Seawalls

I thought the CCL was the Coastal Control Line and is already the documented boundary/limit for habitable space oceanfront.

It's a hell of a lot further inland than the MHWL, which is why I got so excited!

I thought the CCL was the Coastal Control Line and is already the documented boundary/limit for habitable space oceanfront.

It's a hell of a lot further inland than the MHWL, which is why I got so excited!

From the Florida DEP website:
"Adoption of a coastal construction control line establishes an area of jurisdiction in which special siting and design criteria are applied for construction and related activities. These standards may be more stringent than those already applied in the rest of the coastal building zone because of the greater forces expected to occur in the more seaward zone of the beach during a storm event."

Most houses on the beachfront in SoWal are at least partially south if not entirely south of the CCCL.

I understand and I agree. I am just saying that ones that were designed by a qualified professional and constructed as designed should survive their design storm. However, like everything else they will have to maintained just like painting a house, replacing a roof, paving a road, etc. Not to mention when some people heard what a bigger wall would cost, often they allowed price to dictate which level of protection they sought.



Actually, there were less than a handful that I am aware of that were designed and construction was overseen by a true coastal engineer. I will be watching those to see the difference in construction methods and quality if/when they are directly impacted.

BeachSiO2, Not that you personally have a dog in this seawall issue, I'm sure you see people sometime speak from their emotions rather than their mind. I'm also guilty!

I appreciate all of your input, even though you and I fundamentally disagree on the private vs. public beach issue. And we will just sit back from the comfort of our armchair and keyboard and "play quarterback" until it is resolved.

From the Florida DEP website:
"Adoption of a coastal construction control line establishes an area of jurisdiction in which special siting and design criteria are applied for construction and related activities. These standards may be more stringent than those already applied in the rest of the coastal building zone because of the greater forces expected to occur in the more seaward zone of the beach during a storm event."

Most houses on the beachfront in SoWal are at least partially south if not entirely south of the CCCL.

What you say is true with this caveat. Most of the houses and condominiums in Walton county that are forward of the CCCL were constructed before a CCCL was put into place. I don't know exactly when it was instituted but it was after l983. Also, at least one condominium development I know of, violated the CCCL and nothing was done about it at the time or since.

What you say is true with this caveat. Most of the houses and condominiums in Walton county that are forward of the CCCL were constructed before a CCCL was put into place. I don't know exactly when it was instituted but it was after l983. Also, at least one condominium development I know of, violated the CCCL and nothing was done about it at the time or since.

By "violated the CCCL" do you mean they built south of it without a permit? I've seen many houses permitted across the line since it was implemented. Sometimes as far south as the properties to either side and sometimes no further than the main dune crest. I believe it to be a line of regulation, not prohibition.

It is my understanding they were permitted to exceed the CCCL by a certain number of feet (minimal) and they then exceeded that in order to construct and landscape their plans desired. While the line may be one of regulation, it has always been my understanding that it was also one of prohibition. I am not informed enough about it to state unequivocally one way or the other.

You don't need a DEP Coastal Construction permit to build beachfront unless you cross the CCCL. There are currently 115 beach construction permits under review at DEP in Walton County. http://appprod.dep.state.fl.us/www_pa/county_permit_summary.asp?county=WALTON

Those permit numbers that end in "AR" are for armoring (seawalls).

Maybe this isn't the best time to use that list of permits under review. Most of those 115 are for armoring.

I looked up about 10 of the non-armoring properties and only one of those is for a house. The others already have a home on the property so must be for dune walkovers, decks, additions or the like. Not too much building going on anywhere in SoWal right now.

It is my understanding they were permitted to exceed the CCCL by a certain number of feet (minimal) and they then exceeded that in order to construct and landscape their plans desired. While the line may be one of regulation, it has always been my understanding that it was also one of prohibition. I am not informed enough about it to state unequivocally one way or the other.

It's a line of jurisdiction NOT prohibition. In other words it must meet certain criteria depending on what "it" is and be permitted by the Florida DEP.

