|
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-26-000061) Request to allow for a 3.3 Foot Encroachment into the Required 7.5 Foot Side Yard/Riparian Setback for Property Located at 384 S. Heathwood Dr., Marco Island, FL 34145 - Josh G. Ooyman, Planner II, Community Affairs/Growth Management
Body
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Crocker Marine Services, Inc. has submitted, on behalf of Michael & Melissa Tschida (the “Owners”), a petition for approval of a boat dock extension at the above-referenced property. The proposal is to allow for a boat dock to encroach 3.3 feet into the required 7.5-foot riparian setback. The Owners variance was submitted 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): April 13, 2026
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS:
Based upon the applicant’s representations, staff acknowledges that the dock was constructed in a good faith effort to conform with the approved plan. Notwithstanding the good faith efforts, the dock was constructed 3.3’ into the required 7.5’ riparian setback. The adjacent property owner indicated that they have no objection to the encroachment. Following a review of the petition, however, City staff does not find sufficient reason to support the request beyond contractor error. There is sufficient room to construct the dock as approved. Therefore, City staff finds there is no justification to grant the petition, and recommends the Planning Board deny the petition.
Findings:
1. The dock meets the other requirements and boat facility standards in the Land Development Code.
2. The applicant indicates there is sufficient water depth at the proposed location.
3. The applicant states that there is not a lot of room. This lot is a shoulder lot with approximately 50 feet of seawall frontage.
4. The subject property is at the terminus of a 100-foot wide canal. The dock and lift protrude less than 25 percent of the waterway.
5. The existing docking facility consists of a small finger pier and a boat lift on pilings. It is adequate to secure the moored vessel while providing reasonable access to the boat for routine maintenance.
6. The existing finger pier doesn’t appear to impact the view of the channel for surrounding property owners. The adjacent property owner has signed a waiver signaling no objection to the encroachment.
7. The applicant states that the moored vessel is in excess of 50 percent of the subject property water frontage.
8. The location of the existing dock facility does not infringe upon the use of neighboring properties, nor any existing boat docking facilities.
9. The applicant is unsure if seagrasses are located within the vicinity. The presence of seagrass is unlikely given the location.
10. The proposal is not subject to the Manatee protection requirements.
Notwithstanding the above findings, the subject dock facility was not constructed in a manner consistent with the approved plans, and there is sufficient room for the dock to be constructed as approved. Thus, there is no justification pursuant to Section 54-115(b)(1) of the City’s Code of Ordinances to grant the variance.
POTENTIAL MOTION:
As deemed appropriate.