350-foot change excludes Port Aransas
200-foot set-back still in effect for buildings in Port Aransas city limits
BY PHIL REYNOLDS SOUTH JETTY REPORTER

A Nueces County proposal to extend dune building requirements an additional 150 feet from the vegetation line on Mustang and Padre islands will not affect Port Aransas, county commissioner Chuck Cazalas said.

Cazalas, whose Precinct 4 includes both islands as well as Port Aransas, said he had no idea how information began circulating that the county would place Port Aransas under the new amendment.

“The county never intended to include Port Aransas in the 350-foot rule,” he said on Tuesday, Dec. 19.

An amendment proposed by Nueces County commissioners to the county's dune protection plan would set building restrictions 350 feet inland from the dune vegetation line on Mustang and Padre islands instead of the current 200 feet.

It would give Nueces County the strictest dune protection plan of the entire Texas coast.

It would also, according to developers, amount to an unconstitutional taking of property.

The plan wouldn't affect existing structures between 200 and 350 feet from the vegetation line. How it would affect plans to add to or modify those structures, however, isn't clear.

The amendment has been sent to the Texas General Land Office (GLO), the state agency that has oversight over Gulf beaches, for review and certification. The period for public comment on the proposal ended Dec. 10.

The city's authority to issue dune building permits exists only at the pleasure of county commissioners. State law gives the county full authority over dune permits. But the City of Port Aransas has issued its own dune permits since it filed a separate coastal management plan with the GLO 12 years ago.

City planning and projects director David Parsons pointed out that developers who come to the city for building approval can take care of dune permits, building permits, and all other paperwork in one place. That's not true on the rest of Mustang Island or on Padre Island, where developers must deal separately with the county for dune permits and the City of Corpus Christi for all other authorizations.

Becky Corder, chairman of the city's Planning and Zoning Commission, said, “We've been model of development. You can drive down the

' The county never intended beaches and see why our system has worked.” Corder said there's no reason for the county to seek more stringent development limits in

to include Port Aransas

in the 350-foot rule.

Port Aransas.

COMMISSIONER CHUCK CAZALAS

NUECES COUNTY PRECINCT, 4

Cazalas said he doesn't know where that idea came from.

“We will renew the interlocal agreement with Port Aransas and allow the city to continue operating its dune permit program,” he said.

But Port Aransan Jim Urban, an engineer who also develops property, has been leading opposition to the change. He pointed to other problems with the proposed amendment:

“• The County is attempting to increase the fees for the review of permits. This proposed change allows the county to set this fee at will rather than the fee being established in the plan and changes to the fee will require GLO and the public's review

“• This (350-foot) change represents a substantial increase in the land affected by the Dune Protection Act. Under the current county plan, these setback provisions do not exist. The county has, since 2000, been extorting this setback under the pretext of a voluntary provision. The change makes the requirement a condition of permit and further tries to legitimize their illegal exactions on previously issued permits. This change, if approved, will have effects on property owners and taxing entities alike by eliminating residential and commercial structures within 350 feet of the line of natural vegetation.”

Urban added that county claims that developers have complied voluntarily with a suggested 350-foot protection line since 2000 is untrue. Instead, the county has coerced developers by refusing to issue permits until developers agreed to the 350-foot line, he said.

Under the law, the GLO must certify any amendment to the dune protection plan as long as it protects critical dunes and doesn't conflict with state laws. The law regarding dune protection requires only that a dune protection line must be established within 1,000 feet of the vegetation line.

The GLO, while it has oversight of Texas beaches, has no authority to veto a change to the plan as long as it follows state law.

Jim Suydam, a spokesman for the GLO in Austin, said the agency's Coastal Stewardship staff is reviewing the proposal and expects to have a response sometime in January.

“I can't comment on something the staff hasn't done yet,” Suydam said.

However, he said many comments have been submitted opposing the proposal, some from the City of Corpus Christi as well as from Port Aransas.

Port Aransas city attorney Mike Morris wrote in his letter on behalf of the city:

“• Off beach parking and vehicular traffic on the beach are clearly beach access issues and are not within the statutory authority of the Dune Protection Act or the dune protection portion of the Beach Dune Rules. Any plan for these items should be limited to unincorporated areas of the county.

“• The county proposed changes to Section VII of its plan relating to teach traffic orders to provide that traffic regulations adopted in the plan apply only to Gulf beaches within county parks and county property. There is no basis in the beach dune rules to exempt counties from the city's authority to regulate beach access and traffic on any area of the beach whether the area being regulated is within a county park or not.

“• If one were to apply the 350 foot setback within the City of Port Aransas city limits, much of the existing developed areas and undeveloped, recorded, platted lots along its beachfront would fall into this restricted zone. As written there is no provision guaranteeing any right to construct. The right to construct will in such cases be subject to the discretion of a committee. Lots with substantial areas seaward of the 350 line will be held to the near impossible standard of .no practical alternative possible ' in order to get a permit to build. There is no basis provided for a set back line in the DPA, the beach dune rules or the proposed plan amendment.

“• The value of the land upon which development might be prohibited, if the 350 foot rule was applied in Port Aransas, is presently valued at about $100 per square foot. This loss of use of private property, if ever applied within the City of Port Aransas, would likely be viewed as a “taking” and litigation would likely be launched by several of the large property owners of Port Aransas. The estimated cost of potential loss in the tax base to taxing jurisdictions for property devaluation (that developers are sure to petition the appraisal district for) is valued at over $31,000,000 within the City of Port Aransas. The impact of this devaluation would result in a property tax burden shifting to the citizens of Port Aransas and Nueces County in the amount of $691,300 and escalating annually (based on 2006 tax values and rates) without the added potential for economic activity and jobs to be produced in the future by that property.”

Morris also agreed with Urban that the so-called voluntary compliance with a 350-foot protection line has been far from voluntary. Conversations with builders and developers, he wrote to the GLO, show otherwise.

“It is correct that landowners have complied with the May 2000 rule, but not voluntarily,” he wrote.

At a meeting of the county's dune advisory committee on Nov. 10, where inclusion of Port Aransas under the 350-foot limit was the only item on the agenda, the committee voted 4-1 not to recommend inclusion of Port Aransas to county commissioners.

“Certainly, private landowners' rights trump public legislation when private rights exist ahead of time,” said committee chairman Fred McCutcheon at the meeting.

The city council will discuss its position on the county proposal when it meets tonight, Thursday, Dec. 21, at 5 p.m. in the council chamber.