Moderator: Styles Bitchley
Yes. It looked to me to be in decent shape. Of course it’s the furthest structure from the water.eagle wrote:I forget what the latest was ... is the gate house still standing?
Good info, thanks Kenji!KENJI wrote:Hi Guys,Styles Bitchley wrote:Confidential rumour? My interest is piqued, Conch!ConchRepublican wrote:Splitting the property makes sense from a financial sense (unfortunately) and it also undermines the Obama Scenario. Although I do wonder why the boathouse wasn't taken down at the same time as it seems to have been in as much disrepair as the main house.
I have heard a "confidential rumor" of a prominent local architect being contracted to build a house for for the former president. It seems until one or the other happens, rumors will continue.
The boathouse is definitely in today's no build zone (too close the ocean) and wouldn't be allowed to be built now in that location. I can't remember what the setbacks are, but I know we discussed it somewhere in this thread. I believe the boathouse is grandfathered in for now (assuming it stays standing as it's in real rough shape) and they probably didn't want to close that door until they knew for sure what they were going to build.....maybe they'll keep the structure and use it as their own boathouse.....a longshot, but you never know....once it's gone, it's gone for good in that location so one should take their time and weigh out the options. Maybe he/they/? are splitting it into three to create one lot for Marty, one for Obama and one for all the security they will need......who knows, one can come up with loads of scenarios.
Sec. 23-1.4 Shoreline setback line.KENJI wrote:Hi Guys,Styles Bitchley wrote:Confidential rumour? My interest is piqued, Conch!ConchRepublican wrote:Splitting the property makes sense from a financial sense (unfortunately) and it also undermines the Obama Scenario. Although I do wonder why the boathouse wasn't taken down at the same time as it seems to have been in as much disrepair as the main house.
I have heard a "confidential rumor" of a prominent local architect being contracted to build a house for for the former president. It seems until one or the other happens, rumors will continue.
The boathouse is definitely in today's no build zone (too close the ocean) and wouldn't be allowed to be built now in that location. I can't remember what the setbacks are, but I know we discussed it somewhere in this thread. I believe the boathouse is grandfathered in for now (assuming it stays standing as it's in real rough shape) and they probably didn't want to close that door until they knew for sure what they were going to build.....maybe they'll keep the structure and use it as their own boathouse.....a longshot, but you never know....once it's gone, it's gone for good in that location so one should take their time and weigh out the options. Maybe he/they/? are splitting it into three to create one lot for Marty, one for Obama and one for all the security they will need
Can someone please simplify this for those of us who don't speak "shoreline"?waverly2211 wrote:Sec. 23-1.4 Shoreline setback line.KENJI wrote:Hi Guys,Styles Bitchley wrote:Confidential rumour? My interest is piqued, Conch!ConchRepublican wrote:Splitting the property makes sense from a financial sense (unfortunately) and it also undermines the Obama Scenario. Although I do wonder why the boathouse wasn't taken down at the same time as it seems to have been in as much disrepair as the main house.
I have heard a "confidential rumor" of a prominent local architect being contracted to build a house for for the former president. It seems until one or the other happens, rumors will continue.
The boathouse is definitely in today's no build zone (too close the ocean) and wouldn't be allowed to be built now in that location. I can't remember what the setbacks are, but I know we discussed it somewhere in this thread. I believe the boathouse is grandfathered in for now (assuming it stays standing as it's in real rough shape) and they probably didn't want to close that door until they knew for sure what they were going to build.....maybe they'll keep the structure and use it as their own boathouse.....a longshot, but you never know....once it's gone, it's gone for good in that location so one should take their time and weigh out the options. Maybe he/they/? are splitting it into three to create one lot for Marty, one for Obama and one for all the security they will need
(a) General Rule. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the shoreline setback line shall be established 40 feet inland
from the certified shoreline.
(b) Adjustment of Shoreline Setback Line on Shallow Lots. Where the depth of the buildable area of a lot, as measured
seaward from its inland edge, is reduced to less than 30 feet, the shoreline setback line shall be adjusted to allow a
minimum depth of buildable area of 30 feet; provided that the adjusted shoreline setback line shall be no less than 20 feet
from the certified shoreline.
