lack of off-street parking. It follows that the injuries to Rohr's interests can be remedied with a condition on an exemption determination to add off-street parking to the standards that STVRs are legally required to construct to the building plans. The Proposed Order Erred By Ignoring Geographic Proximity: Appellant is a neighbor/property owner located within 210-feet of the subject property. Under Hawaii law, close proximity to a challenged land -use action creates a personal, distinct stake in the outcome, distinguishing Appellant's injury from that of the general public. The Proposed Order is Prejudicial and Violates BOA Rule 2-2(b)(1): The Planning Director's Proposed Order ignored Rohr's specific pleadings of facts regarding standing, and instead made up and mischaracterized facts she claimed were Rohr's pleadings on Ultimate facts on standing. For example, Fact #1 6 falsely misrepresents: "finding that the home improvement construction project, composed primarily of the construction of an internal staircase and the addition of an external lanai, proposed by Landowner..." The building plans attached to the SMA assessment Application and Rohr's pleadings makes Fact #16 an outright lie. Fact #29 and #30 cite to "injuries related to neighborhood traffic congestion" when a word search of the Second Amended Complaint finds not a single reference to "traffic congestion." The word "traffic" is used once in a footnote on page 7, referring to avoiding traffic on Kalanianaole St. The Proposed Order Creates a False Narrative and Violates BOA Rule 2-2(b)(1): The Proposed Order creates a false narrative, step by step, that Rohr's case is frivolous and Rohr alone has been the cause of the delay of the contested case hearings. As a minor fact regarding the continuation of the January 9, 2026 hearing, Fact #6 falsely states: "On December 29, 2025, the BOA staff reminded the Appellant of the need to send and file proof of the BOA Rule 8-11(d) required notice to surrounding property owners." But see the email --there is nothing but a link to an agenda and not more, [Exhibit B.] Furthermore, the Director's proposed order builds a false narrative that the Chair was justified in her decision 3 to deny a continuation of the May 15, 2026 hearing, because Rohr's case was purportedly frivolous and [implying that using unlawful procedure in violation of BOA Rule 3-12(d) can be defended] by blaming Rohr for the fact that the case had been continued for more than a year. See, DCC Campbell's email, attached as Exhibit F. At bottom, the proposed Order fails to satisfy the requirements of HRS § 91- 12. "The purpose of the statutory requirement that the agency set forth separately its findings of fact and conclusions of law is to assure reasoned decision making by the agency and enable judicial review of agency decisions. Application of Hawaii Elec. Light Co., Inc., 60 Haw. 625, 641, 594 P.2d 612, 623 (1979. In order for the parties and courts to "be informed of the factual basis upon which the [agency] relies, the [agency] findings of Ultimate facts must be supported by findings of Basic facts which in turn are required to be supported by the evidence in the record." Id. "The parties and the court should not be left to guess, with respect to any material question of fact, or to any group of minor matters that may have cumulative significance, the precise finding of the agency." Application of Hawaiian Tel. Co., 54 Haw. 663, 668, 513 P.2d 1376, 1379 ( 1973). It is as if the Director's Proposed Order was drafted to confuse the Board members, not enlighten them to what they are voting to agree on. II. Rohr's Specific Objections. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S FINDINGS OF FACT ROHR' S OBJECTION AND SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS A. Procedural History 4 1. On May 1, 2025, Appellant submitted a General Petition for Appeal of Decisions by Planning Director or Public Works Director to the Board of Appeals, County of Hawai'i ("Board") appealing the Planning Director's Special Management Area exemption determination and a related building permit issued by the Public Works Director. Appellant amended the Petition to separate the Planning Director and Public Works Director appeals. 5 Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 1 does not accurately reflect the procedural history that explains why there are two related cases. Racnrd fni-te- l.On May 1, 2025, Appellant Claudia Rohr filed a Petition for Appeal of a Decision by the Planning Director to issue an SMA exemption determination for a building permit, based on SMA assessment application No. PL-SAA-2025-000280, and a Decision by the Department of Public Works Director to issue Building Permit No. PW. B2024- 005123 before the Planning Director's exemption determination was made. By Letter dated May 7, 2025, Appellant was informed by the Board's staff that her Petition was defective, that a General Petition can be filed to appeal a Director's decision of the Planning Department or the Department of Public Works, in the singular. Appellant was instructed to correct a defective petition by filing separate petitions within 30 days. On May 31, 2025, Appellant Rohr filed her Amended Petition in case No.PL-BOA- 2025-000119, appealing the Decision by the Planning Director to issue a SMA exemption determination based on SMA assessment application PL-SAA-2025- 000280 and attached building plans that lacked an off-street parking plan to the standards STVRs are required to construct. Rohr opened a new case on EPIC and filed a separate Petition appealing the Director of Public Works' decision as case No.PL- ROA-2025-000121. 2. The Planning Director filed the Record on Appeal on June 16, 2025, to which Appellant objected on June 24, 2025. 3. By Order Granting Continuance of Hearing dated July 21, 2025, the hearing date was continued from September 12, 2025, to November 13, 2025, at the request of the Planning Director. 4. Following a pre -hearing conference held on September 30, 2025, Appellant and the Planning Director both prepared for the scheduled November hearing by filing their respective Exhibit Lists, Witness Lists, Briefs and Legal Memorandums in accordance with the BOA's Scheduling Order dated September 30, 2025. 6 Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 2 is not a finding of "Basic fact" that supports a finding of Ultimate facts, and the statement does not inform the parties or the court the material facts upon which the BOA relies to grant a Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Standing. Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 3 is not a finding of "Basic facts" that supports a finding of Ultimate facts relating to standing, and the statement does not inform the parties or the court of the material facts upon which the BOA relies to grant a Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Standing. Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 4 does not accurately reflect the procedural history that explains that the Landowner's Legal Memo on lack of standing and the Planning Director's Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Standing were filed months after the due date in the scheduling order. [See, Exhibit B.] Record facts: 4. Chair Lewis issued an October 1, 2025 Scheduling Order that provided: The hearing in this matter will commence before the Board on Friday, November 14, 2025, at 9: 30 a.m., at the Hilo County Council Chambers, Suite 1401, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720. Dispositive motions shall be served upon the opposing party and filed with the Board no later than October 24, 2025, by 4:30 p.m. The form and service of any dispositive motion shall be made in accordance with Board Rule 3-1. Any memorandum in opposition to any dispositive motion shall be served upon the 5. The November 13, 2025, BOA hearing was cancelled due to lack of quorum and the hearing was continued until January 9, 2026, by notice dated November 12, 2025. 6. On December 29, 2025, the BOA staff reminded the Appellant of the need to send and file proof of the BOA Rule 8-11(d) required notice to surrounding property owners. 7. On January 2, 2026, Appellant filed a Second Amended Petition, to which the Planning Director objected on January 5, 2026. 7 opposing party and filed with the Board no later than October 31, 2025, by 4:30 p.m., and shall be made in accordance with Board Rule 3-12. None of the parties filed any dispositive motions by October 24, 2025. Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 5 does not accurately reflect the procedural history. [See, Exhibit C.] Moreover, Fact 3 is not a finding of "Basic facts" that supports a finding of Ultimate facts that relates to standing, and the statement does not inform the parties or the court of the material facts upon which the BOA relies to grant a Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Standing. Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 6 does not accurately reflect the procedural history. [See, Exhibit D.] It is prejudicial. Fact 6 is not a finding of "Basic facts" that supports a finding of Ultimate facts that relates to standing, and the statement does not inform the parties or the court of the material facts upon which the BOA relies to grant a Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Standing. Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 7 does not accurately reflect the procedural history, [See, Exhibits B and E.] DCC Jean Campbell's unfounded objections manipulated the Chair into arbitrarily stripping Rohr of a specific right to amend her pleadings up to seven -days before a future hearing granted to every other party by BOA Rule 2-4(f). Record facts: January 2, 2026, seven (7) days prior to the January 9, 2026 hearing, Rohr timely filed a 8. By Order for Continuance and Amended Scheduling Order dated January 6, 2026, the Board Chairperson allowed the filing of the Second Amended Petition and continued the hearing date until March 13, 2026, due to the Appellant's failure to send the BOA Rule 8-11(d) notice to Second Amended Petition on Appeal permitted under BOA Rul Rule 2-4(f). January 5, 2026, Jean Campbell, counsel for the Planning Director objected to the second amended petition by email, claiming: No additional filings are permitted by either the Scheduling Order or the BOA Rules of Practice and Procedure. No procedural rule allows for this filing nor does it recite any authority by which it may be filed, thus i[t] must be rejected in its entirety and disregarded by the BOA. Rohr responded by pointing out BOA Rule 2-4(f). [Exhibit E.] Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 8 does not accurately reflect the procedural history, [See, Exhibits C, D and E.] See, Rohr's objection #6 for reason why Rohr's "failure" mail notices to the surrounding neighbors was excuseable. surrounding property owners and allowed Fact 8 is prejudicial and not probative to the the parties additional time to respond to the issue of standing. Second Amended Petition. 8 Record facts: January 6, 2026, Chair Lewis entered Order for Continuance and Amended Scheduling Order, providing: 1. The hearing in this matter will commence before the Board on March 13, 2026, at 9: 30 a.m., at the Hilo County Council Chambers, Suite 1401, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720. 2. The Second Amended Petition filed on January 2, 2026, is 9. On March 5, 2026, Appellant filed a Supplemental Pre -Hearing Brief. On March 9, 2026, Appellant made a motion to consolidate the hearings on the appeals from the Planning Director's determination and the Public Works Director's decision, which the Board Chairperson denied. 10. On March 10, 2026, Appellant requested a continuance of the scheduled March 13, 2026, hearing date, to which the Planning Director did not object. On March 12, 2026, the Board Chairperson continued the hearing until May 15, 2026. N hereby allowed. Any further amendment to the petition will not be entertained. If desired by any party, either party shall serve upon the opposing party and file with the Board any legal memoranda or pre -hearing brief based on the Second Amended Petition no later than March 2, 2026, by 4:30 p.m. 4. Appellant's request to switch agenda items for the January 9, 2026, hearing date is now moot, and hereby denied. Appellant is ordered to mail a notice of the new hearing date to all persons required to be notified in accordance with Board of Appeals Rule 8-11( d). If the Board is unable to hold the contested hearing on March 13, 2026, Appellant shall re- issue the required notice for any subsequent date in accordance with Board of Appeals Rule 8-11(d). Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 9 does not accurately reflect the procedural history. The Director and the Landowner could have filed a Supplemental Prehearing Brief and argued a lack of standing, but did not do so. Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 10 does not accurately reflect the procedural history, Record facts: Chair had continued related case No. PL- BOA-2025-000121 to May and Rohr requested a continuance of the March 13, 2026 hearing so the two related cases could be heard the same day and go up through the courts together. 11. On March 16, 2026, Landowner Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 11, objected to the continuance. On May 5, without more, does not create a finding of 2026, Landowner filed a legal statement Basic facts supporting a finding of Ultimate objecting to Appellant's lack of standing. facts related to standing. The statement does not inform the parties or the court of the material facts upon which the BOA relied to grant a Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Standing. 12. On May 8, 2026, the Planning Director Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 12 filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of does not accurately reflect the procedural Standing and an Amended Motion to history. Dismiss for Lack of Standing. Record facts: The Director's Motion was served on the parties by email, but the Director did not file the Motion on EPIC. The Board of Appeals and the Chair were silent until May 12, 2026 when the Board staff acknowledged the Motion and filed it on EPIC. 13. On May 12, 2026, Appellant filed a Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 13 Memorandum in Opposition. does not accurately reflect the procedural history. Record facts: Rohr filed a Memorandum in Opposition and withdrew the Memorandum in Opposition just hours later, the same day after discovering the ICA's March 30, 2026 Memorandum Opinion in Ford v. Board of Appeals, Nos. CAAP-25-0000004, CAAP- 25-0000005, reversing the circuit court's ruling that the Board of Appeals was not authorized to consider dispositive motions. 