The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025-07-08 Landowner's Response to Petition DeVera, Ashley From: Jackson, Maija Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:55 PM To: Planning Board of Appeals Subject: FW: Objection to Record on Appeal for PL-BOA-2025-000119 Claudia Rohr vs. Planning Director on TMK: (3) 2-1-018:013 Attachments: Standke response to Rohr Board appeal.pdf Please provide to parties of PL-BOA-2025-000119. From: Richard Standke<richard.standke@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday,July 8, 2025 1:51 PM To:Jackson, Maija <Maija.Jackson@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: Re: Objection to Record on Appeal for PL-BOA-2025-000119 Claudia Rohr vs. Planning Director on TMK: (3) 2-1- 018:013 Hi Maija, I am the owner of the property who pulled the permit that Claudia Rohr is protesting before the Appeals Board. I have attached a response to her protest letter. Can you email it to the correct parties? Thanks in advance, Richard Standke 818 3578-6889 On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 6:15 PM Jackson, Maija <Maija.Jackson@hawaiicounty.gov>wrote: Aloha Claudia Rohr, All documents, correspondence, evidence and other filings submitted as part of an appeal are part of the official public record (BOA Rules 1-7, 3-13) unless they are excluded by the Board. On June 25, 2025, Memo 2024-01 (Signing Authorization) was provided to you as part of a UIPA request by the Planning Department. You are welcome to submit it as evidence to the BOA if you believe it is relevant to the record for this matter. Thank you, Maija Jackson, Planning Program Manager Leeward and Windward Planning Commissions County of Hawaii Planning Department 808-961-8159 From: Claudia Rohr<crohr4@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday,June 24, 2025 8:08 AM To: Steen, Raimee<Raimee.Steen@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: Darrow,Jeff<Jeff.Darrow@hawaiicounty.gov>; Campbell,Jean K<JeanK.Campbell@hawaiicounty.gov>; Richard Standke<richard.standke@gmail.com>; Wan, Sylvia A<SylviaA.Wan@hawaiicounty.gov>; Planning Board of Appeals <boardofappeals@hawaiicounty.gov>; Kala, Alukahe<Alukahe.Kala@hawaiicounty.gov>; Ley, Rachelle <Rachelle.Ley@hawaiicounty.gov>; Lactaoen, Kawehilani S<KawehilaniS.Lactaoen@hawaiicounty.gov>;Agustin, Noah <Noah.Agustin@hawaiicounty.gov>;Jackson, Maija <Maija.Jackson@hawaiicounty.gov>; Planning Internet Mail <planning@hawaiicounty.gov>; Roy, Alex<Alex.Roy@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: Objection to Record on Appeal for PL-BOA-2025-000119 Claudia Rohr vs. Planning Director on TMK: (3) 2-1- 018:013 Objection to Record on Appeal for PL-BOA-2025-000119 Aloha- The Planning Director's ROA, file name 2025-06-16 PL-BOA-2025-000119 COMPLETE RECORD omitted the following two documents-- a 2025-SFA-000433 (SMA Short Form Assessment) and planning staff stamped building plans dated 1/13/2025: "2025-SFA-000433. Approved for proposed alterations and additions to existing dwelling." These two documents are from the Director of Public Work's Record on Appeal in BOA-2025-000121 and are directly related to the permit appealed, pursuant to BOA Rules 3-13(h) and 1-3(21). Also, please provide the Director's internal Memo (the record) listing the names and positions of the Planning Director's authorized representatives he has approved to issue SMA exemptions using SMA Short Form Assessments. Please provide the Planning Director's supplemental ROA with these three items. Thank you, 2 Claudia Rohr 808-640-5976 On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 2:56 PM Steen, Raimee <Raimee.Steen@hawaiicounty.gov>wrote: Good afternoon, Transmitted for your files is the Record on Appeal(ROA) for Board of Appeals Case No. PL-BOA-2025- 000119, for the Appeal of Decision by the Planning Director Dated April 11, 2025, Regarding Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit Assessment Application (PL-SAA-2025-000280) Exemption. Due to the large file size, the document may take some time to download and view. The ROA pdf has been book-marked for your convenience so that you may easily navigate through the document. There will be no hard copy to follow. Should you have any questions regarding the attached record, please feel free to contact Planner, Alukahe Kala (cc'd herein) at(808) 961-8170. Thank you. Raimee Steen Clerk II Planning Division County of Hawaii Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 Direct: (808)-961-8038 Main: (808)-961-8288 raimee.steen@hawaiicounty.gov 3 July 7, 2025 Richard Standke 2448 E Orangeview Lane Orange, CA 92867 RE: Board of Appeals case No. Claudia Rohr, PL- BOA- 2025- 000119 I am the landowner of the single-family residence that obtained the permit to build stairs connecting the two floors of the house as well as a deck in front of the house. The permit is B2025-005123. Claudia Rohr (Rohr) owns a bed and breakfast around the corner and has harassed me with legal challenges every chance she gets regardless of how minor my permits might be. As with the prior legal challenges, she misinterprets the law and regulations. I have a background in law and have carefully read through the paragraphs of the County of Hawai'i Planning Commission Policies and Procedures that Rohr carelessly misinterprets. Rohr lists 9 arguments why my permit should be subject to SMA review. I'll address each in order. Argument 1 In order to refute the Rohr argument, it is helpful to outline the rules she cites and the purpose of the paragraphs that she misinterprets: On page 4 Rohr attempts to quote Hawaii Revised Statute§205-A22. Each County has their own statute that is consistent with Hawaii's but goes into more detail, so it makes no sense to reach to this statute. Rohr bases all her arguments on the assertion that the board has complete discretion. She states"Definitions 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 and therefore the Director's exemption does not applies." But this isn't true and makes no sense. As she states, these paragraphs are definitions to specific words used in the laws in the following paragraphs. There are 5 activities (listed as (A) through (E)) of what "Development" includes. None provide for Board discretion. Paragraph (2)(A) specifically exempts my activity as development. This is the sentence where non-shoreline single family homes less than 7,500 sq. ft. are exempt. Argument 2 This argument focuses on parking. She correctly mentions my house has 4 permitted parking spots. For a maximum capacity of 12 guests (almost never booked that full) I have never seen more than 2 cars parked at the house. She includes pictures of traffic to imply a traffic problem caused by my homes. These pictures are of beach parks visitor parking in front of my homes while visiting the beach, not my guests. She continues to argue that the Board has discretion to stop my permit. This time she cites County of Hawaii Planning Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure Rule 9-10 entitled "Assessments." Here, Rohr plucks out a sentence where Board discretion is used. But this paragraph is used to determine whether a project requires a minor SMA permit or a major SMA permit. Prior to the above Rule 9-10 is Rule 9-8. Rule 9-8 states that "No development shall be allowed within the Special Management Area without obtaining a permit in accordance with this rule." As stated above, my project is specifically excluded from "development" so everything after is simply moot. Arguments 3 and 4 She argues that certain details of my permit are lacking, but this project is for rear stairs and a front deck, so driveway details are irrelevant. Arguments 5-9 All of these arguments are on the premise that"single family residence"can't house unrelated people. Because unrelated guests stay in vacation rentals, several rules were violated. Again, Rohr misinterprets the definition of"single family residence." The definition describes the type of structure, not the daily use of the structure. The reason for the definition is to separate a type of structure from a multi-family structure or a commercial structure. Your child's birthday sleepover doesn't violate a law any more than vacation rentals. The paragraphs below the"arguments" are general anti-vacation rental ranting and don't deserve a response. Best regards, Richard Standke Owner