The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2026-05-08 COH-Planning Director Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing (PL-BOA-2025-000119) RENEE N.C. SCHOEN 5936 Corporation Counsel JEAN K. CAMPBELL 7424 Deputy Corporation Counsel Office of the Corporation Counsel County of Hawai`i 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 961-8251 Facsimile: (808) 961-8622 E-Mail: jeank.campbe1Ikhawaiicountygov Attorneys for Appellee JEFFREY W. DARROW, PLANNING DIRECTOR, COUNTY OF HAWAI'I, BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAPI CLAUDIA ROHR, CASE NO. PL-BOA-2025-000119 Appellant, DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING vs. DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF HAWAI`I'S JEFFREY W. DARROW, PLANNING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF STANDING; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT DIRECTOR, COUNTY OF HAWAi'i, OF MOTION; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Appellee, and RICHARD and DEBORAH STANDKE, Hearing Date: May 15, 2026 Landowners. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF STANDING Appellee JEFFREY W. DARROW, PLANNING DIRECTOR, COUNTY OF HAWAI`I ("Director"), by and through Deputy Corporation Counsel Jean K. Campbell, moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of standing pursuant to Board of Appeals Rules 3-12(a) and 8-2. Appellant CLAUDIA ROHR ("Appellant")has failed to allege facts sufficient to establish standing. Specifically,Appellant provides no evidence that the construction of a porch and internal staircase at the subject property will cause an injury "clearly distinguishable from that of the general public," as Board of Appeals Rule 8-2 requires. Because Appellant's claims consist generalized grievances unrelated to the Shoreline Management Area criteria, the Board lacks the authority to overturn the Planning Director's determination. Dated: Hilo, Hawaii, May 8, 2026. COUNTY OF HAWAI`I PLANNING DIRECTOR Appellee By: /s/ Jean K. Campbell JEAN K. CAMPBELL Deputy Corporation Counsel His Attorney 2 RENEE N.C. SCHOEN 5936 Corporation Counsel JEAN K. CAMPBELL 7424 Deputy Corporation Counsel Office of the Corporation Counsel County of Hawai`i 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 961-8251 Facsimile: (808) 961-8622 E-Mail: jeank.campbe1Ikhawaiicountygov Attorneys for Appellee JEFFREY W. DARROW, PLANNING DIRECTOR, COUNTY OF HAWAI'I BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAPI CLAUDIA ROHR, CASE NO. PL-BOA-2025-000119 Appellant, vs. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JEFFREY W. DARROW, PLANNING MOTION DIRECTOR, COUNTY OF HAWAI'I, Appellee, and RICHARD and DEBORAH STANDKE, Hearing Date: May 15, 2026 Landowners. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 1. INTRODUCTION Appellee JEFFREY W. DARROW, PLANNING DIRECTOR, COUNTY OF HAWAPI ("Director")respectfully requests that the Board of Appeals ("Board") dismiss this appeal for lack of standing. In the context of administrative adjudication, standing refers to the right of a party to participate in an agency's hearing process to resolve a specific dispute. The standing requirements for this Board are set forth in the Board ofAppeals Rules ofPractice and Procedure ("BOA Rules") Rule 8-2. Pursuant to BOA Rule 8-2, an appellant must demonstrate a specific, direct injury in fact that is distinct from the general public. BOA Rules 8-2. This rule is consistent with the policies underlying standing requirements including: to ensure that the body does not exceed its authority; to prevent the body from being flooded with cases based on generalized grievances; to ensure efficiency and prevent the waste of governmental resources; and to limit legal disputes to those based in real-world facts involving a direct injury caused by the defendant or appellee which can be redressed by the body to which the dispute is presented. Appellant has failed to meet this burden, relying instead on speculative traffic concerns and generalized grievances that fall outside the scope of Special Management Area ("SMA") criteria. II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR STANDING Standing is a procedural threshold that must be satisfied before the Board may consider the merits of any case. See Public Access Shoreline Hawaii by Rothstein a Hawai`i Cnty. Planning Comm'n by Fujimoto, 79 Hawai`i 425, 431, 903 P.2d 1246, 1252 (1995) (noting "claimant had to have standing to appeal" in order for court to have jurisdiction to decide issues presented). To establish standing under BOA Rule 8-2, an appellant must show: 1. An interest in the subject matter that is directly and immediately