10 14. On May 15, 2026, the hearing began as scheduled at 9:30 a.m. At 10:03 a.m., Appellant filed a Draft Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. The Board paused the hearing to read Appellant's Draft Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. The Board heard oral arguments and presentation of evidence and testimony on the Motion to Dismiss at the Hilo Council Chambers with a quorum of Board Members present. Ms. Claudia Rohr appeared as the Appellant. Mr. Richard Standke appeared as the Landowner. Jean K. Campbell, Deputy Corporation Counsel, appeared on behalf of the Planning Director. B. Factual Findings 15. The property at issue is located at 14 Oe Oe Street, Keaukaha, South Hilo and is identified by Tax Map Key Parcel No. (3) 2-1-018:013. The property is owned by Mr. Richard and Ms. Deborah Standke (collectively, "Landowner") 16. On April 11, 2025, the Planning Director issued an exemption determination in response to Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit Assessment Application (PL-SAA 2025-000280) finding that the home improvement construction project, composed primarily of the construction of an internal staircase and the addition of an external lanai, proposed by Landowner was exempt from SMA approval requirements. Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 14 does not accurately reflect the procedural history. Record facts: The Chair gave the Director's counsel and Rohr each five minutes for oral arguments. The Director's counsel was given two minutes in rebuttal. The Landowner was given a few minutes to give oral argument and Rohr was given one minute to respond. The Chair closed the arguments and did not ask the Board Members if they had any questions for the parties. There was no time allotted for examining witnesses or for presentation of evidence. The hearing was not an evidentiary hearing. Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 15 is in error. Record facts: The property is located at 14 Oeoe St., Waiuli, Waiakea, Hilo, Hawaii, identified by Tax Map Key No. (3) 2-1-018:013. Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 16 provides an inaccurate characterization of the building plans and the use of the property. Record facts: 14 Oeoe St. is not and has never been the Standkes' home. The Standkes live in California. Someone locally manages the short-term vacation rental. [Testimony of 11 Rohr in response to Mr. Standke's oral argument at hearing.] The Second Amended Petition alleges: Richard and Deborah Standke have non- conforming use certificates to operate non - hosted short- term vacation rentals ( STVR) at 14 Oeoe Street ( four bedrooms for 12- persons, four parking spaces) and 16 Oeoe Street (five bedrooms for 16 persons, seven stacked parking spaces), with vehicles that back out onto Oeoe Street or back into side - by -side driveways because there is not enough off-street parking area to turn round. The Standkes advertise their transient accommodation rentals together on their own website and suggest you book more than one. https:// hilovacationhomes. com/ In this case, adding a 240 SF [covered] lanai and a 240 SF covered deck will expand the property's capacity to hold gatherings and parties, drawing even more vehicles to Oeoe Street, with cumulative and significant adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood..." [page 1.] There is no parking layout that shows individually accessible parking spaces reached from a driveway of proper design and width to allow for passage of vehicles and necessary turning movements, [page 4, #I -a.] The Planning Director erred by treating the subject property as a single-family residence. [page 4, #I-b The proposed addition of a covered deck and a new enclosed stairway will increase the building footprint and will occupy a greater area of land than what is existing. [page 5, #3.] 12 The Planning Director approved an exemption for development that increases the capacity of the transient accommodation to hold gatherings and parties at 14 Oeoe Street. On -street parking and egress issues at 14 Oeoe Street are directly traceable to the transient accommodation guests. The guests often arrive in large groups that drive in separate vehicles. The vehicles backing into 14 Oeoe Street or into the driveway cause cumulative impact and/or significant adverse effects on the surrounding community— blocking vehicles turning onto Oeoe Street from Kalaianaole Street, creating tsunami evacuation congestion, diminished fire protection and access to other emergency services; and unsafe conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians. [page 6.] The Standkes rent out their 14 Oeoe Street "beach house" to groups of 12 individuals using their own website and an independent, Al driven, online registration platform which does not require or verify that the group reservation is for a single family. [page 9.] 17. Ms. Claudia Rohr ("Appellant") resides I Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 17 is at 369 Nene Street on property identified by Tax Map Key Parcel No. (3) 2-1-018-005, the eastern boundary of which is approximately 210 feet from the western boundary of the subject property. Appellant alleges that she relies on Oe Oe Street to walk to nearby beach parks and to receive emergency services at her residence. See Second Amended Petition. Appellant also alleges concern for the ability of the public to evacuate from nearby beach parks in the event of a tsunami. an inaccurate representation of Rohr's pleadings. The Second Amended Petition alleges: My east property boundary, TMK ( 3)- 2- 1- 018- 005, is 210 feet from the west property boundary of TMK 3-2-1-18-13. I rely on Oeoe Street to take my walks down to Leleiwi and Richardson's beaches, to access my driveway at 369 Nene Street, and to receive emergency services, including fire trucks that hook up to a fire hydrant on the corner of Oeoe Street and Kalanianaole 13 Street. [page 1. 18. Oe Oe Street, and surrounding neighborhood streets, are used by the public for overflow parking to access nearby beach parks. 19. The most direct route from Hilo, the origin of emergency services, to Appellant's residence does not utilize Oe Oe Street. The emergency evacuation route from Appellant's residence to safety does not utilize Oe Oe Street. Appellant may access nearby beach parks by using Oe Oe Street, and other neighborhood streets. By failing to address and enforce the Landowners' violations of the zoning code and other State laws at the SMA review stage, the Planning Director violated the Special Management Area policy for managing development: HRS §205A-2(c) (7)(A): "Use, implement, and enforce existing law effectively to the maximum extent possible in managing present and future coastal zone development." [page 4, #1.] Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 18 assumes facts not in evidence and contradicts the Second Amended Petition allegations: On -street parking and egress issues at 14 Oeoe Street are directly traceable to the transient accommodation guests. The guests often arrive in large groups that drive in separate vehicles. The vehicles backing into 14 Oeoe Street or into the driveway cause cumulative impact and/or significant adverse effects on the surrounding community— blocking vehicles turning onto Oeoe Street from Kalaianaole Street, creating tsunami evacuation congestion, diminished fire protection and access to other emergency services; and unsafe conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians. [page 6.] Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 19 contradicts the Second Amended Petition factual allegations that the Board must assume "as true and construe [them] in the light most favorable to [Rohr]", as follows: I rely on Oeoe Street to take my walks down to Leleiwi and Richardson's beaches, to access my driveway at 369 Nene Street, and to receive emergency services, including fire trucks that hook up to a fire 14 hydrant on the corner of Oeoe Street and Kalanianaole Street. [page 1, #2.] CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 20. Standing is a procedural threshold that Restrictive interpretations of standing must be satisfied before the Board may requirements imposed by an agency are not consider the merits of any case. See Public entitled to deference and may be reviewed Access Shoreline Hawaii by Rothstein v. de novo on appeal. See Public Access Hawaii Cnty. Planning Comm'n by Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawai'i Cty. Plan. Comm'n, 79 Hawai'i 425, 434, 903 P.2d Fujimoto, 79 Hawai'i 425, 431, 903 P.2d 1246, 1252 (1995) (noting "claimant had to 1246, 1255 (1995) (PASH). have standing to appeal" in order for court to have jurisdiction to decide issues presented). 21. Board of Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedures, Rule 8-2 requires that: Any person aggrieved by a final decision of the Director regarding matters within their jurisdiction, including the administration or application of the County Codes under their authority may appeal the decision to the Board. A person is aggrieved by a decision of the Director if: (1) the person has an interest in the subject matter of the decision and is so directly and immediately affected, that the person's interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public; and (2) The person is or will be adversely affected by the decision. 22. The Director's determination was made Rohr objects on the grounds that pursuant to the SMA criteria set forth in Conclusions of law #22 simply contradicts Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 205A, the Second Amended Petition allegations: which focuses on protecting shoreline environmental resources and ensuring By failing to address and enforce the Landowners' violations of the zoning code 15 public access to the shoreline. See, e.g., Haw. Rev. Stat. § 205A-2. and other State laws at the SMA review stage, the Planning Director violated the Special Management Area policy for managing development: HRS §205A- 2( c) (7)( A): "Use, implement, and enforce existing law effectively to the maximum extent possible in managing present and future coastal zone development." For example: ... [page 4, #1-a, #1-b, #1-c.] 23. An injury must be "actual or imminent, Rohr objects on the grounds that not conjectural or hypothetical." Lujan v. conclusion of law #23 is an older Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 Federal case and the Supreme Court of (1992) (citation and internal punctuation Hawai'i relies on a three-part test to omitted). "The plaintiff must show a determine injury -in -fact standing, heavily distinct and palpable injury to himself or informed by Sierra Club v. Department of herself as opposed to an alleged injury that Transportation, 167 P.3d 292, (2007). To is abstract, conjectural or merely establish individual standing, a plaintiff hypothetical." See John M. Corboy and must demonstrate three strict elements: Stephen Gara Aghjayan v. David M. Louie, Acting Attorney General, et. al., 128 Haw. Actual or Threatened Injury: The 89, 105 (citations and internal punctuation plaintiff must suffer a distinct, omitted). palpable, and concrete injury. Abstract, hypothetical, or generalized grievances do not qualify. Traceability: The injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant's challenged actions or statutory non-compliance. Redressability: The injury must be likely to be remedied, cured, or undone by the favorable court ruling requested. In Sierra Club, the court integrated specific expansions for environmental and public -interest litigation: Geographic Nexus: Plaintiffs establish a concrete injury if they use and enjoy an area (e.g., a harbor or coastline) and show a reasonable threat of environmental harm from the project. 16 Procedural Injury: A plaintiff suffers an independent injury -in -fact when an agency denies them a legally mandated procedural right, provided that the procedure protects their concrete interests. [Appellant's Draft Memorandum in Opposition, page 1.] 24. Standing exists to protect specific Rohr objects to Conclusion of Law #24 personal stakes, not to provide a forum for because it will confuse the Board. neighborhood -wide grievances. See Life of PROTECT AND PRESERVE KAHOMA the Land v. Land Use Comm'n of State of AHUPUAA ASSOCIATION V. MAUI Hawaii, 63 Haw. 166, 172, 623 P.2d 431, PLANNING COMMISSION, 489 P.3d 438 (1981) ("[T]he crucial inquiry in 408, Haw, Supreme Court (2021) is on [determining standing] is whether the point: plaintiff has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy' as to The Supreme court confirmed: warrant his invocation of ... (the court's) jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the "The ICA held that the Commission court's remedial powers on his behalf") restrictively interpreted MPC § 12-201- (citation and internal punctuation omitted). 41(b)'s standing requirements because environmental plaintiffs need not assert an injury different in kind from an injury to the public to establish standing." The ICA had ruled below: Accordingly, even under our less rigorous standing requirements in environmental cases, although a plaintiffs injury or threatened injury need not be different in kind from an injury to the public generally, a plaintiff still must demonstrate that he has suffered an injury -in -fact. See id.; see also Akau v. Olohana Corn., 65 Haw. 383, 388- 390, 652 P.2d 1130, 1134-1135 (1982) (holding "that a member of the public has standing to sue to enforce the rights of the public even though his injury is not different in kind from the public's generally, if he can show that he has suffered an injury in fact," or "some injury to a recognized interest such as economic or aesthetic, and is himself among the injured 17 25. When there are well -pleaded factual allegations, the adjudicative body should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) citing to Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50, 173 L Ed. 2d 868 (2009). 26. While an adjudicative body must take all the factual allegations in the pleadings as true, it is not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation. Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). 27. Standing also requires that the injury be within the "zone of interests" protected or and not merely airing a political or intellectual grievance"). Rohr objects to Conclusion of Law #25 on the basis of legal error. The Hawaii Supreme Court "has never adopted the Twombly/Igbal "plausibility" pleading standard, and we now expressly reject it. We reaffirm that in Hawai'i state courts, the traditional "notice" pleading standard governs. This provides citizen access to the courts and to justice. Bank of America v Reyes -Toledo, 428 P.3d 761, 764, Haw. Supreme Court (2018). Rohr objects to Conclusion of Law #26. At the pleading stage, "general factual allegations of [Rohr's] injury resulting from [the Planning Director's] conduct would suffice; for on a motion to dismiss we accept the allegations "as true and construe [them] in the light most favorable to the [petitioner]."" Casumpang v. ILWU, Local 142, 94 Hawai'i 330, 337, 13 P.3d 1235, 1242 Haw: Supreme Court (2000), quoted by Sierra Club v. Hawai'i Tourism Authority, 59 P.3d 877, Haw. Supreme Court (2002), at footnote 2. Resolving factual disputes involves a full evidentiary hearing. Dismissal is improper unless it appears beyond doubt that the Appellant can prove no set of facts in support of her claim which would entitle her to relief. Norris v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 842 P. 2d 634, at 636 - Haw- Supreme Court, 1992. Rohr objects to Conclusion of law #27. This quote from Life of the Land is more on point: 18 regulated by the relevant statute. Life of the Land, 63 Haw. at 173, 623 P.2d at 439. 