HomeMy WebLinkAboutClaudia Rohr, BOA Appeal, DPW Proposed FOF COL D&O.pdfRENEE N.C. SCHOEN 5936
Corporation Counsel
SINCLAIR SALAS-FERGUSON 9398
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: sinclair.salasfer usonkhawaiicoun ov
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,
Appellant,
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,
COUNTY OF HAWAI`I,
Appellee,
and
RICHARD STANDKE, DEBORAH
STANDKE,
Landowners.
CASE NO.: PL-BOA-2025-0000121
APPELLEE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS, COUNTY OF HAWAI`I'S
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, DECISION AND
ORDER; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
AND DECISION AND ORDER
The Hawai'i County Board of Appeals, having considered the pleadings, evidence,
oral arguments of the parties, the Proposed Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law,
Decision and Order, and having been duly advised of the record and files pertaining to
this case, including all the exhibits, herein finds as follows:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On or about May 1, 2025, Appellant Claudia ("Appellant") filed a petition with the
Board of Appeals, where she challenged the issuance of a building permit to Richard
Standke and Deborah Standke ("Standke") for improvements to their home, which
include the construction of a residential lanai.
2. Appellant's property is located at 369 Nene Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720, which is
three properties down from Standke's property, which is located at 14 Oeoe Street,
Hilo, Hawaii 96720.
3. Appellant's property does not abut Standke's property.
4. Appellant's property does not abut Oeoe Street.
5. Appellant does not own a real property interest in Standke's property.
6. In Appellant's Amended Petition on Appeal, dated March 3, 2026, Appellant asserted
the following facts to establish standing to appeal the issuance of Standke's building
permit: (1) Stanke's property is "210 feet from" the east boundary of Appellant's
property; (2) Appellant relies on Oeoe Street to walk to the ocean and to access her
driveway on Nene Street; (3) Appellant relies on firetrucks to hook up to a fire
hydrant on the corner of Oeoe Street and Kalanianaole Street; (4) vehicles at
Standke's property reverse off of Standke's property onto Oeoe Street; and (5)
"adding a 240 SF lanai and a 240 SF covered deck will expand [Standke's] use to
cover more land and 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 and Appellant's property rights — unsafe road
conditions that limit the walkability of the neighborhood and restricted emergency
services."
7. On May 11, 2026, Appellee Department of Public Works, County of Hawaii
("County") filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing.
8. At a hearing on May 15, 2026, the Board of Appeals heard arguments from Appellant
and County regarding whether Appellant had standing to challenge a building permit
issued to Standke.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Under Board of Appeals ("BOA") Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 8-2, the BOA
only has jurisdiction to hear appeals where the petitioner has established standing.
2. BOA Rule 8-2 states that a person has standing to appeal a final decision of the Director
of Public works if the person is aggrieved by the final decision of the Director of Public
Works regarding a matter within the Director's jurisdiction.
3. BOA Rule 8-2 defines an "aggrieved" person as someone: (1) who "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."
4. "It is well -settled that every court must determine as a threshold matter whether it has
jurisdiction to decide the issues presented. Moreover, subject matter jurisdiction may
not be waived and can be challenged at any time." Pub. Access Shoreline Hawaii by
Rothstein v. Hawai'i Cnty. Plan. Comm'n by Fujimoto, 79 Haw. 425, 431, 903 P.2d
1246, 1252 (1995) (internal quotation marks, brackets, ellipses, and citation omitted).
5. The BOA does not have jurisdiction to hear Appellant's grievances because Appellant is
not an aggrieved person pursuant to BOA Rule 8-2.
6. Appellant failed to satisfy the first prong of BOA Rule 8-2's test to establish standing
because she did not provide any argument or evidence to show that she "has an interest
in [Standke's building permit] and is so directly and immediately affected, that
[Appellant's] interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public[.]"
7. Appellant failed to satisfy the second prong of BOA Rule 8-2's test to establish standing
because she failed to present any argument or evidence to show that she is or will be
adversely affected by the issuance of Standke's building permit. Lujan v. Defs. of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted) (an injury must be "actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical")
8. Appellant's vehicular parking concerns regarding Standke's building permit are
speculative and hypothetical and do not amount to a legal interest in the issuance of
Standke's building permit.
9. Appellant is not directly and immediately affected by the issuance of the building permit
and her concerns are no different from possible concerns of the general public who may
dislike Standke's lanai.
10. Additionally, Appellant has provided no evidence or argument that she is or will be
adversely affected by the issuance of Standke's building permit because even if her
speculative concerns were true, additional cars visiting and reversing from Standke's
property would not affect Appellant in any cognizable way.
DECISION AND ORDER
The Board of Appeals having reviewed the evidence, pleadings, and files herein
and having considered the arguments of counsel and for good cause appearing therefor,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee Department of Public Works, County of
Hawai`i's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing is GRANTED and Appellant's
Amended Petition is DISMISSED.
DATED: Hilo, Hawaii
[Name], Chairperson
Board of Appeals of the County of Hawaii
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF HAWAI`I
STATE OF HAWAI`I
CLAUDIA ROHR,
Appellant,
VS.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,
COUNTY OF HAWAI`I,
Appellee,
and
RICHARD STANDKE, DEBORAH
STANDKE,
Landowners.
CASE NO.: PL-BOA-2025-000121
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
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 29, 2026:
1. Claudia Rohr, Appellant
2. Richard Standke, Landowner
Deborah Standke, Landowner
CROHR4@gmail.com
richard. standke@gmail. com
fraukepi5 @gmail.com
3. Sylvia Wan, Deputy Corporation Counsel SylviaA.Wan@hawaiicounty.gov
Attorney for the Board of Appeals
Dated: Hilo, Hawaii, May 29, 2026.
WESLEY R. SEGAWA, Director,
Department of Public Works,
County ofHawai`i, Appellee
By: /s/ Sinclair Salas-Ferguson
SINCLAIR SALAS-FERGUSON
Deputy Corporation Counsel
Attorney for Public Works