PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Chairman DATE: 7/23/2002 FILE: CAO 02-2854
Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
RE: Proposed Amendments
to Code Sections 114-39 and 114-40
THRU: Robert D. Sumner Regarding Rip-Rap Installation and
County Attorney Dock Construction
Introduction: June 4, 2002
(9:30a.m. NPR)
FROM: Joseph D. Richards
Assistant County Attorney
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On February 26, 2002, Chairman Hildebrand directed the County Attorney’s Office to look at providing specifications for dock, in response to a presentation by the Waterfront Community Impact Council of Pasco County. The Impact Council identified several problems regarding the construction of sea walls and docks and the dumping of construction debris into the navigable waters of the county, primarily manmade canals along Pasco County’s western shore line. Apparently, people are dumping construction debris into canals under guise of “rip-rap” installation. Additionally, state agencies permit dock construction but enforce no standards regarding the size and extent of the docks. The Impact Council also reported that Styrofoam used in floating docks can pollute the water as the material breaks apart. The Impact Council requested the that county enact ordinances that would achieve the following:
1. Establish a clear definition of acceptable materials and dimensions for construction and repair of sea walls;
2. Establish allowable dimensions in navigable waterways for the construction of private docks and related structures;
3. Require that all dock and pier flotation material be encapsulated so that Styrofoam pellets do not contaminate waterways; and
4. Prohibit the dumping of construction debris by establishing a clear definition of what materials may be used for rip-rap.
On June 4, 2002, we proposed the attached amendments to Pasco County’s Code of Ordinances that will address all four problems noted by the Impact Council. See Exhibit A. The proposed amendments would help to eliminate these real and potential threats to public health and safety, navigation, and water quality. Although, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and DEP regulate coastal and waterway construction, the county has clear authority to adopt more stringent regulations. Additionally, neither SWFWMD nor DEP regulate the installation of rip-rap in manmade canals. By adopting these amendments the county would be filling this enforcement gap. Also, the county can provide quicker response time to complaints and thereby help reduce these threats to water quality and navigation.
At the June 4, 2002, Board meeting, concern was raised over the additional burden this will place on the Code Enforcement staff. One indication is the number of complaints received by the Gulf Harbors Gulf Watch group. This group is very active and diligent in pursuing the type of incidents these amendments will address and in 2001 only ten (10) incidents were investigated by to Gulf Watch.
We propose to amend Chapter 114 of Pasco County Code. This chapter covers boating and water safety. Chapter 114-39 prohibits abandoning junk, wrecked, and abandoned or derelict property in the waters of the county. We propose to amend this section to also prohibit the dumping of construction debris, garbage, and solid waste. In doing so we would establish a clear definition of rip-rap. Rip-rap can provide environmental benefits and protect seawalls if it is done properly. The standards for rip-rap that we propose to include in Section 114 are those already established and enforced by DEP for coastal construction. This DEP definition however does not apply to manmade canals, therefore, we propose to adopt the standard and apply it to all waters within the county.
Section 114 prohibits the obstruction of water courses. We propose to enhance this section by setting specific standards regarding dock construction to provide some clarification as to what would be “obstruction.” The intent is to provide some specific dimensions as to how far a dock can extend into a water course to prevent obstruction of navigation. In this section we will also prohibit the use of any flotation material that is not fully encapsulated and thus prevent Styrofoam pellets from contaminating the waters of Pasco County. It should be noted that Pasco County does not currently, nor would it under these amendments, issue permits for dock construction, but this would give us an enforcement tool to prevent docks permitted by other agencies from obstructing water courses. These regulations would be enforced through our normal code enforcement procedures.
After introduction on June 4, 2002, you referred the amendments to the Waterways/Navigation Board. Although, the Board did not have a quorum to meet, its remaining members did review and comment on the proposed ordinance. The Parks and Recreation department also provided comments, and we received a letter supporting the ordinance from the Waterfront Community Impact Council. All these comments are attached for your review. See Exhibit B.
Exhibit C is the version of the amendments that incorporates those comments of the reviewers that staff believes the Board should accept. The Parks department recommended some changes to the DEP definition of rip-rap (Section 114-39(a)(1)-(9)), however, staff does not recommend accepting these changes. The DEP definition has been work-shopped and adopted on the state level, therefore, we believe should not be altered. We do recommend adding a definition of “rip-rap” taken from the Florida Administrative Code, 40D-400.021(15). See Exhibit C, Section 114-39(a)(10). Regarding dock construction in Section 114-40, the Parks department recommended that the dock construction distance should be calculated at low tide. We agree and propose making that change. See Exhibit C Section 114-40(d). One Waterway Board member recommended removing the fixed distance between docks and instead use a percentage. We have adopted this idea in Section 114-40(a)(2). See Exhibit C.
With these changes, as shown in Exhibit C, staff recommends adoption.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
We request that the Board of County Commissioners consider the following
alternatives:
1. Adopt the attached staff revised proposed ordinance (Exhibit C) and direct Secretarial Services to file the ordinance with the Secretary of State within 10 days of adoption.
2. Direct staff to some other course of action.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
The County Attorney’s Office, with the concurrence of Development Services, recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve alternative number one.
No funding is required for this action.
JDR:mjc
Attachments: draft ordinance amendment
cc: Bipin Parikh, Assistant County Administrator
Cynthia Jolly, Development Director
Debra Zampetti, Zoning Administrator
Joseph Gross, Assistant Zoning/Code Compliance Administrator