Armoring on Public Beach Property

[ecopal]

This is back on the agenda for the Tuesday 4PM BCC meeting. These owners just keep pushing to keep their structures on public property.

Please be there and/or contact the County commissioners listed below to give your input.

Armoring on Public Property. (Dale Koblenzer Agenda Item)

A representative of five property owners are requesting that their geotubes be allowed to remain on the public beach.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has now identified 45 parcels where either seawalls or geotubes or both have been built on public beach, in some cases as much as 88? seaward of the private property boundary.

The owners obviously want to keep their walls and/or geotubes and want the county to authorize them to remain on the beach. FDEP has asked for a meeting with the county to discuss this problem.

In the meantime, some of the property owners have placed the issue on the agenda for Tuesday?s board meeting. SWCC has many concerns about this issue which have been expressed in prior position statements. *

WALTON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
November 14, 2006

The Walton County Board of Commissioners will hold their ***regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 beginning at 4:00 PM at the South Walton Courthouse Annex, ****
located at 31 Coastal Centre Boulevard, Santa Rosa Beach, FL.

estimated start time of this item is:
5:00 PM *********Dale Koblenzer
1. ****Montgomery Street Residents ? Project Beach Restoration and Installation

5:10 PM *********George R. Miller, Attorney
1. ****Lot 260 Blue Mountain Road
*
5:20 PM *********Sean McBride
***********************1. *Easement access for Driftwood Drive
*
5:30 PM *********Pat Blackshear ? Growth Management
1. ****Transferal Request for BCC #5027 F750 Dump w/lift boom from Code Enforcement to Public Works
2. **Billy McKee ? Coastal Dunes Lakes Project request by Phillip Ellis
*
5:40 PM *********David Hallman, County Attorney
1. ****Cari Roth Conflict Waiver
2. ****Question to Attorney General concerning flood plain provisions of the Land Development Code
3. ****Status of DEP response to question concerning applications for seawalls on County property
*
......*
.......

6:35 PM *********Public Hearing/Quasi Judicial Items
1. ****Final Plat approval for Lighthouse Pointe Subdivision
2. ****Final Plat approval for South Beach Phase II
3. ****Seaview Landing
4. ****The Winston
5. ****Prominence DRI
6. ****Bayou View
7. ****Watersound North NOPC No.1
8. ****J & L Eagle Cove, LLC Application for Scrivener?s Error Small Scale Amendment
9. ****Meredith Warren Application for Scrivener?s Error Small Scale Amendment
10. *South Walton New Town Master Plan of Development, Overlay District and Land Development code Amendments
*
Adjourn

Times are approximate and may not be strictly adhered to.

Commissioner and Planning Director Contacts

Commissioner Scott Brannon
brascott@co.walton.fl.us
(850) 622-3081

*Commissioner Cindy Meadows
*meacindy@co.walton.fl.us
**(850) 622-3059

Commissioner Ken Pridgen
prikenneth@co.walton.fl.us
(850) 834-6328 *

Commissioner Larry Jones
jonlarry@co.walton.fl.us
850) 892-8474

Pat Blackshear
Planning Director
blapat@co.walton.fl.us
(850) 835-4834

 

[Smiling JOe]

Thanks for the reminder.

 

[Sally]

