Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLWRP-04/05/2007 LWRP Coordinating Council Minutes Thursday, April 5, 2007 Attendance: Members: Jeri Woodhouse Mark Terry Ruth Oliva Peg Dickerson Jim McMahon Jack McGreevy Scott Russell John Sepenoski Guests: Anne Murray (NFEC) 1. Review public suggestions on Code updates from Rozakis: Not reviewed as per Pat Finnegan based on Trustees fear that reviewing these suggestions would validate the Rozakis law suit. 2. Review in-house Code notes: Council reviewed previously distributed document with the exception of the section on the proposed mooring code. This section was not reviewed since the Town Board was already in the process of changing the code so the Council felt it was better to wait until the next version is available for review. Generally the Council agreed with the notes and proposed changes, Peg Dickerson will add some of the changes to the current Chapter 275 updates that the Trustees have been working on, the others will be included in the LWRP CC recommendations to the Town Board. Additional discussion and information is needed on some of the issues identified. See summary below for details. 3. Prioritizing LWRP CC recommendations: Council members will submit their priorities to John Sep via e-mail for review and compilation. 4. Bulkhead/jetty/groin “in kind in place” exemptions from LWRP: not discussed due to time constraints. 5. Additional exemptions from LWRP : not discussed due to time constraints. 6. Bulkhead specs/final revisions: not discussed due to time constraints 7. PEP TMDL report & 303D Water bodies: not discussed due to time constraints. All items not discussed will be on the agenda for the next meeting. Summary of discussion of in-house code notes document. Chapter 275 Notes ?? Administrative Permit definition should now reference LWRP Policies since these policies are law while the Trustees policies are just policies. ?? Creek and Critical Environmental Area names should all be reconciled so that it is clear what areas are included in these lists. Locally used names for sections of creeks should be added to the code. Maps should be created depicting all areas listed in the definitions. CEA definition should be updated to make it clear that newly designated CEAs can be added. Chapter 275 should be updated to provide more protection for CEAs, for example increased set backs. ?? Dock length definition should be updated to follow the one used within the code that includes the dimensions of the vessel. ?? Maintenance dredging definition should be updated to reflect modern standards for dredging. In addition definition of environmental dredging should be considered due to recent change in County law that allows the County to undertake such dredging. This definition should prevent environmental dredging from becoming maintenance dredging. ?? Mean high water definition should be corrected to reflect that it is the average of high water heights and not all water heights as currently written. ?? Patent Lands definition should explicitly list such lands. ?? Setbacks – true setbacks that cannot be waived should be established as the waiver clause contradicts the definition of setbacks. Minimum set backs should vary based on type of wetland and action proposed. The reference to “residential property” should be removed as it excludes other land uses such as commercial. ?? Spawner Sanctuary should be reviewed by the Trustees to determine if they are at a point where the code needs to specify procedures, standards, penalties and the like for areas so designated by the Trustees. It appears the Trustees have not designated any such areas yet but even if they did the code does not give them any real control of the areas beyond the general rules of chapter 275. ?? 275-11-A-(8) No structures on beaches, bluffs or dunes unless approved by the Board at its discretion based on its site inspection. This part of the code should be changed to either remove the clause from “unless” on or establish specific guidelines for approval for such structures, for example erosion control structures only or design standards that must be followed. ?? CCA for structural components should be banned within the estuaries. If this is not possible it should be banned within Significant Fish & Wildlife habitats and/or phased out over time. Alternatives include sheathing CCA to prevent discharge to the estuaries, oak, etc. ?? 275-11-C-2-a-[5] All docks, including any vessel tied to the dock, shall have a minimum clearance of 15 feet of the seaward extension of any property line from adjacent parcels so as not to interfere with the neighbor's access to waters, unless the Trustees decide otherwise for navigational or other reasons. “Other reasons” should be deleted as it means that any reason can be given to waive the requirement. ?? 275-11-C-2-c-1-[c] In determining the permitted length of a proposed residential dock, the Trustees shall seek to maintain lengths consistent with the other docks (i.e., pier line) in the waterway which meet the requirements of this chapter. This section should be updated to reflect the LWRP which seeks to minimize docks lengths to those necessary for reasonable access to the water. ?? 275-11-C-2-a-[9] All applicants for docks, including catwalks and ramps, extending across the foreshore shall be required to give and maintain a public passing way, on the upland, not less than five feet in width, to enable persons to pass and repass around said dock or by steps or a ramp allowing pedestrian passage. Additional requirement of signage denoting the passage should be added to the code. ?? Significant Fish and Wildlife habitat definition from the Coastal erosion chapter should be referenced and/or copied to Chapter 275. In addition chapter 275 should be updated to provide more protection for such areas than the code currently requires, for example, greater setbacks, higher design standards, etc. Coastal Erosion Notes ?? Bluff definition should be updated to make it clear that bluffs perpendicular to the shoreline, for example Duck Pond Point, are protected as well. ?? Code should be updated to protect natural protective features as defined within the code, not just those features that also appear on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area maps. ?? Mean low water definition should be reconciled with the definition in Chapter 275. ?? Primary and Secondary dune definitions should be examined to determine what happens in the case where a primary dune is destroyed, i.e. does a secondary dune in such an area become a primary dune?