Legislation Details

File #: ID 26-5842    Version: 1 Name:
Type: New Business Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 9/18/2026 In control: Planning Board
On agenda: 10/2/2026 Final action:
Title: RESOLUTION – Boat Dock Extension (BD-26-000102) Request to allow for a 2.4 Foot Encroachment into the South Side on the Minimum Required 12 Foot Side Yard/Riparian Setback for Property Located at 167 Columbus Way, Marco Island, FL 34145 – Josh G. Ooyman, Planner II, Community Affairs/Growth Management
Attachments: 1. Resolution, 2. Staff Report, 3. Application, 4. Aerial, 5. As Built Survey, 6. Plat Map, 7. Original Boat Dock Plan, 8. Original Permit 24-00203, 9. Legal Notification Affidavit
Date Ver.Action ByActionResultAction DetailsMeeting DetailsVideo
No records to display.

Agenda Item: 10(a)

Prepared By: Joshua G. Ooyman, Planner II

Business:   Resolution

Department: Community Affairs/Growth Management

Subject:

Title

RESOLUTION - Boat Dock Extension (BD-26-000102) Request to allow for a 2.4 Foot Encroachment into the South Side on the Minimum Required 12 Foot Side Yard/Riparian Setback for Property Located at 167 Columbus Way, Marco Island, FL 34145 - Josh G. Ooyman, Planner II, Community Affairs/Growth Management

Body                     

 

 

BACKGROUND:

 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

 

Blue Marlin Marine Companies, Inc. has submitted, on behalf of Robert & Kimberly White (the “Owners”), a petition for approval of a boat dock extension at the above-referenced property. The proposal is to allow for a boat lift to encroach 2.4 feet into the required 12-foot riparian setback. The Owners submitted the variance petition because the subject dock was constructed out of conformance with the approved plan. The petition, plans, and narrative are attached.

 

 

FUNDING SOURCE / FISCAL IMPACT: Applicant has paid $1,500.00 in applicable fees.

 

 

PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: 15 days prior to Planning Board meeting

 

 

NOTICE APPEARANCE DATE(S): September 14, 2026

 

 

RECOMMENDATION: 

 

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS: 

 

Based upon the applicant’s representations, staff acknowledge that the dock was constructed in a good faith effort to conform with the approved plan. The applicant states that mispositioned property line markers resulted in a rightward (southerly) shift of the docking facility. 

 

Following a review of the petition, City staff finds sufficient reason to support the request. The encroachment represents 20 percent of the required setback and the access to the adjacent boat lift will not be hindered.  The applicant states that the affected adjacent neighbor does not consider the request to be deleterious to their property rights. Staff is unable to substantiate this claim as nothing in writing has been received from the adjacent neighbor. City staff finds that a majority of the review criteria have been met satisfactorily and recommends the Planning Board approve the petition.

 

Findings:

 

1.                     The docking facility meets the other requirements and boat facility standards in the Land Development Code.

2.                     The applicant indicates there is sufficient water depth at the subject location.

3.                     The applicant states that the property line markers were mis-positioned resulting in the dock being shifted by approximately 3 feet to the south.

4.                     The subject property is adjacent to a 100-foot wide canal. The dock and lift protrude 25 percent (25 feet) into the waterway.

5.                     The applicant states that the constructed dock allows for access to the boats without excessive dock area.

6.                     According to the applicant, the boat docking facility encompasses 632 square feet over water and was originally positioned to minimize view impacts for both adjacent neighbors.

7.                     The applicant states that the moored vessel is not in excess of 50 percent of the subject property water frontage. 

8.                     As constructed, the boat lift encroaches 2.4 feet into the riparian setback. However, the adjacent neighbor to the south accesses their small boat lift from the east so that the vessel is moored perpendicular to the seawall.

9.                     The applicant states that there are no seagrasses located within the vicinity.

10.                     The proposal is not subject to the Manatee protection requirements.

 

 

POTENTIAL MOTION: 

 

 

Move to approve Resolution 26-XX with the listed findings