It is a line that should not be built in front of if you want to be a good steward of our coastline.

FYI, post-hurricanes in 04-05, that line is being re-evaluated by FDEP for all panhandle counties but Bay. It will likely be moving northward in the next year or two.

Did you know that the DEP can fine the owner of the seawall which they ordered to be removed, $10,000 per day, until it is removed? The County is pursuing the issue to have the DEP take action to other than just ordering the seawall to be removed. It seems the owner of the property has filed an appeal.

FYI, post-hurricanes in 04-05, that line is being re-evaluated by FDEP for all panhandle counties but Bay. It will likely be moving northward in the next year or two.

Thanks. I've been wondering about this forever. Surely the current CCCL does not reflect the spirit of what was meant with the original line. It will be interesting to see how it is redrawn.

Since this is the thread that was last used to discuss armoring, I thought some might be interested in this story. It is about a geotube project in Inlet Beach.

http://www.waltonsun.com/news/watson_2180___article.html/geotubes_feet.html

Also, here is a photo album of shots taken after Gustav.

http://sowal.com/bb/album.php?albumid=294

The subject geotube is shown in the two photos labeled Winston Ln E and Winston Ln E2. I am pretty sure it is the only armoring structure that interacted with waves during the storm.

Shocker

From The Walton Sun



DEP orders homeowners to remove seawall

April 26, 2007
Gabriel Tynes
gtynes@link.freedom.com At least one South Walton County seawall will have to be pulled from the sand after the Department of Environmental Protection denied its state permit request.
The wall, located at 59 Pelican Circle in Seacrest Beach, has been under particular scrutiny since it was determined to be unauthorized in May 2006. The homeowners, Dr. James and Michelle Spires of Mobile, Ala., never obtained county permission for the wall.
Subsequently, Terry Anderson, a Walton County engineer, attempted to acquire an after-the-fact state permit on behalf of the homeowners. As a part of that process, former county commissioner Rosier Cuchens issued a letter of approval in the county?s name, bypassing normal planning department procedures, something he was not authorized to do.
In a letter dated April 17, Michael Barnett, chief of the DEP Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, concluded that the structures on the property were never eligible for shoreline protection. Even if it was, the letter said, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission guidelines would recommend its denial based on ?significant adverse impacts? to turtle nesting sites.
?Based on the forgoing facts and law, the DEP denies the request for a permit for the construction of a seawall and orders its removal after Oct. 31, 2007, and before May 1, 2008,? the letter states.
In a confusing bit of language, the letter does provide a manner for prolonging the seawall?s existence ?since [it] is presently covered with sand fill and native dune vegetation.?
On April 24, the wall did not appear to have changed since November 2006. There is as much as four feet of vertical exposure and it is barren of any vegetation, native or otherwise.
?We came to that conclusion upon our last inspection of the site,? said DEP Press Secretary Sarah Williams. ?Our inspector noted sand coverage and native vegetation.?
Williams said she did not know if the absence of either the sand fill or the vegetation would affect the special stipulation, which would allow the wall to stay until it is exposed or undermined.
?Everything we have on the case is current with that letter,? she said.
The homeowners were given 15 days from the receipt the letter to ask for the seawall to remain temporarily. They have 21 days from the receipt of the letter to file for an administrative hearing to dispute the denial.

I'm sure you are all shocked, but the powers that be have ruled that.....the wall on Pelican Circle can stay after all. Never mind about all that permitting stuff we mentioned earlier.

The lesson for those keeping up with this and many other cases:
1.Do what you want.
2.Do NOT under any circumstances, if in your wildest dreams think there may be a problem, ask permission from Walton County or DEP.
3.When possible, have county official perform your work
4. Plead ignorance and apologize profusely if/when caught.

I'm sure you are all shocked, but the powers that be have ruled that.....the wall on Pelican Circle can stay after all. Never mind about all that permitting stuff we mentioned earlier.

The lesson for those keeping up with this and many other cases:
1.Do what you want.
2.Do NOT under any circumstances, if in your wildest dreams think there may be a problem, ask permission from Walton County or DEP.
3.When possible, have county official perform your work
4. Plead ignorance and apologize profusely if/when caught.

