Tear Downs on 30-A?

[Rita]

-- NO wetlands building!! NO increased density!! etc. etc.

Didn't Florida use to have a law regarding the mitigation of wetlands? Anyone know if that is still the case? (Of course it still isn't the same as not destroying a wetland, but it was something.) :?:

 

[Camp Creek Kid]

Didn't Florida use to have a law regarding the mitigation of wetlands? Anyone know if that is still the case? (Of course it still isn't the same as not destroying a wetland, but it was something.) :?:

Depending on zoning for a specific property, wetlands mitigation is 20 or 40 acres of NEW wetlands created for every one acre of existing wetlands you use. Obviously, it is very expensive to mitigate especially as property costs sky rocket. A variance can be obtained through the DEP permitting process when you can't access your property except through a wetland. In this case, mitigation is not required, although there are strict permitting guidelines.

The DEP is very strict and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[TooFarTampa]

Depending on zoning for a specific property, wetlands mitigation is 20 or 40 acres of NEW wetlands created for every one acre of existing wetlands you use. Obviously, it is very expensive to mitigate especially as property costs sky rocket. A variance can be obtained through the DEP permitting process when you can't access your property except through a wetland. In this case, mitigation is not required, although there are strict permitting guidelines.

The DEP is very strict and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

I spoke to an environmental engineer/wetlands specialist this morning about a parcel in Seagrove that the owner is trying to re-subdivide. Basically he has three lots that run east-west that he wants to have redrawn so they are three lots running north-south, with an easement behind for driveway access.

I was all up in arms about the notice until I talked to the environmental company working on the redrawing. Basically the owner is doing this because one of his three lots is partly in wetlands, and instead of trying to go through the DEP to get permitting he just wants to build the same number of houses but in a different layout so he can leave the wetlands alone.

It' would not be increasing density so I guess I can't complain. There are pockets of wetlands in all sorts of places, and I think the bottom line is they should be protected.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Depending on zoning for a specific property, wetlands mitigation is 20 or 40 acres of NEW wetlands created for every one acre of existing wetlands you use. Obviously, it is very expensive to mitigate especially as property costs sky rocket. A variance can be obtained through the DEP permitting process when you can't access your property except through a wetland. In this case, mitigation is not required, although there are strict permitting guidelines.

The DEP is very strict and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

My understanding from talking with environmental engineers, is that the ratio of land impacted to the land used for mitigation is on a sliding scale with numerous variables. The ratio can be as high as 60:1.

 

[Camp Creek Kid]

My understanding from talking with environmental engineers, is that the ratio of land impacted to the land used for mitigation is on a sliding scale with numerous variables. The ratio can be as high as 60:1.

I'm sure you are correct. It all depends on the zoning and land use requirements. Also, wetlands are regulated by the state, not by the county. The point is that it takes a lot of land to mitigate.

 

[Cork On the Ocean]

I heard that it was a sliding scale also on wetlands and I also heard that something relatively new requires the mitigated land to be in the same "zone?" as the replacement land. I recall a comment that this is a disincentive to mitigate because the replacement land can no longer be replaced with land way up north that's 1,000/acre. Can anybody expand on this?

Regarding redevelopment. Saw yestday that 2 units at Park Place went pending for over $2 mil each. Isn't that the old condo (forget name) that had structural problems? Could swear I sent that to a developer before it was bought.

 

[Camp Creek Kid]

I heard that it was a sliding scale also on wetlands and I also heard that something relatively new requires the mitigated land to be in the same "zone?" as the replacement land. I recall a comment that this is a disincentive to mitigate because the replacement land can no longer be replaced with land way up north that's 1,000/acre. Can anybody expand on this?

Regarding redevelopment. Saw yestday that 2 units at Park Place went pending for over $2 mil each. Isn't that the old condo (forget name) that had structural problems? Could swear I sent that to a developer before it was bought.

Yes, same condo. I know the developers who bought it and are renovating it. Same developers as the Village of South Walton.

 

[Smiling JOe]

I heard that it was a sliding scale also on wetlands and I also heard that something relatively new requires the mitigated land to be in the same "zone?" as the replacement land. I recall a comment that this is a disincentive to mitigate because the replacement land can no longer be replaced with land way up north that's 1,000/acre. Can anybody expand on this?

I cannot expand too much on this because it is out of my field of study. I believe you are correct that land in SoWal has to be mitigated with land in SoWal. I am unfamiliar of the "zones" to which you refer. Something else they take into consideration is the type of land being mitigated. I think they take many things into account when analyzing the land needing mitigation, including standing water, hydric soils, and plant and animal species that inhabit the land. I believe similar analysis is involved in the land being used as the mitigation land. All of this goes into some sophisticated formula to determine the ratios required.

I have tried to get an environmental scientist/engineer friend of mine to get on this board, but I still don't see him.

 

[Cork On the Ocean]

Yes, same condo. I know the developers who bought it and are renovating it. Same developers as the Village of South Walton.

Wow, didn't know those guys were doing it. They're jamming. Last phase of the village is going up fast.

 

[Kurt]

Federal Wetlands Policy

Florida Wetlands Policy

The mitigation rule does not establish minimum ratios for mitigation proposals, but does establish that, for preliminary planning purposes only, ratios typically are 2 acres created : I acre affected. The ultimate ratios that are accepted are adjusted up or down, based on:

• Time to restore wetland functions
• Special classifications of waterbody (OFWS)
• Type of wetland to be created
• Condition and value of functions being performed by the impacted area compared to the character and quality of wetlands to be created
• Uniqueness of the impacted wetlands
• Presence of exotic or nuisance species in the impacted wetlands
• Whether the project eliminates wetlands or changes wetlands from one type to another

Based on past permitting histories, the following ranges of ratios are assigned to mitigation proposals:

• Restoration and creation ratios:
  • Mangrove swamps, cypress swamps, and hardwood swamps: 2:1 to 5:1
  • Saltwater and freshwater marshes: 1.5:1 to 4:1
  • Enhancement ratios: 4:1 to 20:1, based on criteria in Section 62-312.340(3), F.A.C., including the degree, type, and cause of stress, whether the enhancement method is low maintenance or self regulating. and the likelihood of success in offsetting adverse impacts.
• Preservation ratios: 10: 1 to 60: 1

The lowest end of the ratio range is most appropriate when a high degree of reasonable assurance exists hat the mitigation will be successful and capable of offsetting the otherwise unpermittable aspects of the project, which can best be achieved through preconstruction mitigation efforts.