11/20/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

N 201 1991 BOOK: U-L,�1 Director Boling understood that special drainage studies have been done for that particular area and that special improve- ments have been done for the area as a whole, which would mitigate and basically not require the need to have cut and fill balancing met on a lot by lot basis. In other words, it already has been taken care of on an area -wide basis through a Municipal Services Taxing District (M.S.T.U.) Mrs. Melodie Manning spoke to the Board recently on this matter, and Engineering has confirmed that her lot falls into the M.S.T.0 area and the exemption would include her lot and other similar lots in the area. Melodie Manning wished to express her appreciation of staff's recommendation for the inclusion of the fourth exemption. She advised that she has looked into the drainage study that had been initiated and paid for by the residents in the area, and she feels the new retention areas will help handle any overflow that might result from extra fill being brought in for new construction. Continuing, Director Boling explained that Section 53 in Chapter 932 deals with the ability/inability to store items such as a boat on a dune or in a dune system area and allows storage in a dune area if it is done in such a manner that it doesn't disturb, damage or destroy the existing dune or the associated dune vegetation. This is covered in Section 53 on page 46 of the proposed ordinance. Mr. DeBlois explained that this came up in a Code Enforcement situation. Previously, the ordinance was worded to prohibit the storage of a boat oceanward of the county dune stabilization setback line. This change allows for some discretion on storage, provided it is confirmed that it is not detrimental to the dune. Referring to the definition in Section 3 on Page_1 of the Ordinance, Commissioner Eggert questioned the two-hour period in the restrictions for "live -aboard vessels" -- A person shall be deemed to be inhabiting or living upon a vessel if he or she is present aboard said vessel for a continuous period of more than two (2) hours between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m." Mr. DeBlois clarified that occupancy would have to occur in those hours for 7 consecutive days. Code Enforcement felt that it would be nearly impossible to confirm whether a motorized vehicle is occupied for 7 consecutive days, and this was worded that if a site was monitored for 7 consecutive days and that on each of those 7 consecutive days it was observed that it was occupied for at least 2 hours each night, staff could presume that it is a "live aboard" case for Code Enforcement action. Director Keating advised that this is one of the amendments that is precipitated by one of the policies in our Comprehensive 14