(c) Adjustment of Shoreline Setback Line Related to the Construction of a Shore Protection Structure. Once a shoreline has
been certified from which a shoreline setback line can be established, no shoreline setback line shall be established farther
seaward as the result of a subsequent certified shoreline survey following the construction of a shore protection structure.
On a lot where the certified shoreline is permanently fixed by a shore protection structure, the shoreline setback line shall
be established by measuring inland from the shoreline, as it was located prior to the construction of the shoreline protection
structure.
Where the shore protection structure was constructed without a shoreline survey first being made and certified by the state
department of land and natural resources, the director shall determine the prior location of the shoreline solely for the
purpose of establishing the shoreline setback line. In so doing, the director shall consider the actual location of the high
wash of the waves during the year and the location of the shoreline and the shoreline setback line on adjacent properties.
The resulting shoreline setback line may be further than 40 feet from the shoreline established by the department of land
utilization following construction of the shore protection structure.
This is just setting the legal definition for the mean high tide line, which in Hawaii like California, defines the edge of private property and the beginning of public beach. There is then a setback from the private property line established at 40’ but with exceptions made for older structures approved before these definitions were established as law and for properties made too shallow to be buildable according to the new limits. Other exceptions are made for properties with sea walls, that are no longer allowed, but are grandfathered in. It further defines how far from the sea wall any new structures can be built based on a projected mean high tide line that would exist if not for the sea wall intruding into that space.IvanTheTerrible wrote:Can someone please simplify this for those of us who don't speak "shoreline"?waverly2211 wrote:Sec. 23-1.4 Shoreline setback line.KENJI wrote:Hi Guys,Styles Bitchley wrote:Confidential rumour? My interest is piqued, Conch!ConchRepublican wrote:Splitting the property makes sense from a financial sense (unfortunately) and it also undermines the Obama Scenario. Although I do wonder why the boathouse wasn't taken down at the same time as it seems to have been in as much disrepair as the main house.
I have heard a "confidential rumor" of a prominent local architect being contracted to build a house for for the former president. It seems until one or the other happens, rumors will continue.
The boathouse is definitely in today's no build zone (too close the ocean) and wouldn't be allowed to be built now in that location. I can't remember what the setbacks are, but I know we discussed it somewhere in this thread. I believe the boathouse is grandfathered in for now (assuming it stays standing as it's in real rough shape) and they probably didn't want to close that door until they knew for sure what they were going to build.....maybe they'll keep the structure and use it as their own boathouse.....a longshot, but you never know....once it's gone, it's gone for good in that location so one should take their time and weigh out the options. Maybe he/they/? are splitting it into three to create one lot for Marty, one for Obama and one for all the security they will need
(a) General Rule. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the shoreline setback line shall be established 40 feet inland
from the certified shoreline.
(b) Adjustment of Shoreline Setback Line on Shallow Lots. Where the depth of the buildable area of a lot, as measured
seaward from its inland edge, is reduced to less than 30 feet, the shoreline setback line shall be adjusted to allow a
minimum depth of buildable area of 30 feet; provided that the adjusted shoreline setback line shall be no less than 20 feet
from the certified shoreline.
(c) Adjustment of Shoreline Setback Line Related to the Construction of a Shore Protection Structure. Once a shoreline has
been certified from which a shoreline setback line can be established, no shoreline setback line shall be established farther
seaward as the result of a subsequent certified shoreline survey following the construction of a shore protection structure.
On a lot where the certified shoreline is permanently fixed by a shore protection structure, the shoreline setback line shall
be established by measuring inland from the shoreline, as it was located prior to the construction of the shoreline protection
structure.
Where the shore protection structure was constructed without a shoreline survey first being made and certified by the state
department of land and natural resources, the director shall determine the prior location of the shoreline solely for the
purpose of establishing the shoreline setback line. In so doing, the director shall consider the actual location of the high
wash of the waves during the year and the location of the shoreline and the shoreline setback line on adjacent properties.
