My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012-05-17 Leeward Exh B - Mooers
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2012
>
2012-05-17 Leeward Exh B - Mooers
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/21/2012 3:00:14 PM
Creation date
6/21/2012 3:00:09 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Vitousek? Hearing none, Greg, did you want to <br />bring up more information? <br /> <br />MOOERS: I think, yeah, I just wanted to make sure that the Commissioners understood the history <br />of the relationship that Mrs. Scharpf did not build the wall, that she in many ways was a victim of <br />this “illegal wall,” and has done everything in her power to work with the County to address the <br />issue of the public access and to improve that and to go through the permitting requirements, paid <br />the fines from the previous owner, and is not opposed to any of that. We are concerned about <br />Condition 3. We understand the need for public lateral access, but just feel that that area all the way <br />up to the pink line is excessive, and that it will be very hard to police. The condition as <br />Mr. Vitousek has recommended, the six feet, would say that at any point that the wall affixes the <br />shoreline, so at some point in the future if the sea levels continue to rise and more portions of the <br />wall fix the shoreline, then in fact the public access is granted beyond that wall. So the only thing <br />that we are opposed to is providing public access above the wall, if there is adequate State-owned <br />land makai of the wall. So at any point that the seawall becomes the shoreline, we would agree that <br />there should be lateral access above the wall. I think one of the things that, you know, we have to <br />look at is, you know, what’s the public benefit, and the reality is is that the wall on the north is <br />already a nonconforming wall, so that access is not going to continue beyond Mrs. Scharpf’s. The <br />access to the south is a nonconforming wall. So, I mean, we are talking about the public right now <br />goes out onto that point, and they go out on the point because there is sand, there are trees, and they <br />enjoy that; but as far as this being part of the trail or path, it simply is not -. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: Right, right. <br /> <br />MOOERS: It’s one isolated lot. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: I wish we had – I’m sorry, I wanted to just talk to you, Greg – I wish we had pictures of <br />the northern lot and wall and the beach -. <br /> <br />VITOUSEK: But we do. <br /> <br />MOOERS: We do. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: And the southern Sutton property beach -. <br /> <br />MOOERS: I think Maija has got several photographs that show those. That, there’s, that’s the <br />south. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: And that’s the Sutton’s. <br /> <br />MOOERS: Yes. And you’ll notice that it’s basically rubble and water there; there is no beach, <br />right? <br /> <br />GIFFIN: And then something north? <br /> <br />MOOERS: That’s north -. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: Oh, the lower portion, uh huh. <br />10 <br />EXHIBIT B <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.