The developers creed.

The developers creed.

Lets go take it down!

With so many people distracted by latest crisis threatening our beaches, the Wonder Twins of Bad Governmental Representation -- Rep. Marti Coley and Sen. Don Gaetz managed to slip a provision to protect those who took advantage of the fear and chaos of '05 to put in illegal beach armoring. Gov. Charlie Crist quietly signed the bill on May 28th.

HB 5003, Section 67.
In order to implement Specific Appropriation 1765 of the 2010-2011 General Appropriations Act, the Department of Environmental Protection shall take no final agency action to deny any permit application related to rigid coastal armoring structures authorized under s. 161.085 (3), Florida Statutes, and constructed between July 1, 2005, and April 30, 2006, as a result of the impacts of Hurricane Dennis in Walton County. The 90-day time period for agency action pursuant to s. 120.60 (1), Florida Statutes, shall be tolled for these applications. At the written request of a property owner to process his or her application, the department shall issue or deny the application within 90 days or in accordance with the time periods provided in chapter 120, Florida Statutes, whichever is greater. Inaddition, during Fiscal Year 2010-2011, the department shall not take enforcement action against a property owner for failure to apply for a permit to allow such structures to remain permanently. A property owner who has previously filed an application with the department is not required to reapply or request reinstatement of his or her application. This section expires July 1, 2011.

This provision was placed in HB 5003 by Marti Coley, R. She also voted to allow near shore oil drilling within 10 miles of our beaches. Be sure to thank her November 2.

I was so hoping that somehow this would get vetoed...not even sure it could have been given the way Representative Coley slipped it into the Approp. bill-- talk about legislating for your cronies...this is as bad for Walton County as some of the oil drilling legislation has been IMO, not only for the specifics addressed in this bill; but, more importantly, for the precedent it sets...

I was so hoping that somehow this would get vetoed...not even sure it could have been given the way Representative Coley slipped it into the Approp. bill-- talk about legislating for your cronies...this is as bad for Walton County as some of the oil drilling legislation has been IMO, not only for the specifics addressed in this bill; but, more importantly, for the precedent it sets...

Sadly, as is often the case with those not involved, most do not have any idea what beachfront property owners faced in 2005 and the steps some took to make sure they followed the rules as laid down by the various governmental agencies. We, as well as Adagio, White Cliffs and Bella Vita have been requesting some form of settlement of this problem since early 2006. We finally have something. Thanks a lot for the consideration you give those of us who welcome all to our beaches and feel they should be public not private. It is really appreciated, not to mention the amount they are pushing for per linear sq. ft. to compensate for the "take" of habitat on beachfront property. Maybe I should reconsider my long standing support of public beaches and petition my HOA board of directors to put up a fence!

Andy, you of all people should see constant reminders every time you wander down the long stairs that your neighbors to the West of you sign their beach heavily reminding others that it is their private beach. Not to the point that I've heard of for the Retreat, but signage just the same.

Granted, time has not been kind to your particular beach either in that it has been quite a narrow strip for some time.

It's a sad, divisional issue with good talking points on both sides.

Andy, you of all people should see constant reminders every time you wander down the long stairs that your neighbors to the West of you sign their beach heavily reminding others that it is their private beach. Not to the point that I've heard of for the Retreat, but signage just the same.

Granted, time has not been kind to your particular beach either in that it has been quite a narrow strip for some time.

It's a sad, divisional issue with good talking points on both sides.

Ash, there is no one that decrys the signage and possessiveness of the beach by the neighbors to the West more than I do. That said, many did what they deemed necessary to protect their property and restore the loss of our cliff. We deserve some credit, not derision of some who have absolutely no idea of what transpired during that period. But when the attitude expressed by some, as I said earlier, is so uninformed, it is enough to make one wonder since he's paying all the costs, if public beaches are the way to go. I am just pissed, I have no intention of changing my attitude toward public vs. private beaches. They should all be public.