Board of Adjustment approves variances for dock at 688 Golden Gate Point

The Sarasota Board of Adjustment voted 5-0 during a September 2025 hearing to approve variance petition 25VAN01, allowing the construction of a dock with four boat slips at 688 Golden Gate Point that seeks reduced side setbacks and a depth variance to extend the dock to minus 8.7 mean low water.

The variances approved would reduce the required 8-foot side setbacks to approximately 3 feet on the southern side and 3.1 feet on the northern side measured from riparian rights lines, and increase the maximum allowable mean low water depth from minus 4 feet to minus 8.7 feet. The applicant said the dock will be 98.6 feet long and about 294 square feet, both within the code limits for length and area, and that no variance was requested for those dimensions.

The petition was presented by Christina Tigner, a licensed professional engineer in Sarasota, who said the property’s ‘‘converging riparian rights lines’’ and deep water near Golden Gate Point make the requested layout necessary to keep boat mooring outside dense seagrass and minimize shading of seagrass by elevating portions of the structure. Tigner said Marina View Condominium to the south provided a notarized setback agreement supporting the layout. "We're not asking for variance for size of the dock, either in length or area," Tigner said. "We feel that our dock is environmentally superior in terms of what we're seeking versus what we could have without a variance because it gets that mooring out of the seagrasses."

An affected-person speaker, Susan Nassif of One Watergate Condominium, opposed the depth variance, citing visual impacts and local marine life she observed at the site. "This view is part of iconic Sarasota," Nassif said. "I just feel it's a blot on the landscape. We only get one chance at this — Sarasota is too special to have [this]." Nassif told the board she believed the extra depth would adversely affect up to 36 condominium units in two stacks of her building.

City staff and a certified planner explained technical points in the zoning code. Rebecca Webster, identified in the hearing as a certified planner, restated the code limit for mean low water and the petition’s requested variance: "There is a maximum mean low water depth that docks cannot go past ... that's the minus 4 mean low water. So mean low water is at 0. That depth would be at 4 feet. So they'd be requesting a variance to achieve minus 8.7 mean low water." Staff also noted the applicant must obtain separate permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; those agencies will review seagrass, shellfish beds and other resource impacts as part of their permitting processes.

The applicant’s presentation included a licensed surveyor’s note that the survey showed ‘‘no live shellfish beds’’ in the construction area; some public speakers disputed that on-the-ground observations showed clams or other mollusks along the seawall. The applicant said the plan minimizes structural area over dense seagrass, elevates decks five feet above mean low water where over seagrass and places moorings outside dense seagrass in deeper water. The applicant said the dock would accommodate four slips and that slips are deeded to units (one penthouse slip reserved), and use would be restricted to owners or their guests under condominium rules.

After public comment and rebuttal, a motion to approve variance petition 25VAN01, including the staff-prepared resolution and findings, was moved and seconded. The Board recorded votes as: Chair Cherry — yes; Member Dennis — yes; Member Nisbett — yes; Member Rooke — yes; Member Hanlon — yes. The motion passed 5-0. The board did not adopt any conditions in its recorded motion beyond those in the staff resolution.

The DEP and the Army Corps retain review authority for any state or federal permits; staff told the board those agency reviews had not been completed. The applicant acknowledged the need for those permits before construction. The board’s approval was limited to the three zoning variances requested; any final permit terms, mitigation or adjustments required by DEP or the Army Corps will be determined through those agency reviews.

Board members and public speakers discussed alternatives such as different pier alignments and minimizing pilings to reduce turbidity, but the board’s action focused on whether the three zoning criteria for this petition were met. The board’s minutes show the decision will be summarized in the staff resolution accompanying the file.

Next steps: the applicant will pursue DEP and Army Corps permits and return to any required city processes for permits and inspections before construction.