The Chatter:
You may have heard that ... several folks commented on the proposed Shore Protection
Ordinance at the City Council meeting on October 13th.
You may have heard:
- What are we trying to do? What’s the goal of having an ordinance?
- What’s a dune? Different people define dunes differently
- What do we mean by sand sharing system? We talk about it but don’t really know
what we mean by the term
- Why don’t we just let the State manage shore protection – they have the scientists
and we don’t
- We already have an ordinance that requires a 10 foot setback – why do we
need another one?
- Why do we concentrate on protecting the shore, which only accounts for 15%
of our island, and ignore the other 85%, which consists of marshes, trees
and other natural resources?
- This ordinance just mirrors the State Act – it already has a 10 foot setback.
The Reality:
Three years ago, the Planning Commission proposed an ordinance to replace the existing
law and provide protection for both the “coastal sand dunes, beaches, sandbars and
shoals” and for owners of coastal property. That ordinance was rejected by the Council in
place at the time, and the decision made to get rid of all local shore protection and let the
State do it all. An ordinance that provided a 10 foot setback was later adopted by that
Council
Earlier this year, Council sent the rejected ordinance to the Planning Commission asking
that it be reviewed and acted upon. Rather than accept the ordinance, which represented
hundreds of hours of work by City Staff, Commission members, citizen volunteers, elected
officials and DNR representatives, the Planning Commission recommended that Council
appoint a second citizen ad hoc committee to provide the opportunity for every citizen of
Tybee to have input and to ensure that the goals of shore protection, which were
discussed and agreed to at the first meeting of the ad hoc committee.
None of the individuals speaking in opposition to the proposed ordinance participated in
any of the meetings, all of which were public and advertised.
None of the individuals speaking in opposition to the proposed ordinance had participated
in any of the meetings that resulted in our current Comprehensive Master Plan.
The opportunity to do so was there.
Let's look at some of the issues brought up and comments made at the Council meeting:
- The goals of the proposed ordinance, as agreed to in the first meeting of the
ad hoc committed, reiterated often, and included in the proposed ordinance, are
clear: “A shoreline protection ordinance is necessary for the preservation of
property owners’ rights. A shoreline protection ordinance will protect our dunes
and the sand sharing system that they depend on. This shoreline ordinance
provides a tool for local oversight on State rulings for our island. This shoreline
protection ordinance provides a foundation for rebuilding after a destructive weather
event. In addition, the Mayor and Council further find that the dunes provide a
critical buffer to protect real and personal property from flooding, winds and erosion.”
- Comments were made asking “what is a dune?” and “what is a sand sharing
system?” In the “definitions” section of the Georgia Shore Protection Act (O.C.G.A.
12.5.230 et. seq.), both terms are clearly defined, and were referenced by the
ad hoc subcommittee: “Sand dunes means mounds of sand deposited along a
coastline by wind action, which mounds are often covered with sparse, pioneer
vegetation and are located landward of the ordinary high-water mark and may
extend into the tree line.” “Sand-sharing system means an interdependent
sediment system composted of sand dunes, beaches and offshore bars and shoals.”
- The position is frequently taken that we don’t need an ordinance and besides, we
lack the scientific expertise that the State DNR has. These comments were made
again at the Council meeting. The reality is that the Shore Protection Act
provides an entire section (12-5-241) that allows local governments to enact
ordinances, so long as they meet or exceed the requirements and provisions
of the Act, and are enforceable by the local government. The Act even allows
the local government to become the “permitting authority”, in which case the local
government would take the place of, under the oversight of, the DNR.
The committee discussed this and it was the feeling of the group that the City
should not seek to become the “permitting authority”, but would, instead,
enact an ordinance which, in partnership with and not in conflict with, the Georgia
Act, would provide protection for both the property owner and the sand sharing
system. DNR representatives in the committee meetings favored Tybee having a
local Shore Protection Ordinance.
- Why isn’t our current ordinance sufficient – it already has a 10 foot setback?