affected; 2. An injury that is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public; and 3. That they are or will be adversely affected by the decision. Where, as here, a party challenges the government's regulation of a third party (Mr. Standke), the burden to establish standing is "substantially more difficult" to meet. Lujan u 2 Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 562 (1992). The Appellant must provide concrete evidence—not mere conjecture—that the Board has the authority to redress. III. ARGUMENT A. Appellant's Arguments Are Speculative and Fail the "Injury in Fact" Test Appellant asserts that the construction of a porch and internal staircase will increase the use of the subject property to the point of causing traffic congestion on Oe Oe Street. However, Appellant has offered no evidence to support this claim. Under Lujan, an injury must be "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (citation and internal punctuation omitted). A speculative increase in traffic from a residential porch does not constitute an "injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Id. B. The Alleged Injury is a Generalized Grievance Common to the Public Even if the Board accepted the traffic allegations as true, they fail Rule 8-2 because traffic on a public street is a shared community concern. Appellant has not shown how her interest in public road flow is "clearly distinguishable from that of the general public." BOA Rule 8-2. Standing exists to protect specific personal stakes, not to provide a forum for neighborhood-wide grievances. See Life of the Land a Land Use Comm'n of State of Hawai`i, 63 Haw. 166, 172, 623 P.2d 431, 438 (1981) ("[T]he crucial inquiry in [determining standing] is whether the plaintiff has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy' as to warrant his invocation of. . . (the court's)jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf.") (citation and internal punctuation omitted). C. The Board Lacks Authority to Redress Grievances outside SMA Criteria 3 Standing also requires that the injury be within the "zone of interests"protected or regulated by the relevant statute. Life of the Land, 63 Haw. at 173, 623 P.2d at 439. The Director's determination was made pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 205A, which focuses on: 1. protecting shoreline environmental resources; and 2. ensuring public access to the shoreline. See, e.g., Haw. Rev. Stat. § 205A-2. Appellant's complaints regarding traffic, short-term vacation rentals, and non-conforming structures are irrelevant to SMA resource protection. Because these factors cannot legally form the basis of an SMA determination, the Board cannot grant the relief Appellant seeks. An injury that cannot be redressed by a favorable decision is fatal to standing. See Kia'i Wai O Wai'ale'ale u Bd. OfLand and Nat. Res., 157 Hawaii 303, 317, 576 P.3d 816, 831 (2025). D. Appellant's Procedural Non-Compliance Standing requirements ensure that the legal system is not weaponized to delay legitimate property improvements. Mr. Standke's project has been stalled for over a year due to Appellant's unsupported claims and failure to comply with the BOA Rules. Appellant has caused undue delay by her failure to comply not only with BOA Rules 8-2 but also 8-11(d)requiring notice to surrounding property owners. IV. CONCLUSION Appellant has failed to allege a specific, non-conjectural injury related to SMA criteria. Without standing, this Board lacks the jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Director respectfully requests the Board dismiss the appeal in its entirety. 4 Dated: Hilo, Hawaii, May 8, 2026. COUNTY OF HAWAI`I PLANNING DIRECTOR By: ls/Jean K. Campbell JEAN K. CAMPBELL Deputy Corporation Counsel His Attorney 5 BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF HAWAI`i STATE OF HAWAI`I CLAUDIA ROHR, CASE NOS. PL-BOA-2025-0001 19 Appellant, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE vs. JEFFREY W. DARROW, PLANNING DIRECTOR, COUNTY OF HAWAFT, Appellee, and RICHARD and DEBORAH STANDKE, Landowners. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties identified below by electronic mail service upon the following on May 8, 2026: Delivered via Electronic Mail (E-Mail and/or EPIC) CLAUDIA ROHR Appellant pro se RICHARD STANDKE DEBORAH STANDKE Landowners SYLVIA WAN, ESQ. Deputy Corporation Counsel County of Hawaii 101 Aupum Street, Suite 325 Hilo, HI 96720 Attorney for Board ofAppeals 6 BOARD OF APPEALS 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hi 96720 Board ofAppeals Dated: Hilo, Hawaii, May 8, 2026. ls/Jean K. Campbell JEAN K. CAMPBELL Deputy Corporation Counsel 7