28. An injury that cannot be redressed by a favorable decision is fatal to standing. See Kia`i Wai O Wai'ale'ale v. Bd. Of Land and Nat. Res., 157 Hawaii 303, 317, 576 P.3d 816, 831 (2025). 29. Appellant has not alleged facts sufficient to support a claim of an injury which so directly and immediately adversely affects herself that her interest is distinguishable from that of the general public as required by BOA Rule 8-2. Appellant's alleged injuries relating to neighborhood traffic congestion, short-term vacation rental use, and beach parking and evacuation are matters of general concern. "Complexities about standing are barriers to justice; in removing the barriers the emphasis should be on the needs of justice. One whose legitimate interest is in fact injured by illegal action of an agency or officer should have standing because justice requires that such a party should have a chance to show that the action that hurts his interest is illegal." Davis, The Liberalized Law of Standing, 37 U. of Chi.L.Rev. 450 (1970) at 473. Discussion in Life of the Land v. LAND USE COM'N, ETC., 623 P. 2d 431, at FN 8 - Haw: Supreme Court 1981 Rohr objects to Conclusion of Law #29 because this statement simply minimizes and misrepresents Rohr's pleadings and the case law on standing. The Second Amended Petition alleges: My east property boundary, TMK ( 3)- 2- 1- 018- 005, is 210 feet from the west property boundary of TMK 3-2- 1- 18- 13. I rely on Oeoe Street to take my walks down to Leleiwi and Richardson's beaches, to access my driveway at 369 Nene Street, and to receive emergency services, including fire trucks that hook up to a fire hydrant on the corner of Oeoe Street and Kalanianaole Street. Richard and Deborah Standke have non- conforming use certificates to operate non - hosted short-term vacation rentals (STVR) at 14 Oeoe Street (four bedrooms for 12 persons, four parking spaces) and 16 Oeoe Street (five bedrooms for 16 persons, seven 19 stacked parking spaces), with vehicles that back out onto Oeoe Street or back into side - by -side driveways because there is not enough off-street parking area to turn round. The Standkes advertise their transient accommodation rentals together on their own website and suggest you book more than one. https:// hilovacationhomes. com/ In this case, adding a 240 SF lanai and a 240 SF covered deck will expand the property' s capacity to hold gatherings and parties, drawing even more vehicles to Oeoe Street, with cumulative and significant adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood, requiring a SMA permit procedure and review in front of the Planning Commission [page 1, #2.] See, Preserve and Protect Kahoma Ahupua' a. 30.The Board need not accept Appellant's Rohr objects to Conclusion of Law #30. conclusionary statements that such construction would lead to increased use of At the pleading stage, the Board must the property or create neighborhood traffic accept Rohr's factual allegations as true. congestion. Casumpang v. ILWU, Local 142, 94 Hawaii 330, 337, 13 P.3d 1235, 1242 Haw: Supreme Court (2000), quoted by Sierra Club v. Hawai'i Tourism Authority, 59 P.3d 877 Haw. -Supreme Court (2002), at footnote 2. Resolving factual disputes requires a full evidentiary hearing. 31. Because Appellant's allegations of Rohr objects to Conclusion of Law #31 injury based on neighborhood traffic, short because it minimizes and misrepresents the term vacation rental usage of the subject allegations in the Second Amended property, and access to and from her Petition. residence are not pertinent to evaluation of an SMA determination, the Board cannot The Second Amended Complaint alleges: grant the relief Appellant seeks. 20 32. Having considered the testimony, facts, evidence, and arguments provided, the Board unanimously ruled that Appellant failed to plead sufficient, non -speculative facts to establish that she is an aggrieved person pursuant to BOA Rule 8-2 which requires: (1) the person has an interest in the subject matter of the decision and is so directly and immediately affected, that the person's interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public; and (2) The person is or will be adversely affected by the decision. Therefore, the Board granted the Planning Director's Motion to Dismiss. By failing to address and enforce the Landowners' violations of the zoning code and other State laws at the SMA review stage, the Planning Director violated the Special Management Area policy for managing development: HRS §205A-2(c) (7)(A): " Use, implement, and enforce existing law effectively to the maximum extent possible in managing present and future coastal zone development." [page 4, #1.] Relief Requested: Reverse the Planning Director' s decision to exempt the project and Remand PL-SAA 2025- 000280 with appropriate instructions for SMA permit procedures under PC Rule 9-11, based upon the preponderance of evidence, that: ( 1) The director erred in his decision and it is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; ( 2) The decision violated the Code and other applicable laws; and ( 3) The decision was characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. [page 3, #3.] Rohr objects to Conclusion of law #32. The Board did not unanimously rule "that Appellant failed to plead sufficient, non - speculative facts to establish that she is an aggrieved person pursuant to BOA Rule 8-2 The Record facts in the zoom transcript provided by the Board staff six days after the hearing, provide, verbatim: Rachel Abel, Vice Chair, I move to grant the Planning Department's motion to dismiss for lack of standing. In this case, It's a generalized public, One moment. cony€; This is more of a matter of construction approval in a residential, not commercial or high occupancy project. 21 Theresa€; for lack of evidence, I would say there's no expert testimony to support appellant, no factual showing that a lanai and interior staircase will cause measurable traffic congestion. [Chair Cathy Lewis]: Alright, I am going to just make a brief, you know, statement of my reasoning, I guess, and then that can bed€; Discussed by us. The motion to dismiss is based on the facts that are in the pleadings, anddf; Based on the pleadings, It appears to me that the injury that's being alleged is too speculative. And the courts have reiterated, courts that look at standing. emphasize that thatdC; and I think we have language to that degree in the briefing that, and in fact, in Ms. Rohr's memorandum as well, but those facts cannot be speculative. And I dod€; Think that it's speculative. To, to say that basically what Ms. Abel said, that the, that the building of a porch, whichd€; reaches out 12 feet, whatever. It's just too big of a leap. to say as a fact that that will do all of the things that Ms. Rohr has alleged in terms of herd€; to say as a fact that that will do all of the things that Ms. Rohr has alleged in terms of herd€ Injury. It has to be concrete, it has to be traceable. to what the, what the planning department has done, I find that traceability also to be. Speculative, at best. End transcript. The record shows that Board members Scott Martin, and John Kimura did not provide the basis of their decision to grant the Motion to Dismiss. With regard to Racheal Abel, Vice Chair's statement about there being no expert testimony, the Supreme Court has opined: 22 "[I]t is elemental that contested case hearings do not require that evidence presented to the BLNR must be in the form of an affidavit or declaration, or "attested to." Instead, under the statute, "any oral or documentary evidence may be received" unless such evidence is "irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious". HRS § 91-10. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the Wichman testimony was "irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious." The BLNR erred as a matter of law in entirely disregarding the testimony." Diamond v. Dobbin, 319 P.3d 1017, Haw. Supreme Court (2014), part D. A Motion to Dismiss is not the time to weigh evidence or decide who is telling the truth. The Board's disagreement with Rohr's facts proves that a "genuine issue of material fact" exists, which legally requires a full hearing to resolve. By diminishing Rohr's facts, her opponent, Appellee Planning Director, is improperly asking the Board to make factual findings before Rohr has had an opportunity to present witness testimony or introduce exhibits. Rohr's Second Amended Complaint, legally "stated a claim for relief', by providing "a description... of the appellant's interest in the [subject] property"—e.g. alleging the elements necessary for standing on page 1, part (2); and explaining how the decision appealed from violates the law, (starting on page 3, at part 4(A)-1, and continuing to page 9 to 4(A)- 8); which —if later proven to be true entitles Rohr to relief,. Rohr's statements were neither unsupported nor conclusory. The description of Rohr's standing comes from her own experiences over some eight years of taking walks and driving down Oeoe Street almost on a daily 23 basis. The laws discussed were applied to the facts in the SMA assessment application as represented in the building plans attached, as well as the facts in Standke's Nonconforming use application to allow for a noncomforming STVR use in a low density residential zone district; the Standke's online website; Rohr's reservation to book the Standke's side by side STVRs through an automatic Al booking engine; and personal knowledge gained from an informal fire inspection she requested to protect her family and bed and breakfast guests. The laws discussed are as follows: HRS §205A- 2(c)(7)(A); RS § 205A- 22(2); HRS § 205A- 26(2); HRS § 205A- 26(2)(C) and Zoning Code, Section 25-4-61 Continuance of nonconforming uses of land and buildings: Zoning code, Sections 25-4-16(c)(2)(C), (c)(5), and Section 25-4-54. HRS § 46-4(a); Planning Commission Rule 9-10 Assessment (b)(2); Planning Commission Rule 9-10(c)( 2); Planning Commission Rules 9-10(h)(2), (3), (4), and (10). Sierra Club v. Hawai'i Tourism Authority, 59 P.3d 877 Haw. -Supreme Court (2002), at footnote 2, provides the following regarding a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing: 24 DECISION AND ORDER Based on its consideration of the testimony, facts, evidence and arguments provided at hearing, including the Record on Appeal, the documents on file herein, and applying the reliable probative evidence and law, the Board hereby Decides and Orders as follows: At the pleading stage, "general factual allegations of [Rohr's] injury resulting from [the Planning Director's] conduct would suffice; for on a motion to dismiss we accept the allegations "as true and construe [them] in the light most favorable to the [petitioner]."" Casumpang v. ILWU, Local 142, 94 Hawai'i 330, 337, 13 P.3d 1235, 1242 Haw: Supreme Court (2000). Resolving factual disputes involves a full evidentiary hearing. Dismissal is improper unless it appears beyond doubt that the Appellant can prove no set of facts in support of her claim which would entitle her to relief. NorrisV. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 842 P. 2d 634, at 636 - Haw- Supreme Court, 1992. Rohr objects to this section of the decision because it fraudulently misrepresents that there was a full evidentiary hearing on May 15, 2026, and that the Director presented testimony and "reliable probative evidence." The Director was not present, the Director's counsel has yet to present any documentary evidence for Rohr to rebut, and counsel's oral legal argument is not testimony. Rohr was only given 5 minutes for oral legal argument, and no time was scheduled for examining witnesses or presenting evidence. See zoom transcript. A Motion to Dismiss is not the time to weigh evidence or decide who is telling the truth. The disagreement with Rohr's facts 25 that a "genuine issue of material Appellant failed to plead sufficient, non - speculative facts to establish standing as required by BOA Rule 8-2. Specifically, Appellant provided no evidence that the construction project proposed at the subject property will cause her an injury "clearly distinguishable from that of the general public" and has provided only unsupported conclusionary legal arguments. Because Appellant's claims are speculative and consist only of generalized grievances unrelated to the Special Management Area criteria underlying the Director's exemption determination, the Appellant lacks standing and the Board lacks the authority to fact" exists, which legally requires a full hearing to resolve. By diminishing Rohr's facts, her opponents are improperly asking the Board to make factual findings before Rohr has had an opportunity to present witness testimony or introduce exhibits. See, HRS section 91-10 with respect to evidence adduced in contested case hearings. See, Diamond v. Dobbin, 319 P.3d 1017, Haw. Supreme Court (2014), at part XII-D. At the pleading stage, "general factual allegations of [Rohr's] injury resulting from [the Planning Director's] conduct in Rohr's petition would suffice; for on a motion to dismiss we accept the allegations "as true and construe [them] in the light most favorable to the [petitioner]."" Casumpang v. ILWU, Local 142, 94 Hawai'i 330, 337, 13 P.3d 1235, 1242 Haw: Supreme Court (2000). Resolving factual disputes involves a full evidentiary contested case hearing. Rohr objects to this section of the decision because it simply disagrees with Rohr's pleadings and as such does not prove the absence of an element of standing. Rohr's Second Amended Complaint fulfilled all of the Board's petition requirements pursuant BOA Rule 8-4 General Petition; Form and Contents; and qualifies for the Board's review of Rohr's appeal under "notice pleading" standards. The Second Amended Complaint legally "stated a claim for relief" based on standing by providing the required "description ... of the appellant's interest in the property." 