The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2026-05-11 DPW Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing (PL-BOA-2025-000121) RENEE N.C. SCHOEN 5936 Corporation Counsel SINCLAIR SALAS-FERGUSON 9398 Deputy Corporation Counsel Office of the Corporation Counsel County of Hawaii 101 Aupum Street, Suite 325 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 961-8251 Facsimile: (808) 961-8622 E-mail: sinclair.salasferguson!c.6hawaiicounty.gov Attorneys for Appellee, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, COUNTY OF HAWAI`I BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF HAWAI`I STATE OF HAWAI`I CLAUDIA ROHR, CASE NO.: PL-BOA-2025-0000121 Appellant, vs. APPELLEE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, COUNTY OF HAWAI`I'S DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF COUNTY OF HAWAI`I, STANDING; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Appellee, and RICHARD STANDKE, DEBORAH STANDKE, Landowners. APPELLEE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS COUNTY OF HAWAI`I'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF STANDING I. INTRODUCTION On or about May 1, 2025, Appellant Claudia Rohr("Appellant") filed a petition with the Board of Appeals ("BOA"), where she challenges the issuance of a building permit that allows minor renovations to a home located down the road from her house ("Stanke Residence"). It appears Appellant is arguing that the renovations to the Standke Residence would somehow affect her"walks down to Leleiwi and Richardon's beaches, to access [her] driveway . . . and to receive emergency services, including fire trucks that hook up to a fire hydrant . . ." See Appellant's Petition, page 1. Appellant's petition should be dismissed because under BOA Rule 8-2, she does not have standing to appeal the issuance of the Standke Residence building permit. Appellant is not "so directly and immediately affected"by the issuance of the building permit to such an extent that her"interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public." See BOA Rule 8-2. Additionally, Appellant cannot show that she will be "adversely affected"by the issuance of the building permit. The building permit allows for the enclosure of a staircase and construction of a lower-level lanai on a residence located three lots down and over 200 feet away from Appellant's property. See Appellant's Petition, pages 1-4. II. ARGUMENT A. Legal Standard for Standing Standing is a procedural threshold that must be satisfied before the BOA can consider the merits of any case. See Public Access Shoreline Hawaii by Rothstein v. Hawai`i Cnty. Planning Comm'n by Fujimoto, 79 Hawai`i 425, 431, 903 P.2d 1246, 1252 (1995) (noting "claimant had to 2 have standing to appeal" in order for court to have jurisdiction to decide issues presented). To establish standing under BOA Rule 8-2, an appellant must show: 1. An interest in the subject matter that is directly and immediately affected; 2. An interest that is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public; and 3. That they are or will be adversely affected by the decision. Where, as here, a party challenges the government's regulation of a third party (Mr. Standke), the burden to establish standing is "substantially more difficult" to meet. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 562 (1992). The Appellant must provide concrete evidence—not mere conjecture—that the Board has the authority to redress. B. Appellant's Arguments Are Speculative and Fail the "Injury in Fact" Test Appellant appears to assert that the construction of a porch and internal staircase will increase the use of the subject property to the point of causing traffic congestion on OeOe Street that will somehow affect her walks to the beach and access to her driveway and emergency services. See Appellants Petition, pages 1-8. However, Appellant has offered no evidence to support this claim. Under Lujan, an injury must be "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (citation and internal punctuation omitted). A speculative increase in traffic from a residential porch does not constitute an"injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and(b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Id. C. The Alleged Injury is a Generalized Grievance Common to the Public Even if the BOA accepted the traffic allegations as true, they fail under BOA Rule 8-2 because traffic on a public street is a shared community concern. Appellant has not shown how her interest in public road flow is "clearly distinguishable from that of the general public." BOA 3 Rule 8-2. Standing exists to protect specific personal stakes, not to provide a forum for neighborhood-wide grievances. See Life of the Land v. Land Use Coinm'ra 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). III. CONCLUSION Appellant has no greater interest in the Standke Residence building permit than any other member of the Big Island community and she cannot show that she will be adversely affected; therefore, Under BOA Rule 8-2, Appellant's Petition must be dismissed because she cannot demonstrate a specific, direct injury in fact, that is distinct from the general public. See BOA Rule 8-2 Dated: Hilo, Hawaii, May 11, 2026. WESLEY R. SEGAWA, Director, Department of Public Works, County of Hawaii, Appellee By: /s/ Sinclair Salas-Ferguson SINCLAIR SALAS-FERGUSON Deputy Corporation Counsel Attorney for Public Works 4 BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF HAWAI`I STATE OF HAWAI`I CLAUDIA ROHR, CASE NO.: PL-BOA-2025-000121 Appellant, vs. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, COUNTY OF HAWAI`I, Appellee, and RICHARD STANDKE, DEBORAH STANDKE, Landowners. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties below by electronic mail service on May 11, 2026: 1. Claudia Rohr, Appellant CROHR4@gmail.com 2. Richard Standke, Landowner richard.standke@gmail.com Deborah Standke, Landowner fraukep15ggmall.com 3. Sylvia Wan, Deputy Corporation Counsel SylviaA.Wan@hawaiicounty.gov Attorney for the Board of Appeals Dated: Hilo, Hawaii, May 11, 2026. WESLEY R. SEGAWA, Director, Department of Public Works, County of Hawaii, Appellee By: Isl Sinclair Salas-Ferguson SINCLAIR SALAS-FERGUSON Deputy Corporation Counsel Attorney for Public Works 5