2014-07-03 Hearing Transcript - Scott Watson Amend SMA 450

Home

about. I have a topographic survey of this that was done before anything took place out here, and shows that this is not the sea cliff. The State doesn’t recognize it as the shoreline except for an old 2002 survey. Now, there was never a survey done when this was created. It was a large subdivision, and this line was created from an aerial photograph. There were no surveys done to certify the shoreline. The point I want to make first is this line that they say is the shoreline goes right through the middle of a building that’s been there for a 130 years. This was all industrial uses for the sugar cane process, and next door to the power plant. All I’m asking is that we make this an accurate survey. We have to change all four sides, well, not this side of the property. This is all fine and stayed the same always, but this was never a sea cliff or shoreline, especially through the middle of a building. So, to say that they surveyed this and certified it is incorrect. The BLNR wouldn’t certify this through the middle of a building if they knew they were there. Now, these buildings are only on this picture from Google Earth. They were never on a map until we had the map surveyed, and they placed the structures, the historical structures on there. So, you can clearly see that this boundary line, or what they’re calling a shoreline, is up in the middle of the building. It ignores the fact that there’s a flume here. The shoreline is actually down here where the State says it is, and all I’m asking is accuracy. That we go along with where the accurate true shoreline is, and the other modifications are all already been submitted since 2009, so I’ve been working on this for five years to accommodate all the historical structures, and to place the house there, I’ve met with Planning Department a probably a hundred times over this. There’s only one place to put it. If this is a shoreline, and that setback is back to here, there is no place on the property to build a house. So, I’ve tried to make everyone happy and work with all the access issues so we granted more than half of the property for public access. Makes it a superior public access, too. The old one that does not work comes to the edge of this hill— MIYASATO: Could you please use the mic? WATSON: It’s pinched off, excuse me, it’s pinched off right here, and there is no more access, so there is no way to the shoreline. This creates a way to the shoreline. If the shoreline is accepted, then we would also give the County an easement to use the rest of the ramp down to the pier that’s been here for a 130 years. So, in short, (thank you)—Gary and I are seeking amendment of the SMA permit that allowed a subdivision to be created of these lots next to the Old Mill. We have had setbacks and shoreline access issues arise during our development of a single-family residence that was permitted on the property in 2012. They let me start building then they were made aware of Condition 11. Building--Planning Department wasn’t aware of it, we weren’t aware of it until we had started construction. They stopped us, and here we are. I want, I want to point out that the Agreement would use the actual shoreline from which to measure the required setbacks. There are three points that I would like to emphasize. This amendment will correct the inaccuracies in the placement of the shoreline. Two, the amendment will bring, excuse me, the amendment will benefit the public by correcting an error and now there will be a superior public access to the shoreline that doesn’t exist now. The third point, this amendment will resolve an on-going legal dispute and court fight about legal interpretations of the correct shoreline and whether the County is properly enforcing State law. 10 EXHIBIT E