The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Compromise reached on shoreline development
Attempt to redefine sand dune is turned back in adjustment.
Environmentalists and a bipartisan group of state lawmakers on Tuesday beat back an attempt to redefine what is and is not a sand dune as legislators prepare to consider a major change to how the Georgia coastline is regulated.
An amendment stripped a new definition of dune from House Bill 271, a victory for those concerned the legislation would have weakened the state’s robust “sand sharing program” for the 100 miles of developed and undeveloped Atlantic coast in Georgia.
The amended bill is expected to get a vote Wednesday on the House floor.
But the compromise did not give environmentalists all that they wanted. The amendment also changes how state regulators would determine how close to the beach developers may build. The Department of Natural Resources had sought an update to the complicated current system that relies on location of specific types of trees or vegetation beyond the ocean’s ordinary high-water mark.
The compromise amendment would simply draw a line 25 feet inland from the high-water mark as the closest developers may build on private land. On state-owned property, such as Jekyll Island, that buffer would also be 25 feet in some cases, but up to 100 feet in others, depending on other criteria.
“We are happy that the bad definition of ‘sand dune’ has been removed from the bill, but we are concerned that legislators are now differentiating between public and private property,” said Megan J. Desrosiers, the executive director of the conservation group One Hundred Miles.
The original bill put a 25-foot buffer on development regardless of who owned the property. State Rep. Jesse Petrea, R-Savannah, the bill’s sponsor, said his bill would, for the first time, provide clear guidance to property owners and regulators about how close is too close for building.
The 25-foot limit, he said, came from discussions with the Department of Natural Resources “about what would adequately protect the sand sharing system and at the same time be accepted by property owners.”
State Rep. Debbie Buckner, D-Junction City, had wanted that set-back to be greater.
“There is some concern that 25 at the high-water mark is not enough,” she said. “So whether we came to 50, 75, 100 or 150 for the high-water mark, 25 is not enough.”
Current law has no specific distance limit on development and instead is typically measured along a line from one 20-foot tree to another, known as the jurisdictional line. In places where homes were built before 1979, that line goes from 20-foot tree to the existing house to the next 20-foot tree, creating a zigzag patchwork.
Petrea was pleased with the compromise, which, he said, provides “predictability and uniformity for landowners.”
“And every dune will be protected,” he said. “Winwin.”
Many environmentalists believed the dune definition was designed to benefit the Sea Island Co.’s planned development for a narrow, 1-mile spit of land on the coastal island. The company is pursuing a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build a groin along the beach and to bring in 120,000 cubic yards of sand to rebuild the beach, which was battered by Hurricane Matthew.
Critics, including the Southern Environmental Law Center, believe the rock wall will worsen erosion on nearby St. Simons Island. While Sea Island Co. had no comment, those opposed to the bill believed the definition of what is or isn’t a sand dune would allow a property owner to manipulate what constitutes the beginning of the developable area.
The bill, before the amendment, would have defined a sand dune as any mound of sand created by wind, tide or wave action, beach renourishment or dune construction project. Under the original language, a sand dune would not be a mound of sand “covered with a planted and maintained lawn or landscaping” or those “stabilized by indigenous vegetative cover.”