Encroachment issue tabled for further investigation

By Gabriel Tynes


The status of fi ve Montgomery Street beach armaments remains in limbo after the Walton Board of County Commissioners vowed to resolve encroachment issues only with the consol of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
The issue reappeared at the Nov. 14 BCC meeting, where two Montgomery Street residents argued that they were acting in good faith by installing a nearly 500-foot ProTec subterranean tube seaward of their properties after extensive hurricane-related erosion last year. Dale Koblenzer and Jim Eaton argued the county did nothing to maintain beach or dune integrity prior to last year?s storms, and the resulting armament was an act of last resort.
?All of us have lived as neighbors for almost 30 years and we?ve seen the beach deteriorate and the resulting problems compound,? Koblenzer said. ?Without the action that we chose to take, our houses would have surely fallen into the sea.?
Koblenzer and Eaton were seeking a licensing agreement from the county ? a solution County Attorney David Hallman cautiously suggested may be feasible. ?You have a broad authority to act in the interest of the public,? Hallman told the board. ?But a licensing agreement gives the county more control with conveying an interest in real property.?
The proposed agreement would require the homeowners to maintain the tubes along with the sand and vegetation that covers them. Koblenzer said the project cost the fi ve homeowners around $750,000, and they would be responsible for future costs.
While the status of the DEP application for the Montgomery Street armament is complete, its ?permanent? designation is pending, awaiting a letter from the county that would recognize the encroachment and allow the structures to remain. The county however, is reluctant to issue such letters in light of the more than 40 private projects that have been installed on county property since 2005, some more than 80 feet.
The Montgomery Street request was met by disdain from District Five County Commissioner Cindy Meadows, who continues to question why the homeowners never contacted the county about property ownership before installation. Meadows is also concerned about repair and liability issues, including possible impacts to unarmored, neighboring properties.
Eaton said ProTec tubes are different than seawalls or geotubes, and ?contoured returns? on the device would limit impacts to adjacent property.
?Last year we had a lot of new of a wave up and back out, rather than down or around like a seawall.
?What we would be left with is 70 to 80 feet of eroded beach and a sheer sand wall.? Eaton said.
?I?m not sure exactly what you?re asking,? Meadows told Eaton. ?The DEP sent us a list of 45 encroaching properties so I don?t believe we should consider any one or five or ten separately,? she said. ?This is a county issue and a DEP issue, not a neighborhood issue.?
Meadows added, ?ProTec tubes are armoring devices so it?s all one in the same.?
Koblenzer questioned what the county would do if they decided not to recognize the encroachment.
?What is the alternative?? Koblenzer asked. ?If you are opposed, what are you asking? Are you then going to restore the beach? I think the answer is no.?
Eaton also said he was uncomfortable with the idea of the county working directly with the DEP to resolve his permit status, rather than through him or the homeowners.
?Whether is it my property or presumably the county?s, the application is between us and [the DEP],? Eaton said.
After the discussion, the board approved to carry the issue to a later meeting.

 

[Sally]

County, DEP meet to discuss seawall encroachment
By Gabriel Tynes

Assistant County Administrator Shirl Williams is expected to meet with Michael Barnett, the chairman of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems Tuesday to discuss the ongoing seawall encroachment dispute.
As requested, Barnett sent the Walton Board of County Commissioners a list of the encroachments in early November detailing the 45 properties in question. The properties are represented on 10 separate DEP applications for permanent armament status, which are in limbo pending the county?s recognition.
District Five County Commissioner Cindy Meadows said she wasn?t sure what the results meeting would be, but it could help develop protocol for the structures to remain.
?We still don?t know what is expected of the county,? Meadows said. ?[The encroachments] are unprecedented and we don?t see a reason to rush to conclusions.?
The encroachments were revealed over the summer when the DEP was reviewing applications for permanent status. Private beach armaments were installed on property deeded to the county as public swimming areas more than 40 years ago.
Eighteen of the encroachments were reported in Dune Allen Beach along with 25 in Seagrove. Two properties in Blue Mountain Beach are also under scrutiny.
Barnett?s list shows one project, fi ve adjacent properties on Montgomery Street, extending more than 80 feet onto county property.
At the BCC meeting Nov. 14, Montgomery Street residents Dale Koblenzer and Jim Eaton suggested that the issue could be resolved with a licensing agreement. The agreements would allow the armament to remain under the condition that the property owners maintain the sand and the vegetation covering it.
Former County Attorney David Hallman said such agreement may be feasible, and would give the county ?more control with conveying an interest in real property.? The idea was tabled for further investigation.
In October, the properties in question were given a 60 or 90 day deadline to solve the issue with the county or face having the structures removed, but it appears as if the DEP is reluctant to take action until further negotiations have transpired. The issue is expected to reappear on the BCC agenda this month.