Living shorelines were presented as a more sustainable and cost-effective method for shoreline stabilization than traditional methods like seawalls. The council discussed the benefits of this approach, including improved erosion control, habitat preservation, water quality, and overall environmental sustainability. They considered the economic impact and the long-term effectiveness of living shorelines in the face of rising sea levels and coastal flooding. To inform this discussion, the council examined the lack of specific regulations regarding bulkhead or seawall construction within the Tequesta code, comparing it with the town of Jupiter’s regulations, which incorporate elements of living shorelines when replacing bulkheads or revetments.

The discussion extended to a recommendation for codifying the preservation of existing natural shorelines and a debate on whether to mandate that natural shorelines remain untouched or to allow exceptions in emergency situations. Council members weighed environmental conservation against property protection and considered the potential role of local agencies and the Army Corps in the permitting processes for shoreline stabilization.

The possibility of requiring rip rap and mangroves along existing bulkheads was also debated, with the council expressing support for the idea but raising concerns about the implications for future replacements and maintenance. The need for consulting a coastal engineer and potentially revising the conservation element from the comprehensive plan policy was discussed. Additionally, the council considered adding standards for bulkhead and seawall construction, including materials and cap elevation requirements, to the code.

The council agreed to prioritize a meeting with the Local Planning Agency (LPA) over a review by the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) for the ordinance to avoid delays.

Another topic that garnered attention during the meeting was the ordinance pertaining to the lien on property for unpaid service charges through a magistrate for the water utility. The draft ordinance presented by the utilities director included the use of a magistrate for hearings to determine foreclosures on delinquent accounts. The council debated the six-month wait period before sending delinquent accounts to a collection agency and the language regarding joint and several liabilities of property owners and renters for unpaid charges. Concerns were raised about the impact on credit reports and the possibility of offering hardship payment plans for families experiencing financial difficulties. The council expressed openness to requiring property owners to be responsible for water accounts while balancing the interests of renters and property owners.

The meeting also touched on the proposal to hold property owners accountable for unpaid water bills, with a focus on the pros and cons of this approach. The council considered the implementation of property liens for delinquent accounts and the history and potential costs associated with this method. There was a mention of neighboring water utilities’ practices and a suggestion for further review before making a final decision.

The proposed US One overlay, which would allow drive-throughs and formula restaurants, was another topic of debate. The council discussed the threshold for formula restaurant square footage and the need for a district-specific analysis to determine a reasonable threshold. They considered gathering data on average square footage of businesses in different zoning districts to inform their decision-making.

The special exception criteria for formula businesses and restaurants were deliberated, particularly the threshold size of 1250 square feet that necessitates public notification and Council decision. The council considered whether aesthetic and architectural considerations should apply to all formula businesses and discussed the appeals process for waivers.

In addition, the council debated the potential misuse of waivers and the payment in lieu option for developers to circumvent regulations. There was a suggestion to cap eligibility for payment in lieu based on property acreage and to specify that funds could only be used for improvements rather than maintenance.