2/20/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

EER 2 0 1985 BOOK M Chairman Lyons had a question as to wording in Section 1 - "is necessary to protect contiguous real property improvements." Assistant County Attorney Chris Paull believed that is meant to intend property that is immediately attached to the dune. He noted that the original just said "upland" and that could be upland a block away. Chairman Lyons did not feel that "contiguous" is exactly the right word, but as long as it is intended that it is a piece of property that has the dune line, that is what matters, and if a better word can be found to indicate this, that would be fine. Commissioner Bowman raised a question regarding wording, also in Section 1, - "dune revegetation, using native and salt tolerant plant material....." She felt this was a very general term and pointed out that many of these materials do not tolerate a dune, i.e. sea oats are both native and salt tolerant but actually do not belong on the dunes. She, therefore, suggested saying instead "suitable or appropriate" plant material. Planner Challacombe did not agree that sea oats do not belong on dunes, and Commissioner Bowman stated they only should be on the backside of dunes. Attorney Paull suggested that the wording be changed to read "using native and salt tolerant plant material, which is appropriate and suitable." Commissioner Wodtke brought up the concern of the Regional Planning Council on beach restoration that it "require the dune system restoration, where needed, be included in beach renourishment projects." The way the Ordinance is written, he couldn't imagine if we have a major project we would not do a vegetation, but wondered if we want to put in "where needed", or is that implied? Planner Challacombe stated that it is implied. What we are looking at in this case is small projects where a certain land owner might want to do a small area and just protect himself from erosion. 64 M