Tybee’s City Code, Sec. 3-100. Beach, dunes, or vegetation disturbance,
provides the following: “It shall be unlawful for any person in any manner
to damage, destroy, remove or alter in any way the beach, dunes or vegetation
thereon in an area within the jurisdiction of the department of natural resources
under the Shore Protection Act (O.C.G.A. § 12-5-230 et seq.) without first having
obtained the proper federal, state, and local permits. Within any area within the
jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources under the Shore Protection Act
(O.C.G.A. § 12-5-230 et seq.), there shall be a ten-foot setback measured from
the landward toe of the landward-most dune as delineated by the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources”. This ordinance, while a reasonable beginning,
states a requirement for permits (federal, state and local), but does not indicate
what permitting is required locally. The 10 foot setback requirement applies
only to areas within the jurisdiction of DNR. There are dunes that are part of the
sand sharing system that fall behind or otherwise outside of that jurisdiction.
It was the intent of the committee intent to strengthen this ordinance and provide
more guidance on the permitting process. Further, it is sometimes mis-stated
that the State Act requires a 10 foot setback – this is not the case. Nowhere in the
Act is there a setback requirement. There is only a defined area of jurisdiction,
within which a permit is required. That area is determined by the existence of a
20 foot tree or a historical structure. In the absence of either, DNR makes a
judgment call and may apply a 10 foot rule of thumb. Or not. Before DNR
will consider a permit, a “certificate or letter from the local governing authority…in
which the property is located stating that the applicant’s proposal is not violative of
any zoning law…” must be submitted. A local ordinance gives both the City and the
petitioner clearer definition of the requirements.
- The question was asked “why are we only concentrating on the 15% of our island
that is shoreline, and ignoring the other 85%, marshes, greenspace and other
natural resources?” In reality, our current city ordinances prohibit placing
materials in the marsh, placing signs in the marsh or even obstructing a property
owner’s view of the marsh, removal of trees from the marsh, and include marshes in
our city code definition of wetlands. The protection of our island’s environmental
resources – all of our resources – is a prominent commitment to our citizens and
stated in the Vision of our Master Plan. Marshlands are mentioned 51 times in our
Master Plan. Dunes are mentioned 23 times. Our Short Term Work Program has
more than a page of goals and projects related to ALL of our natural resources,
including trees, greenspace and water (the other 85%).
The Shore Protection Ordinance has not been finalized or voted on. Interested or
concerned citizens are encouraged to participate in this and other important City
programs – while they are being developed, rather than wait until they have been
completed and complain.
Comments from Mayor and Council Questionnaires submitted to Forever Tybee, 2011.
Jason Bueltermann:
"The City should continue to work to preserve our history and protect our shoreline. We
have made some excellent strides in these areas recently and I have been and will
continue to be, if re-elected, supportive of these efforts."
Shirley Sessions:
" I was on council when we implemented the original shore protection ordinance and will
continue to support policies to protect our fragile shore line and dunes. "
Dick Smith:
"Shore Protection should be up to the state."
Marianne Bramble:
" I know, we as our own municipality must have our own safety net (Shore Protection
ordinance) and not be totally dependent on the States Shore Protection ordinance."
Donald Cowart:
I am for all of it. We just need to use some common sense with these issues. And not take
the peoples property rights away.
Bill Garbett:
Shore protection: The city needs to adopt its own shore protection act so that we are
responsible for protecting our beach. Such an ordinance is currently in the works.
David McNaughton:
Yes to shore protection and historic preservation.
Monty Parks:
I have helped draft the proposed Shore Protection Ordinance and I sit on the historic
preservation committee. These are some of my high priorities for a Council term as
outlined in a question above.
Frank Shuman, SR.
On Shore Protection.......I feel we need to enforce our City Ordinance and make it clear
where the sand dunes ends and where the property begins. DNR needs to be more clear
on this matter also.
Paul Wolff:
The Shore Protection Ordinance needs to be comprehensive and based upon scientific
parameters.
Tom Groover addresses this issue at the 10/13 Council Meeting
Click here to watch this video clip.
You may have heard that ... several folks commented on the proposed Shore Protection
Ordinance at the City Council meeting on October 13th.