The resulting shoreline setback line may be further than 40 feet from the shoreline established by the department of land
utilization following construction of the shore protection structure.
Well, I'm still unclear about some of this stuff, like what's a setback? It sounds like you can't build a house closer than 40 feet to the edge of the water? But then how do you define the edge of the water? There's high and low tide. Sometimes the water will be closer to the house and sometimes further away.Pahonu wrote: This is just setting the legal definition for the mean high tide line, which in Hawaii like California, defines the edge of private property and the beginning of public beach. There is then a setback from the private property line established at 40’ but with exceptions made for older structures approved before these definitions were established as law and for properties made too shallow to be buildable according to the new limits. Other exceptions are made for properties with sea walls, that are no longer allowed, but are grandfathered in. It further defines how far from the sea wall any new structures can be built based on a projected mean high tide line that would exist if not for the sea wall intruding into that space.
Does that help?
It’s an average. That’s what he means by the mean high tide line. The setback is how far back it has to be from that line.IvanTheTerrible wrote:Well, I'm still unclear about some of this stuff, like what's a setback? It sounds like you can't build a house closer than 40 feet to the edge of the water? But then how do you define the edge of the water? There's high and low tide. Sometimes the water will be closer to the house and sometimes further away.Pahonu wrote: This is just setting the legal definition for the mean high tide line, which in Hawaii like California, defines the edge of private property and the beginning of public beach. There is then a setback from the private property line established at 40’ but with exceptions made for older structures approved before these definitions were established as law and for properties made too shallow to be buildable according to the new limits. Other exceptions are made for properties with sea walls, that are no longer allowed, but are grandfathered in. It further defines how far from the sea wall any new structures can be built based on a projected mean high tide line that would exist if not for the sea wall intruding into that space.
Does that help?
Exactly. Mean high tide is established as an average over time. Nautical charts show bridge clearance, for example, as the measurement from mean high tide to the underside of the bridge. It gets trickier establishing a line in the sand because the sand constantly moves, so each lot will have it established and recorded. This measurement can be changed over time as building permits for new structures are requested. Pahonu’s has certainly gotten closer to the shore as records show a rise in sea level in the 80+ years since it was built. A map showing this was posted here some years ago.K Hale wrote:It’s an average. That’s what he means by the mean high tide line. The setback is how far back it has to be from that line.IvanTheTerrible wrote:Well, I'm still unclear about some of this stuff, like what's a setback? It sounds like you can't build a house closer than 40 feet to the edge of the water? But then how do you define the edge of the water? There's high and low tide. Sometimes the water will be closer to the house and sometimes further away.Pahonu wrote: This is just setting the legal definition for the mean high tide line, which in Hawaii like California, defines the edge of private property and the beginning of public beach. There is then a setback from the private property line established at 40’ but with exceptions made for older structures approved before these definitions were established as law and for properties made too shallow to be buildable according to the new limits. Other exceptions are made for properties with sea walls, that are no longer allowed, but are grandfathered in. It further defines how far from the sea wall any new structures can be built based on a projected mean high tide line that would exist if not for the sea wall intruding into that space.
Does that help?
I see. I guess that makes sense. Thanks!Pahonu wrote:Exactly. Mean high tide is established as an average over time. Nautical charts show bridge clearance, for example, as the measurement from mean high tide to the underside of the bridge. It gets trickier establishing a line in the sand because the sand constantly moves, so each lot will have it established and recorded. This measurement can be changed over time as building permits for new structures are requested. Pahonu’s has certainly gotten closer to the shore as records show a rise in sea level in the 80+ years since it was built. A map showing this was posted here some years ago.K Hale wrote:It’s an average. That’s what he means by the mean high tide line. The setback is how far back it has to be from that line.IvanTheTerrible wrote:Well, I'm still unclear about some of this stuff, like what's a setback? It sounds like you can't build a house closer than 40 feet to the edge of the water? But then how do you define the edge of the water? There's high and low tide. Sometimes the water will be closer to the house and sometimes further away.Pahonu wrote: This is just setting the legal definition for the mean high tide line, which in Hawaii like California, defines the edge of private property and the beginning of public beach. There is then a setback from the private property line established at 40’ but with exceptions made for older structures approved before these definitions were established as law and for properties made too shallow to be buildable according to the new limits. Other exceptions are made for properties with sea walls, that are no longer allowed, but are grandfathered in. It further defines how far from the sea wall any new structures can be built based on a projected mean high tide line that would exist if not for the sea wall intruding into that space.