26 overturn the Planning Director's determination. On page 1 and continuing to page 2 of the Second Amended Petition, Rohr alleged facts establishing a concrete interest due to a geographic nexus of her property to the Standke's property, her use of Oeoe St. for access to her driveway, for fire services that hook up to a fire hydrant on the corner of Oeoe St. and Kalanianaole St.; and for walking to Waiuli and Richardson's beaches. [page 1.] Rohr alleged facts of a threatened injury in fact —the potential for bodily injury and property damage from hazardous road conditions on Oeoe St. —cars backing out onto Oeoe St. with poor visibility, stacking parked cars that hang over the property boundary and block the road right-of-way Rohr uses to pass an oncoming vehicle safely; and block the ten -foot wide paved travel way that heavy fire service vehicles cannot or should not leave. Rohr's Second Amended Petition attempts to explain the mechanics and traceability of Rohr's threatened injury in fact from hazardous road conditions on Oeoe St. to the Planning Director's failure to precondition acceptance of the Standke's SMA assessment application by requiring the inclusion of the layout of sufficient off- street parking spaces and room for cars to turn around on the Building plan's site plan to see if it will all fit --not only providing sufficient parking for the number of guests the Standke's book into their STVR, but also to accommodate non -guests invited to social gatherings that the covered deck and covered lanai will accommodate. [page 1 and part (4)(A)(1)(a) on page 4when read together.] The Second Amended petition fulfills the Board Rule requirement to make a statement explaining how the decision appealed from violates the law at part 27 (4)(A), starting at the bottom of page 3 and continuing through page 9. These are not mere conclusory legal statements. The laws that the Director's decision violated were applied to the facts in the SMA assessment application and the attached building plans, as well as the facts in Standke's Nonconforming Use Certificate Renewal application(s) allowing for STVR use in the low density residential zone, the Standkes' online website for side by side STVRs, Rohr's reservation confirmation when she booked the Standkes' side by side STVRs through an automatic AT booking engine, personal knowledge gained from an informal fire inspection she requested to protect her family and bed and breakfast guests, and from observations over some eight years of taking walks and driving down Oeoe Street. Rohr's Second Amended Petition follows the Board's procedures and makes a statement explaining how the decision appealed from violates the law, which -if later proven to be true —entitles Rohr to relief, (starting on page 3, at part 4(A)-1, and continuing to page 9 to 4(A)-8). Rohr's statements were neither unsupported nor conclusory. The description of Rohr's standing comes from her own experiences over some eight years of taking walks and driving down Oeoe Street. The laws discussed were applied to the facts in the SMA assessment application as represented in the building plans attached, as well as the facts in Standke's Nonconforming use renewal certificate allowing for STVR use, the Standke's online website, Rohr's reservation to book the Standke's side by side STVRs through an automatic AI booking engine, personal knowledge gained from an informal fire inspection she requested to protect her family and bed and breakfast guests, and observations over 28 some eight years of taking walks and driving down Oeoe Street. The Planning Director's Motion to Dismiss The Board's decision was made upon case Claudia Rohr v. Jeffrey W. Darrow, "unlawful procedure" and was "arbitrary, or Planning Director and Richard and Deborah capricious, or characterized by abuse of Standke (PL-BOA-2025-000119) is discretion" under HRS § 91-14(g)(6) GRANTED. The above -captioned Board of Appeals case is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety. III. ROHR'S SUPPLEMENTARY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural Back rg ound 1. On May 1, 2025, Appellant Claudia Rohr filed a General Petition for Appeal, concerning TMK (3)2-1-18-13, 14 Oeoe St., Hilo, challenging a Decision by the Planning Director regarding SMA assessment application No. PL-SAA-2025-000280 that a building permit application was an exempt action under HRS section 205A-22(2) and included a necessary party and Decision by the Department of Public Works Director to issue Building Permit No. PW. B2024- 005123. 1. By Letter dated May 7, 2025, Appellant was informed by the Board's staff that her Petition was defective, that a General Petition can be filed to appeal a Director's decision of the Planning Department or the Department of Public Works, in the singular. Appellant was instructed to correct a defective petition by filing separate petitions within 30 days. 2. On May 31, 2025, Appellant Rohr filed her Amended Petition in original case No. PL- BOA-2025-000119, which was acknowledged as complete and accepted by the Board by Letter dated June 3, 2025. Appellant opened a new case on EPIC, case No.PL-ROA-2025- 000121, and filed a separate Petition appealing the Decision by the Department of Public 29 Works Director to issue Building Permit No. PW. B2024-005123 with an owner/builder waiver for a STVR before the Planning Director's exemption determination was made ("related cases") 3. Chair Cathy Lewis issued an October 1, 2025 Scheduling Order that provided: The hearing in this matter will commence before the Board on Friday, November 14, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., at the Hilo County Council Chambers, Suite 1401, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720. Dispositive motions shall be served upon the opposing party and filed with the Board no later than October 24, 2025, by 4:30 p.m. The form and service of any dispositive motion shall be made in accordance with Board Rule 3-1. Any memorandum in opposition to any dispositive motion shall be served upon the opposing party and filed with the Board no later than October 31, 2025, by 4:30 p.m., and shall be made in accordance with Board Rule 3-12. [Exhibit A.] 4. Appellant and the Planning Director both prepared for the scheduled November hearing by filing their respective Exhibit Lists, Witness Lists, Briefs and Legal Memorandums in accordance with the schedule. 5. Landowner Richard R. Standke ("Landowner") did not file anything in preparation of the scheduled November 14, hearing. 6. None of the parties filed dispositive motions by October 31, 2025. 7. November 12, 2025, by Notice of Chair Lewis, the public hearing scheduled by the County of Hawai'i Board of Appeals for Friday, November 14, 2025, was canceled "due to lack of quorum. The Board is tentatively scheduled to meet on Friday, December 12, 2025." [Exhibit B.] The hearing was then continued to January 9, 2026. 8. January 2, 2026, seven (7) days prior to the January 9, 2026 rescheduled hearing, Rohr timely filed a Second Amended Petition on Appeal permitted under BOA Rule 2-4(f). 30 9. Appellant's Second Amended Petition's description of Rohr's "interest in the property" (standing) was as follows: The property involved is TMK (3)2-1-18-13, 14 Oeoe Street, Hilo, Hawai'i 96720. The owners are Richard and Deborah Standke. My east property boundary, TMK (3)-2-1-018-005, is 210 feet from the west property boundary of TMK 3-2-1-18-13. I rely on Oeoe Street to take my walks down to Leleiwi and Richardson's beaches, to access my driveway at 369 Nene Street, and to receive emergency services, including fire trucks that hook up to a fire hydrant on the corner of Oeoe Street and Kalanianaole Street. Richard and Deborah Standke have nonconforming use permits to operate non - hosted short-term vacation rentals (STVR) at 14 Oeoe Street (four bedrooms for 12-persons, four parking spaces) and 16 Oeoe Street (five bedrooms for 16 persons, seven stacked parking spaces), with vehicles that back out onto Oeoe Street through side -by -side driveways because there is not enough off-street parking area to turn round. The Standkes advertise their transient accommodation rentals together on their own website and suggest you book more than one. https:Hhilovacationhomes.com/ In this case, adding a 240 SF lanai and a 240 SF covered deck will expand the property's capacity to hold gatherings and parties, drawing even more vehicles to Oeoe Street, with cumulative and secondary effects on the surrounding neighborhood requiring a SMA permit procedure. [pages 1-2.] Relief Requested: Reverse the Planning Director's decision to exempt the project and Remand PL-SAA 2025-000280 with appropriate instructions for SMA permit procedures under PC Rule 9-11, based upon the preponderance of evidence, that: (1) The director erred in his decision and it is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; (2) The decision violated the Code and other applicable laws; and (3) The decision was characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. [page 3.] By failing to address and enforce the Landowners' violations of the zoning code and other State laws at the SMA review stage, the Planning Director violated the Special Management Area policy for managing development: HRS §205A- 2(c)(7)(A): "Use, implement, and enforce existing law effectively to the maximum extent possible in managing present and future coastal zone development." For example: 31 There is no parking layout that shows individually accessible parking spaces reached from a driveway of proper design and width to allow for passage of vehicles and necessary turning movements, in violation of the parking standards for STVRs, Zoning code, Sections 25-4- 16(c)(2)(C), (c)(5), and Section 25-4-54. [page 4, #1.] The lack of an off-street parking plan at the subject property creates ingress/egress and on -street parking issues causing dangerous road conditions with cumulative and significantly adverse effects on the social welfare, activities and walkability of the community. [page 6, #4.] On -street and off-street parking and egress issues at 14 Oeoe Street are directly traceable to the transient accommodation guests. The guests often arrive in large groups that drive in separate vehicles. Too many vehicles backing out onto Oeoe Street causes significant adverse effects on the surrounding community— blocking vehicles turning onto Oeoe Street from Kalaianaole Street, creating a dangerous road condition, tsunami evacuation congestion, diminished fire protection and access to other emergency services, and unsafe conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians. [page 6, #5.] Rohr will suffer an actual or threatened injury from increased hazardous road conditions on Oeoe St., traceable to the Planning Director's issuance of an exemption determination allowing a building permit proceed without a condition that off-street parking to the standards that STVRs require, be put on the building plans and be constructed. By failing to address and enforce the Landowners' violations of the zoning code and other State laws at the SMA review stage, the Planning Director violated the Special Management Area policy for managing development: HRS §205A-2(c)(7)(A): "Use, implement, and enforce existing law effectively to the maximum extent possible in managing present and future coastal zone development." 10. January 6, 2026, Chair Lewis entered Order for Continuance and Amended Scheduling Order, providing: 1. The hearing in this matter will commence before the Board on March 13, 2026, at 9: 30 a.m., at the Hilo County Council Chambers, Suite 1401, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720. 2. The Second Amended Petition filed on January 2, 2026, is hereby 32 allowed. Any further amendment to the petition will not be entertained. 3. If desired by any party, either party shall serve upon the opposing party and file with the Board any legal memoranda or Pre - hearing brief based on the Second Amended Petition no later than March 2, 2026, by 4:30 p.m. 4. Appellant's request to switch agenda items for the January 9, 2026, hearing date is now moot, and hereby denied. Appellant is ordered to mail a notice of the new hearing date to all persons required to be notified in accordance with Board of Appeals Rule S- 11( d). If the Board is unable to hold the contested hearing on March 13, 2026, Appellant shall re -issue the required notice for any subsequent date in accordance with Board of Appeals Rule 8-11(d). 11. March 2, 2026 Rohr filed her Supplemental Prehearing Brief explaining her amendment in the Second Amended Petition. 12. The Planning Director and the Landowner did not file a Supplemental Prehearing Brief based on the Second Amended Petition. 13. On March 10, 2026, Appellant requested a continuance of the scheduled March 13, 2026, hearing date so the two related cases could be heard on the same day and go up the court system together, to which the Planning Director did not object. On March 12, 2026, the Board Chairperson continued the hearing until May 15, 2026. 14. April 22, 2026, Board staff emailed the May 15, 2026 Agenda to Rohr, and on April 23, 2026, Appellant Rohr timely mailed her Notice to Surrounding neighbors; and on April 24 Rohr submitted proof of mailing by email to the Board and all parties. 15. The Landowner sent an April 28, 2026 email to the Board of Appeals email only summarizing his Standing argument, and did not serve it on the other parties or file it on EPIC. 33 16. May 5, 2026, Board Staff forwarded the Landowner's email with his lack of standing argument and filed it in the Board packet as "2026-4-28 Legal Brief from Landowner Richard R. Standke." 17. May 8, 2026, the Planning Director's counsel emailed Motion to Dismiss and Amended Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Standing based on the pleadings seven - days before the May 15, 2026 scheduled hearing. 18. The Chairperson was silent. 19. May 11, 2026, the Appellee Director of Public Works' counsel, in related case No. PL- BOA-2025-000121 emailed the Director of Public Works's Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Standing four -days before the May 15, 2026 scheduled hearing. 20. May 11, 2026 Appellant Rohr emailed Chair Cathy Lewis a letter and Amended Letter, which read: For some reason the Appellees or their counsels in case Nos. PL-BOA-2025 000191 and 121 want you to continue the hearings scheduled for Friday by their actions. Since I prefer communication in writing, because of my hearing disability, I do not object to you continuing the hearings in Cases Nos. PL-BOA-2025-000191 and 121 to the July meeting in Hilo so I have a meaningful opportunity to respond to the Appellees' motion papers. 21. May 12, 2026, Corp. Counsel Jean Campbell and Corp. Counsel Sinclair SalasFurguson, counsels for County Appellees in case Nos. PL-BOA-2025 000191 and 121, responded to Rohr's May 11, 2026 Letter and vigorously objected to a continuance; and 16 minutes later, without waiting for Rohr's response to the objections, Chair Lewis responded by email through DCC Sylvia Wan, which read: To the extent that a request for continuance was made, Chair Lewis is denying a continuance of the PL-BOA 2025-000119 and PL-BOA-2025-000121. The 34 contested hearing date shall remain scheduled for this Friday, May 15, 2026. 22. The Chair began the May 15, 2026 hearing by having the Board members read Appellant's Draft Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss before oral arguments began. 