Laserfiche WebLink
r- -I <br />FC °d <br />BOOK PAGE g <br />Community Development Director Keating said we are dealing <br />mainly with aesthetics because residents do not want their <br />neighborhoods overrun with a lot of vehicles parked there. <br />Mr. Robinson felt his oceanfront "back yard" is a special <br />exception and does not like to look at boats in, essentially, his <br />front yard. Mr. Robinson also asked how many boats are now going <br />to be allowed to be parked on the beach. <br />Mr. DeBlois clarified that you are allowed one boat, as the <br />owner, and a second boat for a defined duration in a given year. <br />Mr. Robinson felt it would detract from his aesthetics by <br />having boats parked on the beach. He also felt the Board is <br />considering allowing a boat to be parked on a vacant lot, which is <br />not allowed anywhere else in the county. <br />Mr. Collins said that is an issue which has not been <br />thoroughly discussed yet. <br />Commissioner Wheeler felt it would be wrong to store a boat in <br />a vacant lot. <br />Chairman Bird stressed it is allowed only seaward of the dune <br />vegetation line. <br />Commissioner Eggert further clarified by describing the upland <br />part as grass and the part east of the dune stabilization line as <br />the storage area; nothing can be put on the grass or vegetation but <br />it can be put east of the dune stabilization line even if the <br />upland lot is vacant, with proper permission. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously revised <br />the last sentence of Section 53 to read: "Boats <br />stored in accordance with the requirement of this <br />section by or with the permission of the abutting <br />upland land owner shall be exempt from the <br />requirement of Section 911.15(7)(b)1 and <br />912.17 (3) (B) 1." <br />Chairman Bird asked if anyone else wished to discuss any other <br />proposed LDR changes. <br />Attorney Warren Dill came before the Board and wanted to <br />clarify his comments from the November 20 meeting. He is concerned <br />about Section 26 which talks about setbacks in Con -2 and Con -3 <br />districts. Mr. Dill indicated this was found on pages 27 and 28 of <br />the ordinance. Mr. Dill's recollection was that the Con -3 district <br />with the 100 -foot buffer was suggested by Mr. Coraci and was for <br />developments in a cluster concept and was not appropriate for <br />10 <br />