One notable issue addressed was ordinance 8-24, which proposed amending chapter 76, Waterway Control, to introduce new regulations for living shorelines, bulkheads, seawalls, and fill permits. The ordinance underscored the village’s shift toward living shorelines—a method that uses natural ecosystems to stabilize coastlines and provide habitats for wildlife—over conventional concrete structures like bulkheads and seawalls. The board debated the environmental benefits of living shorelines, including their role in reducing erosion and improving water clarity, and compared their cost-effectiveness to traditional seawalls.

A key discussion point revolved around the proposed requirement for new or replaced bulkheads to have 100% of their surfaces faced with riprap, except at dock or pier locations. Furthermore, the board considered a mandate for establishing mangroves along at least 10% of the shoreline within two years of a final bulkhead inspection. The necessity of incremental inspections during the permit period and the responsibility of property owners to report on mangrove establishment were also topics of debate.

The board discussed the potential challenges facing the building department in enforcing the construction of bulkheads and seawalls under the new regulations. Concerns were voiced regarding the practicality of monitoring mangrove growth and the effectiveness of the proposed regulations. The members also debated the necessity of a coastal engineer’s sign-off on plans for seawall and bulkhead repairs, the feasibility of enforcing such a requirement, and the associated costs.

Permitting processes were closely scrutinized, with suggestions that property owners first consult village staff to ensure compliance with local codes before seeking state-level permits. The exemption of certain properties from the installation of riprap or mangroves, based on the Shoreline Exemption Map, was noted, mirroring exemptions found in Jupiter’s code.

The board also touched on the permit renewal process for construction projects, expressing concerns over unfinished construction and the potential abuse of permit renewals. Limiting the number of permit renewals and establishing criteria for granting them were proposed. Additionally, the impact of emergency orders on permit renewals, particularly in a hurricane-prone state like Florida, was a point of contention.

Public input was acknowledged during the meeting, with a member of the public raising concerns about the impact of the proposed ordinance on waterfront properties, citing their experience during Hurricane Wilma. Another member of the public supported the ordinance but suggested amendments related to environmental impact and inspection timelines. The board recognized the need for better public notification and considered changes to the ordinance based on public feedback.

The conversation extended to the regulations around revetments, similar to bulkheads and seawalls, including conditions for replacement and facing them with mangroves and riprap. The lack of current code regulations to prevent unpermitted fill work that could harm environmental resources led to discussions on establishing a fill permit process requiring Village Council approval and public input.

Another topic was the suggestion to strike the word “material” from a section of the fill permit to prevent injury or costs to neighbors. Proposals to define replacement costs based on estimated linear feet and to allow for two 60-day renewals for certain permits were also considered. The board contemplated creating a subsection in the fill permit for emergency situations, such as storms or hurricanes, to allow for the stabilization of natural shorelines or mangroves.