23. The Chair gave the Director's counsel and Rohr each five minutes for oral arguments. The Director's counsel was given an additional two minutes for rebuttal. The Landowner was given time to give oral argument and Rohr was given one minute to respond to the Landowner. The Chair closed the oral arguments and did not ask the Board Members if they had any questions for the parties. 24. There was no time allotted for examining witnesses or for presentation of evidence. The May 15, 2026 hearing was not an evidentiary hearing. 25. Pursuant to BOA Rule 3-12 Motions. (a) Timing. Motions may be made before, during, or after a hearing. (b) Form and Contents. Any motion, other than one made during a hearing, shall be made in writing to the Board and shall state the relief sought and shall be accompanied by an affidavit or legal memorandum setting forth the grounds upon which the motion is based. (c) Service of Motions. The moving party shall serve a copy of all motion documents on all other parties and shall file them with the Board with proof of service. (d) Memorandum in Opposition. A memorandum in opposition or counter affidavit shall be served on all parties and the memorandum and proof of service shall be filed with the Board as required by the Scheduling Order or for matters with no Scheduling Order, within ten (10) days after being served with the motion. The presiding officer may order the memorandum in opposition to be filed at a time other than the ten (10) day period. (e) Waiver. Failure to serve or file a memorandum in opposition to a motion or failure to appear at the hearing may be deemed a waiver of objection to the granting or denial of the motion. A party who does not oppose the motion shall promptly notify the presiding officer and opposing counsel or party. 35 (f) Ruling. All motions that involve a final determination of the proceeding shall be voted and ruled on by the Board. The presiding officer may rule on non-dispositive motions in accordance with Section 3-1(b) of these Rules. 22. The Chair did not make an Order reducing the time for Rohr to file a Memorandum in Opposition to the Director's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing under BOA Rule 3-12(d). 23. According to BOA Rule 3-12(d), Appellant had until May 18, 2026 to file a Memorandum in Opposition in response to Appellee Planning Director's Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Standing. 24. Appellant did not agree to waive any of the Board's rules. 25. At the May 15, 2026 hearing, the Chair gave the Director's counsel and Rohr each five minutes for oral arguments. The Director's counsel was given two minutes in rebuttal. The Landowner was given a few minutes to give oral argument and Rohr was given one minute to respond. There was no time allotted for examining witnesses or for presentation of evidence. 26. Rohr requested that the Board Members deny the Motion to Dismiss and hold the contested case hearing. 27. The Chair closed the arguments and did not ask the Board Members if they had any questions for the parties. Chair called for a motion. 28. Vice Chair Rachel Abel moved to grant the Planning Department's motion to dismiss for lack of standing. She reasoned that this case is more of a matter of construction approval in a residential, not commercial or high -occupancy project. There is a lack of evidence. There is no expert testimony to support the appellant, and no factual showing that 36 a lanai and interior staircase will cause measurable traffic congestion. The motion was seconded. 29. Chair Cathy Lewis gave a brief statement of her reasoning. She reasoned that the injury that is being alleged is too speculative. Chair found it too big of a leap to say as a fact that the building of a porch, which; reaches out 12 feet, will do all of the things that Rohr has alleged in terms of injury. "It has to be concrete; it has to be traceable to what the planning department has done." Chair found traceability also to be speculative. 30. None of the other three Board members shared their reasoning for their decision. No one acknowledged the lack of off-street parking on the building plans that was the basis for Rohr's appeal. Without further discussion, the Board members voted unanimously to agree to grant the Planning Director's Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Standing. I. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (1) Violation of Due Process; Capricious Act; Abuse of Authority Unlawful Procedure. Pursuant to Board of Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedure ("BOA Rules"), Rule 1-2 Construction of Rules: (a) Just and Efficient Construction. These rules shall be construed to secure the just and efficient determination of every proceeding. (b) Rules to be Read in Conjunction. The rules set forth in Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 of these Rules of Practice and Procedure are applicable to all proceedings conducted before the Board and should be read in conjunction with the part governing the particular proceeding. (c) Conflicting Rules. When there is a conflict between a general rule in Parts 1, 2, 3, or 4 and a special rule in another part, the special rule shall govern. 2. Pursuant to BOA Rule 3-1, the presiding officer has the power to "order and manage" the proceedings. 37 3. Pursuant to BOA Rule 3-12 Motions. (a) Timing. Motions may be made before, during, or after a hearing. (b) Form and Contents. Any motion, other than one made during a hearing, shall be made in writing to the Board and shall state the relief sought and shall be accompanied by an affidavit or legal memorandum setting forth the grounds upon which the motion is based. (c) Service of Motions. The moving party shall serve a copy of all motion documents on all other parties and shall file them with the Board with proof of service. (d) Memorandum in Opposition. A memorandum in opposition or counter affidavit shall be served on all parties and the memorandum and proof of service shall be filed with the Board as required by the Scheduling Order or for matters with no Scheduling Order, within ten (10) days after being served with the motion. The presiding officer may order the memorandum in opposition to be filed at a time other than the ten (10) day period. (e) Waiver. Failure to serve or file a memorandum in opposition to a motion or failure to appear at the hearing may be deemed a waiver of objection to the granting or denial of the motion. A party who does not oppose the motion shall promptly notify the presiding officer and opposing counsel or party. (f) Ruling. All motions that involve a final determination of the proceeding shall be voted and ruled on by the Board. The presiding officer may rule on non-dispositive motions in accordance with Section 3-1(b) of these Rules. 4. Violation of Due Process and Rule 1-2(a): By denying Appellant's May 11, 2026 request to consider that a continuance was required by Appelle's actions, before Rohr could even respond to the Planning Director's objections, the Chair deprived the Appellant of a "just and efficient determination." A decision made without "adequate consideration of the circumstances "—including that the Planning Director filed his dispositive motion months past the Scheduling Order's due date of October 31, 2025, that there was lack of notice of a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, and the timing deprived Rohr of all but four out of the ten -days to file a memorandum in opposition by procedural right specifically granted by BOA Rule 3- 12(d)-- is the definition of an impulsive, capricious act. 38 5. Abuse of Rule 3-1(b) Authority: While Rule 3-1(b) allows the Chair to manage proceedings, this discretion is not absolute. It cannot be used to summarily strip a party of a procedural right specifically granted by another rule —BOA Rule 3-12(d). An agency abuses its discretion when it fails to follow its own rules or offers an explanation that "runs counter to the evidence." 6. By failing to follow Board Rule 3-12(d), the Chair used unlawful procedure and may have prejudiced Rohr's substantial rights —the rights she would have had as a party to the proceeding-- a contested case hearing with witness testimony, presentation of evidence, a verbatim recording —establishing a full record for an appeal to circuit court. (2) Lack of Standing 7. Board of Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedures, Rule 8-2, regarding standing, requires that: Any person aggrieved by a final decision of the Director regarding matters within their jurisdiction, including the administration or application of the County Codes under their authority may appeal the decision to the Board. A person is aggrieved by a decision of the Director if: (1) the person has an interest in the subject matter of the decision and is so directly and immediately affected, that the person's interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public; and (2) The person is or will be adversely affected by the decision. 8. The property involved is TMK (3)2-1-18-13, 14 Oeoe Street, Hilo, Hawai'i 96720. The owners are Richard and Deborah Standke. Appellant has a concrete interest in the Director's SMA exemption determination because it allows a building project to proceed without any condition for construction of off-street parking (STVRs are required to construct). Rohr's interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public by the geographic nexus of her property— Rohr's east property boundary of TMK (3)-2-1-018-005, is 210 feet 39 from the west property boundary of TMK 3-2-1-18-13. [Draft Mem. Op., page 1.1 [Sec. Am. Pt., page 1.] 9. Because Rohr relies on Oeoe Street to take her walks down to Leleiwi and Richardson's beaches, to access her driveway at 369 Nene Street, and to receive emergency services, including fire trucks that hook up to a fire hydrant on the corner of Oeoe Street and Kalanianaole Street, Rohr will suffer an actual or threatened injury in fact from any increase to the current hazardous road conditions on Oeoe St.. Future cumulative increases in hazardous road conditions on Oeoe St from cars backing out of the driveway at 14 Oeoe street will be traceable to the Planning Director's issuance of this SMA exemption determination, allowing the expansion of a nonconforming (high density) STVR use by 500 SF to proceed without a condition for off-street parking STVRs are legally required to construct. 10. Rohr injury is be likely to be remedied, cured, or undone if the Board of Appeals grants the relief requested: Reverse the Planning Director's decision to exempt the project and Remand PL-SAA 2025-000280 with appropriate instructions for SMA permit procedures under PC Rule 9-11, based upon the preponderance of evidence, that: (1) The director erred in his decision and it is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; (2) The decision violated the Code and other applicable laws; and (3) The decision was characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. 11. By failing to address and enforce the Landowners' violations of the off-street parking requirements for STRVs in the zoning code and Planning Department Rule 23 at the SMA review stage, the Planning Director violated the Special Management Area policy for managing development: HRS §205A-2(c)(7)(A): "Use, implement, and enforce existing law 40 effectively to the maximum extent possible in managing present and future coastal zone development." (emphasis added) The legal requirement for pleading traceability was fully satisfied. 12. When a motion to dismiss for lack of standing is based strictly on the pleadings, the Board faces a rigid legal boundary: it must accept all well -pleaded factual allegations in the Second Amended Petition as entirely true. The Board must construe the petition liberally and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiff. Casumpang v. ILWU, Local 142, 94 Hawai'i 330, 337, 13 P.3d 1235, 1242 Haw: Supreme Court (2000). Sierra Club v. Hawai'i Tourism Authority, 59 P.3d 877 Haw. -Supreme Court (2002), at footnote 2. 13. "Dismissal is improper unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Norris v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 842 P. 2d 634, at 636 - Haw- Supreme Court, 1992. 14. The Supreme Court of Hawai'i relies on a three-part test to determine injury -in -fact standing, heavily informed by Sierra Club v. Department of Transportation, 167 P.3d 292, (2007). To establish individual standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate three strict elements: • Actual or Threatened Injury: The plaintiff must suffer a distinct, palpable, and concrete injury. Abstract, hypothetical, or generalized grievances do not qualify. • Traceability: The injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant's challenged actions or statutory non-compliance. • Redressability: The injury must be likely to be remedied, cured, or undone by the favorable court ruling requested. In Sierra Club, the court integrated specific expansions for environmental and public -interest litigation: 41 Geographic Nexus: Plaintiffs establish a concrete injury if they use and enjoy an area (e.g., a harbor or coastline) and show a reasonable threat of environmental harm from the project. • Procedural Injury: A plaintiff suffers an independent injury -in -fact when an agency denies them a legally mandated procedural right, provided that the procedure protects their concrete interests. 15. By misapplying the law on standing, and diminishing Rohr's facts, her opponent, Appellee Planning Director, is improperly asking the Board to make factual findings contrary to her pleadings before Rohr has had an opportunity to present witness testimony or introduce exhibits. 16. The Board committed clear error of law by failing to presume the truth of Rohr's explicit factual allegations regarding Rohr's threatened injury in fact and its traceability to the Planning Director's failure to require off-street parking be put on the building plans and constructed as a condition of the SMA exemption; or the truth that Rohr's injury stemming from unsafe road conditions from cars backing out onto Oeoe Street that would likely to be remedied, cured, or undone if the Board of Appeals grants the relief requested. 17. The Board of Appeals erred by restrictively interpreting BOA Rule 8-2's standing requirements "because environmental plaintiffs need not assert an injury different in kind from an injury to the public to establish standing." See, PROTECT AND PRESERVE KAHOMA AHUPUAA ASSOCIATION V. MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION, 489 P.3d 408, Haw, Supreme Court (2021). See, also Akau v. Olohana Corp., 65 Haw. 383, 388-390, 652 P.2d 1130, 1134-1135 (1982) (holding "that a member of the public has standing to sue to enforce the rights of the public even though his injury is not different in kind from the public's generally, if he can show that he has suffered an injury in fact," or "some injury to a 42 recognized interest such as economic or aesthetic, and is himself among the injured and not merely airing a political or intellectual grievance" 18. Violation of Due Process and BOA Rule 1-2(a): By granting the Planning Director's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing after about 15 minutes of oral argument split between three parties, and without asking any questions, the Board deprived the Appellant of a "just and efficient determination." The Board's ruling was arbitrary and capricious because it went beyond the four corners of the pleadings, and demanded a higher standard of evidentiary proof than is required at the motion to dismiss stage. 