Loading...
1986.03.10_TC_Minutes_Specialt 'r Board of County Commissioners Karen T. Marcus, Chair Jerry L. Owens, Vice Chairman • Ken Spillias Dorothy Wilken Kenneth NI. Adams County Administrator John C. Sansbury Department of Engineering and Public V~'orks Fi. E. Kaiilert County Engineer March 20, 1986 TO BEACHES 4ND SHORES COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM Robert W. Clinger 82ach Erosion Control Coordinator SiJBJECT MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1986 ,~ First item under new business was a presentation by Mrs. ~ Flack regarding the Comprehensive Plan and the Coastal The following is a short version of the highlights of Mrs. presentation. -~orrxer' biR.. aF, Deborah ~' F`'a' ~'/' Element. eyF Be~l~ F1 ack' s f SyO"G6 ~r Rzs. ~' Comprehensive coastal planning has been pre-empted by site specific, r~s ~N+~N nremit by permit, regulatory decisions by State or local Government ~fi____„ ` and applied to a narrow stri p of beach front property. { i . e. Coastal e~r~r ~ ,• t Construction Control line). The Coastal Construction Control line has been a restrictive, piece .meal approach to coastal development, targeting a portion of the act;ve beach/dune system and has left few Governments with an aver a'.1 marag~ment stra~egy. -• For the past 15 years the State has been trying to manage the most vulnerable and sensative areas of the coastline with aermit by permit regulative decisions. The end result has often been inco~sistancy. Constant concern at State and local levels has lead to much debate about armoring the shoreline and what that does to the beach system or whether *.o do nothing and let the exFensive coastal properties erode away or to commit to beach restoration which is an ongoing costly alternative or whether to allow high cost coastal aeveloomer~t t;, continue despite the property's vunerability to storm events. These decisions ar? increasingly difficult due t~ the absence of manage^^ent policies. There has been a ma,;or char.ga in the States approach and that is Fl^rida La v: 85~-55. This law gives the State a.nd local government the opportunity to revisit the C~~astal Comprehensive Manage~ent P1 aiir~i rig effor* . Add : ti ona i ly, t: su~ce~d wi 11 res::l t i n a direction and guidance for future growth. To fui7 will result in an increasing n~.:mber cf regulatory programs, increased costs for coastal prcte.,~ion . and losses of r-~~r2atioral opportunities currant7y enjoyed. Nuch discussion has r"ecused on the 38 year erosion set bacl: ling and the Coest3l 5uilding Zone. Th~sa ara minor elements of the regent logislation' APR., BOX 2429 WEST PALM BEACN, FLORIDA 33402 (305) 684-4000 ( 99QQ ATi ~~~ ~ ~` ~\ i .' These provisions are regulatory but neither of these elements will achieve coastal management. By December 1987 every County and by December 1988 every Municipality will have a comprehensive plan with • emphasis on the coastal element. The Coastal Management Element will be distinct from past efforts in three ways: 1. There is a statement of purpose: Assuring that local manage- ment plans restrict development in coastal areas that are subject to destruction by natural disaster. "It is the intent of the legislature that local government comprehensive _ plans restrict development activity where such activity would damage or destroy caastal resources and that such plan protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas that are subject to destruction by natural disaster. 2. The law details the required content of the Coastal Element: Local Government will need to inventory all existing land use components in the coastal area - local Government defines the coastal area. The law sets the minimum. Local Govern- ment must map natural resources: Coastal vegetation-empha- sizing preservation and enhancement; wetlands - outlining objectives and methods to minimize degradation of those areas; map all coastal areas subject to flooding; map and inventory all infrastructure subject to storm destruction such as roads, bridges, sewers; map habitats and marine resources; also local Government must duplicate these map- • ping efforts for future land use plans. The objective of future planning is to preserve all coastal resources, and establish standards to prioritize water dependent and water related uses. Local Government must prepare objectives that direct population away from high hazard areas. The natural disaster component element: (A) Hurricane evac- uation plan: reducing evacuation time and insuring protection of that route. (B) Post disaster redevelopment plan: i.e. i f you have a disaster how woul d you do i t differently th~.n you did it before? (C) Also structures with a repeated history of damage must be inventoried as well as coastal and shore protective structures (seawalls and revetments). (D) Plans to remove structures that are no longeM useful for erosion control. (E) h]onitor beach and dune conditions before and after a storm so storm damage can be assessed. The beach/dune system components: Local Government must analyse and inventory erosion and accretion trends, effects of coastal structures both as to integrity of the structure and to its effect on neighboring properties, identify areas of potential need for beach/dune restoration. Purpose of this beach/dune component is to protect the beach/dune system minimizing the effects of man made structures and restore altered systems: r The shoreline component; Inventory and analyse the capacity to provide and future need for beach access, be it: Parking and access, boat ramps and docks, piers or other recreational • activities. The purpose being to increase public access consistant with needs. There is also included in the legislation a portion for infrastructure funding: Capital improvements providing for roads, bridges etc... to meet the needs. 3. Local Government is to provide ordinances, regulations and technics that are going to implement the Coastal Management Element and that these objectives are in fact realized. Local comprehensive plans must be in compliance with the State comprehensive plan and Florida Statute 163. .The second item on the agenda under new business was the expansion of projects that could be considered by the Council as authorized in the interlocal agreement. Richard Burn started off the discussion ----'~ by saying that he would not wish to consider any changes until specific language is provided for. Sam Gofseyeff suggested that the Council discuss whether the current limitations give the Council everything that they want to consider. Commissioner Wilken suggested that ttre Council include the development ---~ of a Coastal Management Element. Hank Pert asked whether the Council is interested in broadening the scope of the interlocal agreement. -----Sam Gofseyeff made a motion to consider expanding project consideration •and supported a committee for same. This was seconded by Chuck Potter who requested that the Council's Engineer be made a member of the committee. Reynolds Miller asked to include only consideration of ±hat construction that directly relates to the coastal region. Under discussion Commissioner Wilken suggested a new paragraph that only addresses the comprehensive plan and the impact of chat on the coastal region. The issues involved were subsequently redefined by Eric Olsen. He suggested that there were in reality two issues -t.- for consideration that could expand the scope of the interlocal agreement: (1) Was to extend the Council's consideration to 1500' or 5000' landward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. (2) Whether the Council should participate in the development of the Comprehensive Plan's coastal element. A vote was taken on t~1r. Gofseyeff motion to have a Committee developed "-~•for the purpose of extending project consideration and the motion was passed. • Those members appointed to the Committee include Mr. Burn, htr. Potter, Commissioner Wilken, Mr. Gofseyeff, and the Council's Coastal Engineer, who would be present by phone. • Third item under new business was Coral Cove Park. Pictures were provided by the Town of Tequesta showing the eroded state of Coral Cove Park. Mr. Stoddard pointed out that it is up to the local Government to show some responsibility here, to be alert and aware and to take whatever necessary action is required. He also said that there is concern of a rupture of the dune if erosion continues. The County Engineering office is preliminarily considering a dune _ reconstruction and revegetation. The Council will consider this at a future time when a concrete plan is presented. Following this presentation Mr. Stoddard showed what Tequesta's Condominium's have done in the past to curb erosion at the private property owner's expense. The fourth item under new business was a rock revetment being proposed at the Passages Condominium. A motion was made by Betty Jean Stewart to have the Council's Consultant provide a recommendation. The motion was seconded by Lester Baird. The motion passed. The item was deferred for one month so that additional information could be given to the Council's Engineer. A new procedure was established at this point to require project items to have full siae drawings and use the same permit application format used by the Department of Natural Resources.