You may have heard:
- What are we trying to do? What’s the goal of having an ordinance?
- What’s a dune? Different people define dunes differently
- What do we mean by sand sharing system? We talk about it but don’t really know
what we mean by the term
- Why don’t we just let the State manage shore protection – they have the scientists
and we don’t
- We already have an ordinance that requires a 10 foot setback – why do we
need another one?
- Why do we concentrate on protecting the shore, which only accounts for 15%
of our island, and ignore the other 85%, which consists of marshes, trees
and other natural resources?
- This ordinance just mirrors the State Act – it already has a 10 foot setback.
The Reality:
Three years ago, the Planning Commission proposed an ordinance to replace the existing
law and provide protection for both the “coastal sand dunes, beaches, sandbars and
shoals” and for owners of coastal property. That ordinance was rejected by the Council in
place at the time, and the decision made to get rid of all local shore protection and let the
State do it all. An ordinance that provided a 10 foot setback was later adopted by that
Council
Earlier this year, Council sent the rejected ordinance to the Planning Commission asking
that it be reviewed and acted upon. Rather than accept the ordinance, which represented
hundreds of hours of work by City Staff, Commission members, citizen volunteers, elected
officials and DNR representatives, the Planning Commission recommended that Council
appoint a second citizen ad hoc committee to provide the opportunity for every citizen of
Tybee to have input and to ensure that the goals of shore protection, which were
discussed and agreed to at the first meeting of the ad hoc committee.
None of the individuals speaking in opposition to the proposed ordinance participated in
any of the meetings, all of which were public and advertised.
None of the individuals speaking in opposition to the proposed ordinance had participated
in any of the meetings that resulted in our current Comprehensive Master Plan.
The opportunity to do so was there.
Let's look at some of the issues brought up and comments made at the Council meeting:
- The goals of the proposed ordinance, as agreed to in the first meeting of the
ad hoc committed, reiterated often, and included in the proposed ordinance, are
clear: “A shoreline protection ordinance is necessary for the preservation of
property owners’ rights. A shoreline protection ordinance will protect our dunes
and the sand sharing system that they depend on. This shoreline ordinance
provides a tool for local oversight on State rulings for our island. This shoreline
protection ordinance provides a foundation for rebuilding after a destructive weather
event. In addition, the Mayor and Council further find that the dunes provide a
critical buffer to protect real and personal property from flooding, winds and erosion.”
- Comments were made asking “what is a dune?” and “what is a sand sharing
system?” In the “definitions” section of the Georgia Shore Protection Act (O.C.G.A.
12.5.230 et. seq.), both terms are clearly defined, and were referenced by the
ad hoc subcommittee: “Sand dunes means mounds of sand deposited along a
coastline by wind action, which mounds are often covered with sparse, pioneer
vegetation and are located landward of the ordinary high-water mark and may
extend into the tree line.” “Sand-sharing system means an interdependent
sediment system composted of sand dunes, beaches and offshore bars and shoals.”
- The position is frequently taken that we don’t need an ordinance and besides, we
lack the scientific expertise that the State DNR has. These comments were made
again at the Council meeting. The reality is that the Shore Protection Act
provides an entire section (12-5-241) that allows local governments to enact
ordinances, so long as they meet or exceed the requirements and provisions
of the Act, and are enforceable by the local government. The Act even allows
the local government to become the “permitting authority”, in which case the local
government would take the place of, under the oversight of, the DNR.
The committee discussed this and it was the feeling of the group that the City
should not seek to become the “permitting authority”, but would, instead,
enact an ordinance which, in partnership with and not in conflict with, the Georgia
Act, would provide protection for both the property owner and the sand sharing
system. DNR representatives in the committee meetings favored Tybee having a
local Shore Protection Ordinance.
- Why isn’t our current ordinance sufficient – it already has a 10 foot setback?
