My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/26/1986
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
2/26/1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:01 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 11:31:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/26/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
BOOK 63 FmUE 743 <br />limits are within the coastal building zone boundaries. Of the <br />area that is not within the boundaries, most of it is a wetland <br />mosquito impoundment and is designated as Environmentally <br />Sensitive on the County Comprehensive Plan. <br />The proposed ordinance also establishes minimum standards for <br />the design and construction of buildings and structures within <br />the coastal building zone. The proposed standards specifically' <br />impose more stringent requirements regarding foundation design, <br />wind and wave loads, and minor structures in order to reduce <br />the harmful effects from disasters occurring within the coastal <br />building zone. <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt <br />the Coastal Building Code Ordinance. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked if it is really 5,0001, and Attorney <br />Barkett believed that is the interpretation. He noted that all <br />building requirements applicable to the coastal building zone <br />also apply to coastal barrier islands, which he believed includes <br />the whole island within the coastal building zone. He stated <br />that the only choice the county has is if it desires that the <br />zone be wider than 5,0001. <br />Commissioner Bird inquired where the confusion arose <br />regarding a 1,500' setback as opposed to 5,0001, and Attorney <br />Barkett explained that the 1,500' would pertain only if you are <br />not on a barrier island. <br />In the ensuing discussion, it was noted that parts of the <br />barrier island in the unincorporated area are wider than 5,0001, <br />but it was also felt this issue has more or less resolved itself <br />since it seems no one is present to argue it. <br />Commissioner.Bird believed the people feel if this issue is <br />going to be resolved, it will have to be done through the <br />legislature. He asked if our ordinance is identical to the one <br />passed by the City. <br />Attorney Barkett advised that it does the same thing - it <br />establishes the zone and the building standards within the zone, <br />and he believed our standards will be identical the City's. <br />Chairman Scurlock assumed if a structure is damaged more <br />than 50% that it has to be built back to current standards, and <br />that was confirmed. <br />30 <br />_ M <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.