19. The Board clearly erred, abused its discretion, and acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and in violation of the law by ruling to grant the Motion to Dismiss because it lacked a rational basis in law or the facts alleged within the four corners of the petition. The Board acted on whim or fancy by substituting its own skepticism for the specific, plausible factual assertions set forth within the Second Amended Petition. 20. Because the Complaint contains sufficient, specific factual allegations that demonstrate standing when accepted as true, the Board lacked any rational legal basis to dismiss this action, and may have prejudiced Rohr's substantial rights —the rights she would have had as a party to the proceeding-- a contested case hearing with witness testimony, presentation of evidence, a verbatim recording —establishing a full record for an appeal to circuit court. 21. Accordingly, the order granting dismissal based solely on the pleadings is unreasoning, contrary to established law, and constitutes an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion. 22. Rohr's opponent's disagreement with Rohr's facts proves that a "genuine issue of material fact" exists, which legally requires a full hearing to resolve. 43 23. Restrictive interpretations of standing requirements imposed by an agency are not entitled to deference and may be reviewed de novo on appeal. See Pub. Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawai'i Cty. Plan. Comm'n, 79 Hawai'i 425, 434, 903 P.2d 1246, 1255 (1995) (PASH). DATED: Hilo, Hawaii, June 26, 2026 Respectfully Submitted, /sl Claudia Rohr CLAUDIA ROHR, Appellant pro se 44 DECLARATION OF CLAUDIA ROHR CLAUDIA ROHR, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declares that: 1. I am the Appellant in the above -captioned case. 2. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and I am competent to so testify. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of Appellant's Second Amended Petition dated and filed January 2, 2026. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a true and correct copy of Chair Cathy Lewis' Scheduling Order dated November 14, 2025. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is a true and correct copy of Board of Appeal's Cancellation Notice downloaded from the Board's agenda file on the County of Hawaii's public documents website. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit "D" is a true and correct copy of the December 19, 2026 email from the Board of Appeals Staff with a link to an agenda notice. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit "E" is a true and correct copy of the January 5, 2026 email exchange to the Board of Appeals with the Director's objections to Appellant filing the Second Amended Petition and Rohr's response. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit "F" is a true and correct copy of the May 12, 2026 email exchange with the Planning Director's objections to the continuation of the May 15, 2026 hearing. [continued next page] 45 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED: Hilo, Hawaii, June 26, 2026 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Claudia Rohr CLAUDIA ROHR, Appellant pro se 46 Board of Appeals case No. Claudia Rohr, PL-BOA-2025-000119 SECOND AMENDED PETITION ON APPEAL (originally filed May 1, 2025) [General Petition for Appeal of a Decision by the Planning Director in PL-SAA-2025-000280] This Second Amended Petition stands alone and replaces all previous petitions. (1) The name, address, email, and telephone number of the appellant. CLAUDIA ROHR 369 Nene St. Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 Phone: (808) 640-5976 crohr4@gmail.com (2) A description of the property involved in the appeal, including the tax map key number of the property, and the appellant's interest in the property. The property involved is TMK (3)2-1-18-13, 14 Oeoe Street, Hilo, Hawai'i 96720. The owners are Richard and Deborah Standke. My east property boundary, TMK (3)-2-1-018-005, is 210 feet from the west property boundary of TMK 3-2-1-18-13. I rely on Oeoe Street to take my walks down to Leleiwi and Richardson's beaches, to access my driveway at 369 Nene Street, and to receive emergency services, including fire trucks that hook up to a fire hydrant on the corner of Oeoe Street and Kalanianaole Street. Richard and Deborah Standke have non -conforming use certificates to operate non -hosted short-term vacation rentals (STVR) at 14 Oeoe Street (four bedrooms for 12-persons, four parking spaces) and 16 Oeoe Street (five bedrooms for 16 persons, seven stacked parking spaces), with vehicles that back out onto Oeoe Street or back into side -by -side driveways because there is not enough off-street parking area to turn round. The Standkes advertise their transient accommodation rentals together on their own website and suggest you book more than one. https://hilovacationhomes.com/ In this case, adding a 240 SF lanai and a 240 SF covered deck will expand the property's capacity to hold gatherings and parties, drawing even more vehicles to Oeoe Street, with cumulative and significant adverse effects on the surrounding 1 EXHIBIT A, pg. 1 of 14 neighborhood, requiring a SMA permit procedure and review in front of the Planning Commission. Oeoe Street, Hilo, looking seaward towards Kalanianaole Street. The silver van is backing out of the driveway for 14 Oeoe Street on the left. 4 EXHIBIT A, pg. 2 of 14 Oeoe Street, Hilo, looking mauka towards Nene Street. The driveway for 14 Oeoe Street is on the right. (3) A plain statement of the nature of the appeal and the relief requested. This is an appeal of the Planning Director's April 11, 2025 letter decision to exempt the development described in PL-SAA-2025-000280 from SMA review. Exhibit A. Relief Requested: Reverse the Planning Director's decision to exempt the project and Remand PL-SAA 2025-000280 with appropriate instructions for SMA permit procedures under PC Rule 9- 11, based upon the preponderance of evidence, that: (1) The director erred in his decision and it is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; (2) The decision violated the Code and other applicable laws; and (3) The decision was characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. (4) A statement explaining (A) How the decision appealed from violates the law: 3 EXHIBIT A, pg. 3 of 14 The laws and rules that were violated are emphasized in bold and underlined: 1. By failing to address and enforce the Landowners' violations of the zoning code and other State laws at the SMA review stage, the Planning Director violated the Special Management Area policy for managing development: HRS §205A-2(c)((7)(A): "Use, implement, and enforce existing law effectively to the maximum extent possible in managing present and future coastal zone development." For example: a. There is no parking layout that shows individually accessible parking spaces reached from a driveway of proper design and width to allow for passage of vehicles and necessary turning movements, in violation of the parking standards for STVRs, Zoning code, Sections 25-4-16(c)(2)(C), (c)(5), and Section 25-4-54. b. The Planning Director erred by treating the subject property as a single-family residence. There was an amendment to HRS §46-4(a) that the Planning Director has failed to consider in his SMA assessment. In granting a SMA exemption under Planning Commission Rule 9-4(i)(2)(A), and HRS §205A- 22(2)(A), where the term ""development" does not include: "Construction or reconstruction of a single-family residence ...", the Planning Director violated HRS §46-4(a).: "...uses that include the furnishing or offering of transient accommodations shall not be considered residential or agricultural uses..." (emphasis added in bold and italics) c. Similarly, in granting a SMA exemption under Planning Commission Rule 9-4(1)(2)(0), and HRS §205A-22(2)(N), where the term "development" does not include: "Structural and non- structural improvements to existing single-family residences, where otherwise permissible", the Planning Director violated HRS §46-4(a): "...uses that include the furnishing or offering of transient accommodations shall not be considered residential or agricultural uses..." (emphasis added in bold and italics) 2. By violating the Special Management Area policy for managing development, the Planning Director violated the Special management area guidelines: HRS §205A-26(2): 0 EXHIBIT A, pg. 4 of 14 No development shall be approved unless the authority has first found: (A) That the development will not have any significant adverse environmental or ecological effect, except as any adverse effect is minimized to the extent practicable and clearly outweighed by public health, safety, or compelling public interests. Those adverse effects shall include but not be limited to the potential cumulative impact of individual developments, each of which taken by itself might not have a significant adverse effect, and the elimination of planning options; (B) That the development is consistent with the objectives, policies, and special management area guidelines of this chapter and any guidelines enacted by the legislature; (C) That the development is consistent with the county general plan, community plan, and zoning; provided that a finding of consistency shall not preclude concurrent processing where a general plan, community plan, or zoning amendment may also be required. 3. The proposed addition of a covered deck and a new enclosed stairway will increase the building footprint and will occupy a greater area of land than what is existing. In granting an exemption under HRS k205A-22(2)(N), ("Structural and nonstructural improvements to existing single-family residences, where otherwise permissible;"), the Planning Director violated the SMA guideline requiring consistency with the zoning, HRS §205A-26(2)(C) and Zoning Code, Section 25-4-61 Continuance of nonconforming uses of land and buildings: (a) Any nonconforming use of land or use of a building may continue to the extent it existed on December 7, 1996 or at the time of the adoption of any amendments to this chapter, provided that a nonconforming use may be enlarged within the building it occupies, but shall not be enlarged or increased to occupy a greater area of land, nor shall it or the portion of the building housing it be moved in whole or in part to any other portion of the building site occupied by such nonconforming use, except as provided in this division. (emphasis added in bold and italics) 5 EXHIBIT A, pg. 5 of 14 4. The lack of an off-street parking plan at the subject property creates ingress/egress and on -street parking issues causing dangerous road conditions with cumulative and significantly adverse effects on the social welfare, activities and walkability of the community. PL-SAA-2025-000280 application was incomplete. It did not follow the instructions and was not accompanied by the required site plan: A site plan of the subject property, drawn to scale, showing all existing and proposed structures, uses and activities. Information such as the extent of any land alteration grading) activities and the location of a cliff or other distinctive land features should be shown on the plans. Photographs of the subject property and the project site showing existing conditions are not required but would greatly facilitate the review process. The building plans submitted with PL-SAA-2025-000280 application has an insufficient plot plan and, by accepting it as complete, the Planning Director violated Planning Commission Rule 9-10 Assessment (b)(2): `A plot plan of the property, drawn to scale, with all proposed and existing structures shown thereon and any other information necessary to a proper determination relative to the specific request." 5. HRS §205A-22(2) definitions provides the caveat: "...provided that whenever the authority finds that any excluded use, activity, or operation may have a cumulative impact, or a significant environmental or ecological effect on a special management area, that use, activity, or operation shall be defined as "development" for the purpose of this part." The Planning Director approved an exemption for development that increases the capacity of the transient accommodation to hold gatherings and parties at 14 Oeoe Street. On -street parking and egress issues at 14 Oeoe Street are directly traceable to the transient accommodation guests. The guests often arrive in large groups that drive in separate vehicles. The vehicles backing into 14 Oeoe Street or into the driveway cause cumulative impact and/or significant adverse effects on the surrounding community — blocking vehicles turning onto Oeoe Street from Kalaianaole Street, creating tsunami evacuation congestion, diminished fire protection and access to other emergency services; and unsafe conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians. Therefore, the Planning Director's "SMA exemption" violates HRS §205A- 22 2 . C: EXHIBIT A, pg. 6 of 14 6. By failing to require a SMA permit procedure under PC Rule 9-11, the Planning Director violated Planning Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure 9-10(c)(2) and 9-10(h)(2), (3),4), and (10).: PC Rule 9-10(c): The Director shall assess the proposed use, activity or operation upon the applicant's compliance with Section 9-1013 based on the following criteria: (1) The valuation of the proposed use, activity or operation. (2) The potential effects and significance of each specific circumstance of the use, activity or operation, according to the criteria of significant adverse effect established by Section 9- 10H. (emphasis added) PC Rule 9-10 Assessment, part (h) Criteria of Significant Adverse Effect, applies as follows: curtails the range of beneficial uses of the environment;' (3) conflicts with the long-term environmental policies or Goals of the General Plane or the State Plana; ' Nene St. and its side streets is widely used as a pedestrian travel way by the residents of Leleiwi Neighborhood and as a pedestrian, scooter, and electric bicycle connection between Kings Landing Homestead lots, Keaukaha tract II and Keaukaha Tract I. Residents of the greater Keaukaha Community use Nene St. to walk or bike to and from the beach parks or local schools or fishing grounds as a safe travel way away from vehicular traffic and cars parked in the paved road shoulder on Kalanianaole Street. 