Tybee’s City Code, Sec. 3-100. Beach, dunes, or vegetation disturbance,
provides the following: “It shall be unlawful for any person in any manner
to damage, destroy, remove or alter in any way the beach, dunes or vegetation
thereon in an area within the jurisdiction of the department of natural resources
under the Shore Protection Act (O.C.G.A. § 12-5-230 et seq.) without first having
obtained the proper federal, state, and local permits. Within any area within the
jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources under the Shore Protection Act
(O.C.G.A. § 12-5-230 et seq.), there shall be a ten-foot setback measured from
the landward toe of the landward-most dune as delineated by the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources”. This ordinance, while a reasonable beginning,
states a requirement for permits (federal, state and local), but does not indicate
what permitting is required locally. The 10 foot setback requirement applies
only to areas within the jurisdiction of DNR. There are dunes that are part of the
sand sharing system that fall behind or otherwise outside of that jurisdiction.
It was the intent of the committee intent to strengthen this ordinance and provide
more guidance on the permitting process. Further, it is sometimes mis-stated
that the State Act requires a 10 foot setback – this is not the case. Nowhere in the
Act is there a setback requirement. There is only a defined area of jurisdiction,
within which a permit is required. That area is determined by the existence of a
20 foot tree or a historical structure. In the absence of either, DNR makes a
judgment call and may apply a 10 foot rule of thumb. Or not. Before DNR
will consider a permit, a “certificate or letter from the local governing authority…in
which the property is located stating that the applicant’s proposal is not violative of
any zoning law…” must be submitted. A local ordinance gives both the City and the
petitioner clearer definition of the requirements.
- The question was asked “why are we only concentrating on the 15% of our island
that is shoreline, and ignoring the other 85%, marshes, greenspace and other
natural resources?” In reality, our current city ordinances prohibit placing
materials in the marsh, placing signs in the marsh or even obstructing a property
owner’s view of the marsh, removal of trees from the marsh, and include marshes in
our city code definition of wetlands. The protection of our island’s environmental
resources – all of our resources – is a prominent commitment to our citizens and
stated in the Vision of our Master Plan. Marshlands are mentioned 51 times in our
Master Plan. Dunes are mentioned 23 times. Our Short Term Work Program has
more than a page of goals and projects related to ALL of our natural resources,
including trees, greenspace and water (the other 85%).
The Shore Protection Ordinance has not been finalized or voted on. Interested or
concerned citizens are encouraged to participate in this and other important City
programs – while they are being developed, rather than wait until they have been
completed and complain.
Comments from Mayor and Council Questionnaires submitted to Forever Tybee, 2011.
Jason Bueltermann:
"The City should continue to work to preserve our history and protect our shoreline. We
have made some excellent strides in these areas recently and I have been and will
continue to be, if re-elected, supportive of these efforts."
Shirley Sessions:
" I was on council when we implemented the original shore protection ordinance and will
continue to support policies to protect our fragile shore line and dunes. "
Dick Smith:
"Shore Protection should be up to the state."
Marianne Bramble:
" I know, we as our own municipality must have our own safety net (Shore Protection
ordinance) and not be totally dependent on the States Shore Protection ordinance."
Donald Cowart:
I am for all of it. We just need to use some common sense with these issues. And not take
the peoples property rights away.
Bill Garbett:
Shore protection: The city needs to adopt its own shore protection act so that we are
responsible for protecting our beach. Such an ordinance is currently in the works.
David McNaughton:
Yes to shore protection and historic preservation.
Monty Parks:
I have helped draft the proposed Shore Protection Ordinance and I sit on the historic
preservation committee. These are some of my high priorities for a Council term as
outlined in a question above.
Frank Shuman, SR.
On Shore Protection.......I feel we need to enforce our City Ordinance and make it clear
where the sand dunes ends and where the property begins. DNR needs to be more clear
on this matter also.
Paul Wolff:
The Shore Protection Ordinance needs to be comprehensive and based upon scientific
parameters.
Tom Groover addresses this issue at the 10/13 Council Meeting
Click here to watch this video clip.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Forever TybeeCandidate Parties in the Park coming on November 4, 5, 6 |
| Shore Protection Matters Why Does Tybee Island Need It's Own Shore Protection Ordinance? |