Does that help?
Setbacks are part of building codes and establish how close a structure can be to the lot lines. Outbuildings, like detached garages, are often allowed closer than an inhabited structure. They can be defined to allow for easements like sidewalks or power poles, or to protect light or views to neighboring properties. In urban areas they are often zero on the sides, like row houses. Even then, there are usually minimums established to front and rear lot lines and total lot coverage. Even tightly packed New York brownstones have setbacks from the sidewalks for stoops and areas, as well as backyards, no matter how small.
Why do you have to be so damn sensible, Pahonu???Pahonu wrote:In thinking about the property since this thread started, I’ve arrived at a couple of new conclusions and reaffirmed others. First, although we all loved this home for obvious reasons, it was in significant disrepair from the elements and, in my view, probably beyond repair with any hope of financial profit. As I said before, and others agreed, this was a property sold almost entirely based on land value.
Second, the house was designed for an era of servants and cheap labor that aren’t around any more. It had accommodations for five live-in staff and service areas almost entirely separated from the living spaces as was common then. Remodeling such spaces for modern living is challenging but possible in some historic homes. This home did not lend itself to such changes. If you look at the model I created it can be seen how the kitchen and laundry were far removed from any living spaces making modern habitation difficult without a large staff as mentioned above.
Third, and perhaps most relevant, even for its time this house was not meant for a family. It was built out of a collection of smaller properties by Mrs. Wall later in life as a recreation and entertainment space... for adults. It has five separate suites, all opening to exterior terraces/balconies. It has no clear owner’s suite, family bedrooms and guest rooms, just individual suites. Think about it. It had a exterior bathhouse with changing rooms, showers, and toilets. It had a bar/pub space at the end of the ell near the beach access. It also had a boathouse for adult recreation. It might have actually made for a nice B&B if it wasn’t so neglected for so long but it may never have been profitable. It was, however, just not designed as a family home, so I think it’s future was inevitably doomed.
All of these factors made it unlikely that it could be saved. Sad but true!
Excellent point! Hadn’t thought of it in those terms.Styles Bitchley wrote:Why do you have to be so damn sensible, Pahonu???Pahonu wrote:In thinking about the property since this thread started, I’ve arrived at a couple of new conclusions and reaffirmed others. First, although we all loved this home for obvious reasons, it was in significant disrepair from the elements and, in my view, probably beyond repair with any hope of financial profit. As I said before, and others agreed, this was a property sold almost entirely based on land value.
Second, the house was designed for an era of servants and cheap labor that aren’t around any more. It had accommodations for five live-in staff and service areas almost entirely separated from the living spaces as was common then. Remodeling such spaces for modern living is challenging but possible in some historic homes. This home did not lend itself to such changes. If you look at the model I created it can be seen how the kitchen and laundry were far removed from any living spaces making modern habitation difficult without a large staff as mentioned above.
Third, and perhaps most relevant, even for its time this house was not meant for a family. It was built out of a collection of smaller properties by Mrs. Wall later in life as a recreation and entertainment space... for adults. It has five separate suites, all opening to exterior terraces/balconies. It has no clear owner’s suite, family bedrooms and guest rooms, just individual suites. Think about it. It had a exterior bathhouse with changing rooms, showers, and toilets. It had a bar/pub space at the end of the ell near the beach access. It also had a boathouse for adult recreation. It might have actually made for a nice B&B if it wasn’t so neglected for so long but it may never have been profitable. It was, however, just not designed as a family home, so I think it’s future was inevitably doomed.
All of these factors made it unlikely that it could be saved. Sad but true!
Seriously though. These are very well articulated points. It actually really points out that it was a very well scouted location for the purposes of Robin Masters' Hawaiian getaway. Primarily used for entertaining. Rarely used by the owner himself.
