Melbourne Beach planning board recommends 10-foot dock, urges seawall repairs after public debate

The Town of Melbourne Beach Planning and Zoning Board voted to recommend that the town commission approve a package of repairs to the neighborhood boat ramp and seawall and a 10-foot public dock, after residents and advisory-board members described erosion and safety concerns.

Board members, alternates and about a dozen residents spent more than an hour discussing a handout and workshop notes about the ramp. The discussion covered an approximately 12-inch-diameter sinkhole that recently opened near the ramp, proposals to rebuild the south seawall and to alter the ramp profile so water funnels away from adjacent private yards, and options for a short, low-impact dock to improve safe boarding from boats.

The recommendation matters because speakers said the seawall has begun to fail and poses a hazard to users and nearby yards, and because residents disagreed about how large a dock should be. Several residents who initially opposed a dock later supported a short structure as a compromise, while others warned that a larger dock would draw more visitors and parking pressure.

Board chair David Campbell presided during the public discussion and recommendation vote. Alternate Todd Albert presented a written list of ramp and dock design ideas gathered from a workshop and neighbors. Curtis Ford, identified as chairman of the Environmental Advisory Board, and Karen Fonotti, an EAB member, also addressed the board and asked that the EAB and Planning & Zoning continue to coordinate on any final language.

Residents described recent occurrences they said illustrate the safety concerns. Austin (resident, 1508 Pine Street) said a 23½-foot boat was able to be pulled up against the seawall at high tide and described how a small floating dock allowed safe boarding in a recent photo he showed the board. Curtis Byrd (resident, 306 Surf Road) cautioned that a larger dock would attract more visitors and stressed liability and safety concerns during busy periods such as holidays. Andy Atkinson (resident, 1602 Pine Street) called the seawall failure “not mission critical” but said a 10-foot dock might be an acceptable compromise.

A contractor who spoke from the audience said a recent 90-foot seawall his firm built cost about $77,000 and described the local geology (coquina rock and compacted sand) and the need for specialized drilling equipment to set pilings in that substrate.

Specific items discussed and recommended to the commission included: scraping and regrading the ramp approach to create a swale channel that funnels water up the ramp; rebuilding the south seawall to the height of a neighboring Atkinson seawall (estimated by residents at 10–15 inches higher than current); building short walls on both sides of the ramp; installing a removable gate to reduce overflows into private yards; securing an unstable post near the waterline; providing two trash bins at the ramp (matching Fifth Avenue Park); and signs including “use ramp at your own risk,” “slippery when wet,” restrictions on trailer parking within two blocks, and resident-parking/permit rules (no overnight parking 9 p.m.–5 a.m.).

On the dock design, speakers debated widths and lengths. Proposals ranged from a minimal 10-foot dock (advocated by some neighbors as minimizing traffic and privacy impacts) to 20–30 feet (advanced earlier by a builder as more functional for larger boats). Several residents and alternates emphasized that a 10-foot dock would be intended primarily for safe boarding and not for fishing, overnight mooring, or alcohol consumption; speakers noted existing town rules that apply to parks and public spaces.

After public comment and board discussion, a motion passed to recommend the commission approve ramp repairs and a 10-foot dock as a compromise. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote; a single vocal opposed response was recorded during the roll call of the motion.

Next steps: board members said they will forward the handout and pricing estimates to the town commission, which will consider whether to authorize repairs and any contract awards. Several speakers urged the commission to prioritize seawall repairs first because of the immediate hazard. Board and EAB members discussed returning to a joint workshop if disagreements about design details remain.

“Fix the seawall,” one resident said; “if it doesn’t function, it’s not worth building.”

The board’s recommendation will be placed on the commission agenda for final action.