My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/7/2000
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2000
>
3/7/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:14:17 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 4:14:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/07/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
107
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
• <br />jurisdiction the State could possibly claim due to an impact from the storm of the century." <br />It was always meant as a line to give the Department the jurisdiction to 1) regulate <br />construction seaward of the line so the buildings would survive a storm and 2) make sure the <br />development did not de -stabilize the beach dune system. The line is set to mimic the most <br />extreme event that could be contemplated. The DEP does require that any structure seaward <br />of the line be put on a pile -supported foundation. The foundation that supports the structure <br />has to be above the storm surge with a 3' wave superimposed on it. If there is a hurricane <br />that does reach that far, the waters will pass under the foundation and the structure would <br />not get damaged. Hurricane Opal has proven the success of the program because no <br />permitted structures in the Florida Panhandle were destroyed. The slab -on -grade structures <br />were the only ones destroyed. The project before the Board would have to be designed to <br />meet the same criteria. If they were to deny construction beyond the 1987 CCCL, then the <br />builder would be free to build slab -on -grade right up to the 1987 CCCL which might not <br />survive such a storm. He felt that it was important to keep in mind that the intent of the law <br />was to build a structure that would survive a storm. He had heard concerns that if this <br />application were approved, that the applicant would later try to get an armoring structure. <br />Under both the Statute and DEP rules, if the project is permitted by the State, it is not <br />considered to be a vulnerable project and would not qualify for armoring. So, if the projects <br />are permitted, the owner cannot come in later to seek an armoring permit from the State. <br />Another criteria the State applies is "line of construction," how far seaward the construction <br />can go. This project, as designed, is permit -able. The other concern he has heard is that this <br />is an area of high erosion. From his personal experience in the Summerplace area it is very <br />difficult to get armoring projects permitted for houses 10-20 feet beyond the bluff line. The <br />erosion rates applied to properties in this area is only two feet a year. If this were a high <br />erosion area, he would not be having difficulties in getting armoring permits in that area. He <br />March 7, 2000 <br />55 <br />BOOK :� Ft <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.