The Planning and Zoning Board of the Village of Tequesta on March 20 approved a variance allowing the owners of 354 Riverside Drive to extend and reconfigure a private dock to reach deeper water and reduce impacts on nearby seagrass.

Board members granted two variances requested by the property owners, David and Amity Swank, after a presentation from the Swanks’ attorney and coastal engineer about persistent shoaling at the mouth of a nearby drainage canal and the presence of nearshore seagrass beds that the applicants said are being displaced by accreting sediment.

Community development director Jay Hutch told the board that when a zoning variance is requested in a residential district “it goes directly to the PZV, and you take final action on it.” Attorney Alexandra England, representing the Swanks, said the project would remove a smaller, nonconforming dock, install a single terminal platform sized to code and extend the dock to deeper water. England said the plan already has Florida Department of Environmental Protection and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approvals. Coastal engineer Matthew Butler said survey work and in‑water measurements showed shoaling at the mouth of the Dover Ditch and that extending the dock would avoid dredging and reduce harm to seagrass.

Resident Marissa Pierri opposed the application in public comment, saying the proposal “would do the opposite” of protecting environmentally sensitive areas and arguing the packet did not prove a recent change in shoreline conditions. Another resident asked who owns the Dover Ditch; a village official replied, “The village.”

After questions from board members about materials, terminal platform dimensions and whether the requested variances represented the minimum relief necessary, a board member moved to approve the application; another member seconded the motion. The board voted in favor; the chair declared the variance granted. The board record shows five board members present and a unanimous vote.

The approved variances modify two provisions cited in the staff presentation: a request to permit a terminal dock configuration extending to 97 feet where the code’s standard reference was shorter, and a 24‑foot intersecting horizontal extension where the code allows 20 feet. Staff and the applicants characterized the approvals as the minimum relief needed to reach safe navigable depth while removing a smaller nonconforming structure.

The board’s decision was framed as balancing navigation, safety and shore‑zone ecology; staff asked the board to find that the application met Tequesta’s variance criteria and specific dock variance tests listed in the municipal code. No follow‑up conditions beyond compliance with building and environmental permits were recorded in the hearing transcript.

The Swanks thanked the board after the vote; they did not identify immediate construction dates during the hearing.