Laserfiche WebLink
MAY 2 5 1983 <br />PA;1F577 <br />would be any density credit for transfer, and he did not <br />believe this has been addressed. <br />Shoreline Stabilization <br />Page 16, line 16. This states that those who benefit <br />from shoreline stabilization efforts are to provide the <br />necessary funding. <br />Commissioner Wodtke asked Mr. King to explain this <br />statement, and Mr. King stated that any time there is a <br />beach stabilization project, the actual funding would be <br />computed based upon the perceived benefits to all people.. <br />He felt this is similar to the process the Erosion Control <br />Committee is trying to establish, and it is just saying you <br />should try to do some type of assessment to determine actual <br />benefits derived in relation to the cost of the project. <br />The Board then questioned whether the plan treats beach <br />stabilization and beach restoration as one and the same as <br />it was felt that stabilization would pertain to structures <br />such as groins while restoration would be more related to <br />sand pumping. Mr. King did not believe they are treated <br />differently, but Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that Page <br />18, line 10,. stated that jetties or groins should only be <br />used when part of a beach restoration project. <br />Water Quality <br />Page 19, Line 4: Mr. King noted this refers to water <br />within the marine estuary and the need to control the inflow <br />of fresh water which affects the salinity level. <br />Commissioner Wodtke did not see how a uniform statement <br />can be made that will be effective in three counties that <br />have different situations at the various inlets, a varying <br />tidal flow, etc. <br />Mr. King explained that the policy is aimed at <br />maintaining the optimum level, and each jurisdiction will <br />have to decide what level they need to maintain. <br />