I always felt that was the ideal solution. (well, aside from me winning the lottery)Pahonu wrote:In thinking about the property since this thread started, I’ve arrived at a couple of new conclusions and reaffirmed others. First, although we all loved this home for obvious reasons, it was in significant disrepair from the elements and, in my view, probably beyond repair with any hope of financial profit. As I said before, and others agreed, this was a property sold almost entirely based on land value.
Second, the house was designed for an era of servants and cheap labor that aren’t around any more. It had accommodations for five live-in staff and service areas almost entirely separated from the living spaces as was common then. Remodeling such spaces for modern living is challenging but possible in some historic homes. This home did not lend itself to such changes. If you look at the model I created it can be seen how the kitchen and laundry were far removed from any living spaces making modern habitation difficult without a large staff as mentioned above.
Third, and perhaps most relevant, even for its time this house was not meant for a family. It was built out of a collection of smaller properties by Mrs. Wall later in life as a recreation and entertainment space... for adults. It has five separate suites, all opening to exterior terraces/balconies. It has no clear owner’s suite, family bedrooms and guest rooms, just individual suites. Think about it. It had a exterior bathhouse with changing rooms, showers, and toilets. It had a bar/pub space at the end of the ell near the beach access. It also had a boathouse for adult recreation. It might have actually made for a nice B&B if it wasn’t so neglected for so long but it may never have been profitable. It was, however, just not designed as a family home, so I think it’s future was inevitably doomed.
All of these factors made it unlikely that it could be saved. Sad but true!
That might have worked Conch... if it had been maintained.ConchRepublican wrote:I always felt that was the ideal solution. (well, aside from me winning the lottery)Pahonu wrote:In thinking about the property since this thread started, I’ve arrived at a couple of new conclusions and reaffirmed others. First, although we all loved this home for obvious reasons, it was in significant disrepair from the elements and, in my view, probably beyond repair with any hope of financial profit. As I said before, and others agreed, this was a property sold almost entirely based on land value.
Second, the house was designed for an era of servants and cheap labor that aren’t around any more. It had accommodations for five live-in staff and service areas almost entirely separated from the living spaces as was common then. Remodeling such spaces for modern living is challenging but possible in some historic homes. This home did not lend itself to such changes. If you look at the model I created it can be seen how the kitchen and laundry were far removed from any living spaces making modern habitation difficult without a large staff as mentioned above.
Third, and perhaps most relevant, even for its time this house was not meant for a family. It was built out of a collection of smaller properties by Mrs. Wall later in life as a recreation and entertainment space... for adults. It has five separate suites, all opening to exterior terraces/balconies. It has no clear owner’s suite, family bedrooms and guest rooms, just individual suites. Think about it. It had a exterior bathhouse with changing rooms, showers, and toilets. It had a bar/pub space at the end of the ell near the beach access. It also had a boathouse for adult recreation. It might have actually made for a nice B&B if it wasn’t so neglected for so long but it may never have been profitable. It was, however, just not designed as a family home, so I think it’s future was inevitably doomed.
All of these factors made it unlikely that it could be saved. Sad but true!
Refreshing the place and using it as Robin did, as a resort of sorts. Not the "all-inclusive" Sandals type, but a more boutique type of place where the atmosphere and vibe was sold. Obviously heavily nodding towards the Magnum history but also old Hawai'i . . . I guess the tough part would be having a place like that yet the beach and tidal pool are public.
There would have been very few, if any, $$$ changes needed in terms of remodeling for it to be run as a B and B, just a little refreshing as you said. It was almost perfectly designed for that kind of activity. It would certainly have been high end because of the amenities... play some morning tennis, have a drink at the bar near the beach entrance or better yet on the sand or the boat house terrace, snorkel in the tidal pool, get a paddle board out of the boat house and explore the bay, relax on the upstairs lanai outside your room with a cocktail before dinner, get cozy by the fireplace in the living room and enjoy the night views of the water after a late night dip and warm shower in the bath house. I should right copy for these resorts. 