2 2005 General Plan, 2.2 Goals. "development and improvement shall be in balance with the physical, social, and cultural environments of the Island of Hawaii;" 2005 General Plan, 4.2 Goals. "the most desirable use of land within the County that achieves an ecological balance providing residents and visitors the quality of life and an environment in which the natural resources of the island are viable and sustainable;" 3 §226-4 State goals. "In order to ensure, for present and future generations, those elements of choice and mobility that ensure that individuals and groups may approach their desired levels of self-reliance and self-determination, it shall be the goal of the State to achieve: (2) A desired physical environment, characterized by 7 EXHIBIT A, pg. 7 of 14 significantly affects the economic or social welfare and activities of the community,, County or State; [See, Fn. 1.] 10 is contrary to the objectives and policies of the Coastal Zone Management Program and the Special Management Area Guidelines of Chapter 205A, HRS.4 7. The Planning Director violated the Special Management Area policy for managing development: HRS §205A-2(c)(7)(A), and the Special Management Area guideline requiring consistency with the zoning: HRS §205A-26(2)(C) by approving development in the SMA with a business model that is inconsistent with Zoning code, Section 25-1-5, and PC Rule 9-4(u). Under the Zoning code, Section 25-1-5 Definitions and Planning Department Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 23-3 Definitions: "Dwelling unit" means one or more rooms designed for or containing or used as the complete facilities for the cooking, sleeping and living area of a single-family only and occupied by no more than one family and containing a single kitchen. "Family" means an individual or two or more persons related by blood, state sanctioned adoption, foster parentage, guardianship or marriage, or a group of not more than five unrelated persons (excluding servants), occupying a dwelling unit. "Short -Term Vacation Rental" (STVR) means a dwelling unit of which the owner or operator does not reside on the building site, beauty, cleanliness, quiet, stable natural systems, and uniqueness, that enhances the mental and physical well-being of the people." §226-8 Objective and policies for the economy --visitor industry. "(b) To achieve the visitor industry objective, it shall be the policy of the State to: (2) Ensure that visitor industry activities are in keeping with the social, economic, and physical needs and aspirations of Hawaii's people; (13) Minimize negative economic, environmental, and social impacts to the State;" 4 See, Special management area guideline, HRS §205A-26(2)(C) No development shall be approved unless consistent with the county zoning and general plan. EXHIBIT A, pg. 8 of 14 that has no more than five bedrooms for rent on the building site and is rented for a period of thirty consecutive days or less. Under PC Rule 94(u), definitions: "Single -Family Residence" means a detached building designed for and/or used as the complete facility for cooking, sleeping and living area of a single family only and occupied by no more than one family. Single family residences may include uses or structures normally considered accessory to the single family facilities provided that any such uses or structures are situated on the same lot or building site and are in compliance with all requirements of any county or state regulation, statute, or ordinance. A single family shall include all persons living in a dwelling related by blood, marriage or by adoption or a group comprised of not more than five persons not related by blood, marriage or by adoption. (emphasis added). The Standkes rent out their 14 Oeoe Street "beach house" to groups of 12 individuals using their own website and an independent, Al driven, online registration platform which does not require or verify that the group reservation is for a single family. 8. By allowing the construction project to proceed without any effort to enforce the County's short-term vacation rental law during the SMA review stage, the Planning Director violated zoning code, Sections 25- 2-35, and 25-4-16.3, and Plannina Department Rule 23-16(a):, which reads: STVRs in violation of HCC Chapter 25, any rule adopted thereunder, or any permit or variance issued pursuant thereto, shall be subject to enforcement pursuant to HCC Section 25-2- 35. (4) A statement explaining: (B) How the decision appealed from is clearly erroneous: The Planning Director's decision is clearly erroneous because PC Rule 9 and HRS Section 205A-22(2), exclusions from the definition of "development", must now be read in pari materia with Act 17 (May 3, 2024) changes to HRS § 464(a). The Planning Director wrongfully approved the SMA exemption for SMA use permit assessment application No. PL-SAA-2025-000280 after the May 3, 2024 effective date of Act 17. N EXHIBIT A, pg. 9 of 14 Specifically, the Director erroneously overlooked the following facts: (1) The building and/or the premises used for transient accommodations at 14 Oeoe St. is neither a residential use under state law, §46-4(a) (2024), nor an existing "single-family residence" under Planning Commission Rule 9-4(u), definitions: Single -Family Residence" means a detached building designed for and/or used as the complete facility for cooking, sleeping and living area of a single family only and occupied by no more than one family. Single family residences may include uses or structures normally considered accessory to the single family facilities provided that any such uses or structures are situated on the same lot or building site and are in compliance with all requirements of any county or state regulation, statute, or ordinance. A single family shall include all persons living in a dwelling related by blood, marriage or by adoption or a group comprised of not more than five persons not related by blood, marriage or by adoption. (emphasis added). (2) The additions proposed by PL-SAA-2025-000280 are not "repair, maintenance, or interior alterations" because they are additions to the footprint of the structure and "new." (4) A statement explaining: (C) How the decision appealed from was arbitrary and characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion: The Planning Director's decision appealed from was arbitrary and characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion because the decision arbitrarily ignored the Special Management Area policy for managing development: HRS §205A-2(c)(7)(A): "Use, implement, and enforce existing law effectively to the maximum extent possible in managing present and future coastal zone development." The Planning Director's decision was an unwarranted exercise of discretion because it failed to address and enforce the Landowners' violations of the zoning code and other State laws at the SMA review stage. 10 EXHIBIT A, pg. 10 of 14 The Planning Director's decision was directly contrary to the findings and purpose of Ordinance 2018-114, as well as Chapter 205A. The purpose of Ordinance 2018-114, creating Zoning Code, Section 25-4-16 thru 16.3 (STVR), is as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose. The short-term rental of residential units, as an alternative to traditional resort and hotel accommodations, is an emerging trend in the visitor industry that continues to grow in popularity. The purpose of this ordinance is to manage the impacts of these short- term vacation rentals by: 1) defining where this use will be allowed; 2) establishing provisions and standards to regulate this use; and 3) providing an avenue for an existing use deemed to be improper by this ordinance, to apply for a nonconforming use certificate that would allow them to continue to operate in a non -permitted district. (emphasis added in italics) §205A-21 Findings and purposes, reads as follows: The legislature finds that, special controls on developments within an area along the shoreline are necessary to avoid permanent losses of valuable resources and the foreclosure of management options, and to ensure that adequate access, by dedication or other means, to public owned or used beaches, recreation areas, and natural reserves is provided. The legislature finds and declares that it is the state policy to preserve, protect, and where possible, to restore the natural resources of the coastal zone of Hawaii. (emphasis added in italics) (5) A clear and concise statement of any other relevant facts: Zoning Code, Section 25-4-16.2 Prima facie evidence; short-term vacation rentals, provides: Advertising of any sort that offers a property as a short-term vacation rental shall constitute prima facie evidence that a short-term vacation rental is operating on that property. The burden of proof shall be on the owner or operator to establish either that the property is not being used as a short- term vacation rental or that it is being used for such purpose legally. (emphasis added) 11 EXHIBIT A, pg. 11 of 14 The Standkes have the burden of proof that the dwelling unit at 14 Oeoe Street has only been rented to one single family at a time and must explain how the use of a nook off of the foyer for a single bed and use of 2 hideaway queen sofa beds in the living room as additional sleeping areas complies with their nonconforming use certificate's limitation of the use of 4 bedrooms as sleeping areas. The building and premises used for transient accommodations at 14 Oeoe St. were wrongfully certified by the Planning Department by issuance of the NUCR (2023) because the owners were operating a four -bedroom transient accommodation rental without proper permits. NUCR (2024) was wrongfully issued for a four -bedroom STVR without a change form and updated site plan or a SMA assessment application, after the May 3, 2024 effective date of Act 17. The Planning Department will process the NUCR (2025) without any Public Notice or Notice to the neighbors, so I appeal the Planning Department's inevitable decision to wrongfully certify the STRV at 14 Oeoe Street here. No single-family lives at 14 Oeoe Street, the owners never previously established a single-family use, and the owners do not verify or regulate that only a "single-family", as defined by Planning Commission Rule 9-4(u), can rent the premises. Planning Department Rule 23 administers the zoning code, Section 25-4-60- 63, Short-term vacation rentals, and does not and cannot authorize what the zoning code does not expressly authorize.5 DATE: Hilo, Hawai'i, January 2, 2026 t,k m" RL, 5 See also, PD Rule 23-7(b) "No new STVR can obtain a Registration under this section." 12 EXHIBIT A, pg. 12 of 14 April 11, 2025 Richard Standke 2448 E. Orangeview Lane Orange, CA 92867 VIA EMAIL Dear Richard Standke: SUBJECT: Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit Assessment Application (PL-SAA-2025-000280) Applicant: Richard Standke Landowner: Richard & Deborah Standke Request: Return of Application TMK: (3) 2-1-018:013; South Hilo District, Hawaii This letter is in response to your Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit Assessment Application submitted to our office on March 31, 2025. You requested approval to construct a first -floor concrete deck, a second -floor lanai, internal stairs, and to replace the roof of a single- family residence located within the SMA. Please note that this property is not a shoreline parcel. As defined by Planning Commission (PC) Rule 94(s), the "shoreline" refers to: "...the upper reaches of the wash of waves, other than storm and seismic waves, at high tide during the season of the year in which the highest wash of the waves occurs, usually evidenced by the edge of vegetation growth, or the upper limit of debris left by the wash of the waves. " Given the property's inland location and the scope of the proposed work, which includes both interior and exterior improvements to an existing single-family residence, the project qualifies as an exempt action pursuant to Planning Commission Rule 9 and Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 205A. EXHIBIT A, pg. 1 of 2 EXHIBIT A, pg. 13 of 14 April 11, 2025 Specifically: Under Planning Commission Rule 9-4(1)(2), the term "development" does not include: o (A) Construction or reconstruction of a single-family residence less than 7,500 square feet in floor area, not situated on a shoreline parcel or one affected by waves, storm surges, high tide, or shoreline erosion, and not part of a larger development. o (F) Repair, maintenance, or interior alterations to existing structures or uses. o (0) Structural and non-structural improvements to existing single-family residences, where otherwise permissible. Similarly, under HRS §205A-22(2), "development'' does not include: o (A) Construction or reconstruction of a single-family residence less than 7,500 square feet, not located on a shoreline parcel or one impacted by coastal hazards, and not part of a larger development. o (F) Repair, maintenance, or interior alterations to existing structures. o (N) Structural and non-structural improvements to existing single-family residences, where otherwise permissible. Based on these provisions, your project qualifies as an exempt action under County Planning Commission Rule 9. Therefore, an SMA permit is not required, and application PL-SAA-2025- 000280 is no longer necessary. We are returning your application and will be processing a refund of your application fee. As part of the building permit application process, Planning staff will review and complete a SMA short form to complete the SMA review. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Alukahe Kala of this department at (808) 961-8170 or via email at Alukahe.Kala@hawaiicounty.gov. Sincerely, ,7efYe�W. �qr�j�o r. Darrow (Apr 11, 2025 14:46 HST) JEFFREY W. DARROW Planning Director AK:rms P:\wpwin60\c zm\letters\2025\p l-saa-2025-000280_retutn_app_no_sma_needed--ver-2. doc cc via email: Planning Fiscal EXHIBIT A, pg. 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A, pg. 14 of 14 RENEE N. C. SCHOEN 5936 Corporation Counsel SYLVIA A. WAN 9586 Deputy Corporation Counsel Office of the Corporation Counsel County of Hawaii 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 961-8251 Facsimile: (808) 961-8622 E-Mail: sylviaa.wan y hawaiicounty. gov Attorney for the Board of Appeals BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF HAWAI`I STATE OF HAWAI`I CLAUDIA ROHR, Appellant, vs. JEFFREY DARROW, PLANNING DIRECTOR, COUNTY OF HAWAI`I, Appellee, and RICHARD and DEBORAH STANDKE, Landowners. CASE NO.: PL-BOA-2025-000119 SCHEDULING ORDER; BOARD OF APPEALS' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pre -Hearing Conference Held: Date: September 30, 2025 Time: 9:30 a.m. Hearing: Date: November 14, 2025 Time: 9:30 a.m. in Hilo SCHEDULING ORDER PURSUANT to Board of Appeals (hereinafter "Board") Rule 3-3, a virtual pre -hearing conference was held on September 30, 2025. Claudia Rohr, Appellantpro se, Sylvia A. Wan, EXHIBIT B, pg. 1 of 5 Deputy Corporation Counsel, Attorney for the Board of Appeals, Cathy Lewis, Chair, and Rachel Able, Vice Chair, appeared via Zoom. PURSUANT to Board Rule 3-1, the chairperson of the Board has the authority to fix the time for the filing of briefs, and take all other actions authorized by law that are deemed necessary for the orderly and just conduct of a hearing. Pursuant to this rule, the chairperson enters this Scheduling Order: 1. The hearing in this matter will commence before the Board on Friday, November 14, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., at the Hilo County Council Chambers, Suite 1401, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720. 2. Any objections to the Record on Appeal shall be served upon the opposing party and filed with the Board no later than October 15, 2025, by 4:30 p.m. 3. Appellant and Appellee's exhibits shall be served upon the opposing party and filed with the Board no later than October 22, 2025, by 4:30 p.m. Responsive exhibits shall be served upon the opposing party and filed with the Board no later than October 29, 2025, by 4:30 p.m. 4. Dispositive motions shall be served upon the opposing party and filed with the Board no later than October 24, 2025, by 4:30 p.m. The form and service of any dispositive motion shall be made in accordance with Board Rule 3-12. 5. Any memorandum in opposition to any dispositive motion shall be served upon the opposing party and filed with the Board no later than October 31, 2025, by 4:30 p.m., and shall be made in accordance with Board Rule 3-12. 6. Any request for the issuance of a subpoena shall be filed with the Board no later than October 31, 2025, by 4:30 p.m., and shall be made in accordance with Board Rule 3-9. 7. If desired by any party, either party shall serve upon the opposing party and file with the Board any legal memoranda or pre -hearing brief no later than November 07, 2025, by 4:30 p.m. 8. The parties shall exchange witness lists and shall rile the same with the Board, no later than November 05, 2025, by 4:30 p.m. The witness list shall identify each witness that the parry intends to call at the hearing, describe concisely the substance of the testimony to be given, and an estimated time required for the testimony of the witness on direct examination. 2 EXHIBIT B, pg. 2 of 5 9. As required by Board of Appeals Rule 8-11(d), the Appellant shall notify the required surrounding property owners in writing of the upcoming hearing at least twenty (20) days prior to the hearing. Proof of notice to surrounding property owners shall be provided to the Board of Appeals. The chairperson, for good cause, reserves the right to amend this Scheduling Order. Finally, if the November 14, 2025, hearing is continued in this matter, the deadlines set forth herein shall be reset. Dated: Hilo, Hawaii, September 30, 2025. CATHY L IS, Chair Board of Appeals, County of Hawaii EXHIBIT B, pg. 3 of 5 BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF HAWAI`I STATE OF HAWAI`I CLAUDIA ROHR, Appellant, vs. JEFFREY DARROW, PLANNING DIRECTOR, COUNTY OF HAWAI`I, Appellee, and RICHARD and DEBORAH STANDKE, Landowners. CASE NO.: PL-BOA-2025-000119 BOARD OF APPEALS' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BOARD OF APPEALS' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was upon the parties identified below by electronic mail service pursuant to Board of Appeals Rule 3-19 on October 1, 2025 Delivered via Electronic Mail (E-Mail and/or EPIC): Claudia Rohr Appellant pro se Jean K. Campbell Deputy Corporation Counsel Office of the Corporation Counsel Attorney for Appellee Richard and Deborah Standke Landowners EXHIBIT B, pg. 4 of 5 Dated: Hilo, Hawaii, October 1, 2025 Gam- I ock& ASHLEY DEVERA Staff to the Board of Appeals Claudia Rohr v Jeffrey Darrow, Planning Director, County ofHawai `i & Richard and Deborah Standke; Case No. PL-BOA-2025-000119; BOARD OF APPEALS' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 EXHIBIT B, pg. 5 of 5 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION COUNTY OF HAWAM BOARD OF APPEALS November 12, 2025 The public hearing scheduled by the County of Hawaii Board of Appeals on Friday, November 14, 2025, has been canceled due to lack of quorum. The Board is tentatively scheduled to meet on Friday, December 12, 2025. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Department at (808) 961-8288. CATHY LEWIS, CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF APPEALS Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer EXHIBIT C, pg. 1 of 1 G ma i Claudia Rohr <crohr4@gmail.com> January 9, 2026 1 Board of Appeals Agenda 1 message Planning Board of Appeals <boardofappeals@hawaiicounty.gov> Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 11:20 AM To: Claudia Rohr <crohr4@gmail.com>, "richard.standke@gmail.com" <richard.standke@gmail.com> Cc: "Ahn, Michelle" <Michelle.Ahn@hawaiicounty.gov>, "Campbell, Jean W <JeanK.Campbell @hawaiicounty.gov>, "Darrow, Jeffrey W." <Jeff.Darrow@hawaiicounty.gov>, "Lactaoen, Kawehilani S" <KawehilaniS.Lactaoen@hawaiicounty.gov>, "Ley, Rachelle"<Rachelle.Ley@hawaiicounty.gov>, Planning Board of Appeals <boardofappeals@hawaiicounty.gov> Aloha Parties, Linked below is the Board of Appeals agenda, Zoom registration link, and records for the hearing scheduled for January 9, 2026, at the Hilo Council Chambers. Agenda Link: 2026-01-09 Board of Appeals Agenda Zoom Registration Link: littps://www.zoomgov.com/meeting/register/QG8OXmZxT66Mpk6BRfiWlw Agenda Item #1: PL-INT-2025-011330 Vicente (PD) Agenda Item #2: PL-BOA-2025-000123 Frazier (DPW) Agenda Item #3: PL-BOA-2025-000119 Rohr (PD) Agenda Item #4: PL-BOA-2025-000121 Rohr (DPW) No hard copy to follow. Mahalo, Board of Appeals Staff Main Line: 808-961-8288 Email: boardofappeals@hawaiicounty.gov EXHIBIT D, pg. 1 of 1 DeVera, Ashley From: Claudia Rohr <crohr4@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 5, 2026 7:58 AM To: Campbell, Jean K Cc: Planning Board of Appeals; Richard Standke; Wan, Sylvia A; Darrow, Jeffrey W.; Claudia Rohr Subject: Re: PL-BOA-2025-000119, SECOND AMENDED PETITION Re: In Answer to the Director's objection to Appellant's filing of the Second Amended Petition: The Director's counsel has misstated the Board's rules and procedure. BOA Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 2-4 Formal Requirements for Filing of Documents, provides: (f) Amended Document. An amendment to documents or pleadings shall be submitted not less than seven (7) days prior to hearing, shall be served on all parties, and filed with the Board. All parties shall have the opportunity to answerand be heard on an amendment filed, and the chairperson or presiding officer shall decide whether such amendment will be allowed. Claudia Rohr, Appellant On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 7:27 AM Campbell, Jean K <JeanK.Campbell _ hawaiicount ov> wrote: Dear BOA Chair, The Planning Department objects to this filing and requests that it be rejected in its entirety. On September 30, 2025, the parties and the Chair held a pre -hearing conference at which all involved agreed to the filing deadlines which were then set out in the BOA's Scheduling Order of the same date. All filing deadlines have passed. No additional filings are permitted by either the Scheduling Order or the BOA Rules of Practice and Procedure. No procedural rule allows for this filing nor does it recite any authority by which it may be filed, thus is must be rejected in its entirety and disregarded by the BOA. Thank you. Aloha, Jean From: Claudia Rohr <crohr4@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2026 5:57 PM To: Planning Board of Appeals<boardofappeals@hawaiicounty.gov>; Richard Standke <richard.standke@gmail.com>; EXHIBIT E, pg. 1 of 2 Wan, Sylvia A <sylviaa.wan@hawaiicounty.gov>; Claudia Rohr <crohr4@gmail.com>; Campbell, Jean K <1eanK.Campbell@hawaiicounty.gov>; Darrow, Jeffrey W. <Jeff. Darrow@ hawaiicou nty.gov> Subject: PL-BOA-2025-000119, SECOND AMENDED PETITION Attached, please find the Second Amended Petition in case No. PL-BOA-2025-000119. This Second Amended Petition stands alone and replaces all previous versions of the petition. It has been filed on EPIC. Claudia Rohr 808640-5976 EXHIBIT E, pg. 2 of 2 Nelson, Catherine From: Wan, Sylvia A Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 9:56 AM To: SalasFerguson, Sinclair; Campbell, Jean K; Claudia Rohr; Richard Standke Cc: Morrison, Bethany J; Ley, Rachelle; Azevedo, Neil; Spielman, Aaron; Darrow, Jeffrey W.; Segawa, Wesley; Planning Board of Appeals; Holzman-Escareno, Juliana Subject: RE: Attention: Chair Cathy Lewis Hello Parties, To the extent that a request for continuance was made, Chair Lewis is denying a continuance of the PL-130A- 2025-000119 and PL-BOA-2025-000121. The contested hearing date shall remain scheduled for this Friday, May 15, 2026. Thank you, Sylvia Wan Deputy Corporation Counsel Office of the Corporation Counsel County of Hawai'i 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 Phone: (808) 961-8251 Fax: (808) 961-8622 Email: sylviaa.wan i.,hawaiicounty.gov CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this message is intended for the sole designated recipient(s) and may contain privileged and confidential attorney -client communication(s). If you are not the person named above NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that you are STRICTLY PROHIBITED from reading, reviewing, disseminating and/or copying this document. Please notify this office immediately if you have received this message in error and please delete this e-mail and destroy any hard copy that may have been inadvertently printed. THANK YOU. From: SalasFerguson, Sinclair <Sinclair.SalasFerguson@hawaiicounty.gov> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 9:40 AM To: Planning Board of Appeals <boardofappeals@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: Morrison, Bethany J <Bethany.J.Morrison@hawaiicounty.gov>; Ley, Rachelle<Rachelle. Ley@hawaiicounty.gov>; Wan, Sylvia A <SylviaA.Wan@hawaiicounty.gov>; Azevedo, Neil <Neil.Azevedo@hawaiicounty.gov>; Spielman, Aaron <Aaron.Spielman@hawaiicounty.gov>; Darrow, Jeffrey W. <Jeff. Darrow@ hawaiicou nty.gov>; Richard Standke <richard.standke@gmail.com>; Segawa, Wesley <Wesley.Segawa@hawaiicounty.gov>; Campbell, Jean K <JeanK.Campbell@hawaiicounty.gov>; Claudia Rohr <crohr4@gmail.com>; Holzman-Escareno, Juliana <Juliana.Holzman- Escareno@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: RE: Attention: Chair Cathy Lewis Good Morning Chair Lewis, EXHIBIT F, pg. 1 of 3 For the following reasons, Public Works opposes Claudia Rohr's request to continue BOA case PL-BOA-2025- 000121, Rohr vs. Public Works: 1. The issue of standing in this case is straightforward and may be resolved by the BOA on May 15, 2026, without the need for further litigation or continuances. 2. Claudia Rohr would suffer no prejudice if the BOA heard the motion on May 15, 2026, because the relevant facts have been established since the appeal was filed on May 1, 2025. 3. Considerations of judicial economy weigh strongly in favor of resolving this matter now. Thank you. Sinclair Salas-Ferguson Deputy Corporation Counsel Attorney for Public Works 808-961-8251 From: Campbell, Jean K <JeanK.Campbell@hawaiicount,., 6, > Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 7:44 AM To: Claudia Rohr <crohr4@gmail.com>; Planning Board of Appeals<aoardofappeals@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: Morrison, Bethany J <Bethany.J.Morrison @hawaiicountv.gm >; Ley, Rachelle<Rachelle. Ley@hawaiicounty.gov>; Wan, Sylvia A <SylviaA.Wan@hawaiicounty.go>; SalasFerguson, Sinclair <Sinclair.SalasFerguson@hawaiicounty.gov>; Azevedo, Neil <Neil.Azevedo@hawaiicounty.gc >; Spielman, Aaron < ron.Spielman@hawaiicounty.gov>; Darrow, Jeffrey W. < ?ff.Darrow@hawaiicounty.gov>; Richard Standke < ichard.standke@hmail.com> Subject: RE: Attention: Chair Cathy Lewis Dear Chair Lewis, The Planning Department has not requested a continuance of this hearing date and strongly objects to any continuance of the hearing. This appeal was filed more than a year ago and has already been unnecessarily delayed by Appellant's failure to timely send the notice to neighbors required by BOA Rule 8-11(d) for the previously scheduled November hearing date. BOA Rule 3-12 allows that motions may be made before, during or after a hearing. This would have allowed the Department to make our Motion to Dismiss on May 15th at the hearing itself. Out of courtesy to both the Board and the parties, the Department filed our Motion early (a week prior to the scheduled hearing date). I also note that the Motion makes the same argument that the Landowner's legal brief filed on May 5th does, thus providing Appellant no less than 10 days to respond to this argument. As of this morning, 3 full days remain prior to the hearing. It has always been the Appellant's burden to prove she has standing to file this appeal (See BOA Rule 8-2) so this is not a new or unexpected position for her to defend. This frivolous appeal has already delayed the Landowner's ability to move ahead with a simple project and cost the County, including this Board, time and resources to prepare, postpone, and prepare again. There is no valid reason to continue to lay the costs of this appeal on the Landowner and the County. This appeal should proceed as scheduled on Friday May 15th. The Planning Department firmly requests that Appellant's request for a continuance be denied and the hearing proceed as planned. Aloha, Jean From: Claudia Rohr <crohr4@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 11:54 PM 2 EXHIBIT F, pg. 2 of 3 To: Planning Board of Appeals<boardofappeals@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: Morrison, Bethany J <Bethany.J.Morrison@hawaiicounty.gov>; Ley, Rachelle<Rachelle. Ley@hawaiicounty.gov>; Wan, Sylvia A <...,, viaa.wan@hawaiicounty.gov>; SalasFerguson, Sinclair <Sinclair.SalasFerguson@hawaiicounty.gov>; Azevedo, Neil<Neil.Azevedo@hawaiicounty.gov>; Spielman, Aaron <Aaron.Spielman@hawaiicounty.gov>; Campbell, Jean K ueanK.Campbell@hawaiicounty.gov>; Darrow, Jeffrey W. <Jeff.Darrow@hawaiicounty.gov>; Richard Standke <richard.standke@gmail.com> Subject: Attention: Chair Cathy Lewis Please see attached 2026-5-11 Amended Letter to Chair re 2026-5-15 hearing. Claudia Rohr 808-640-5976 EXHIBIT F, pg. 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing documents were served upon the parties identified below by electronic mail service on June 26, 2026 and filed on EPIC. Delivered via Electronic Mail (E-Mail and/or EPIC) RICHARD and DEBORAH STANDKE Landowners JEFFREY DARROW, Planning Director JEAN K. CAMPBELL Deputy Corporation Counsel Attorney for Jeffrey Darrow, Planning Director SYLVIA WAN, ESQ. Deputy Corporation Counsel Attorney for Board ofAppeals BOARD OF APPEALS DATED: Hilo, Hawaii, June 26, 2026 Respectfully Submitted, /sl Claudia Rohr CLAUDIA ROHR, Appellant pro se