Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Marine Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board denies variance for noncompliant finger pier at 721 NE 30th Street
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Board unanimously denied a variance request on March 20 for a finger pier constructed differently than permitted at 721 NE 30th Street, finding the deviations resulted from construction errors and did not meet variance criteria.
The City of Boca Raton Planning and Zoning Board on March 20 denied a variance request for a finger pier at 721 Northeast 30th Street after staff and the Marine Advisory Board concluded the as‑built pier differs from the approved permit drawings and that the deviation was caused by construction error rather than a unique site hardship.
Zoning Officer Courtney Wood reviewed the permit history and staff analysis, telling the board that the applicant had an approvable pier design on the permit drawings but the inspected, as‑built structure did not match those plans. Wood said the applicant requested a variance to allow the finger pier to extend 19.8 feet into the waterway (the code‑allowed extension calculated at 15% of the waterway width would be 18 feet in this case) and to allow a west side setback of 13.16 feet instead of the required 19.8 feet tied to the extension. Staff recommended denial, stating: "Failure of the contractor to follow plans is not a valid justification for approval of variance requests." The Marine Advisory Board also recommended denial (4–1), citing inaccuracies in the site plan exhibit compared with the as‑built condition and concern about setting a precedent for approving construction mistakes.
The contractor and applicant representatives said the as‑built configuration eased boat access for the lot and that neighboring property owners to the west had submitted letters of support; however, staff noted required letters from all dead‑end canal properties had not been received. Public commenters included neighbors who said similar finger‑pier configurations exist nearby and that the pier increased waterfront usability for residents; another commenter who attended the Marine Advisory Board described the lack of unique hardship and inconsistent application materials.
After discussion, the board voted 0‑5 to deny both variance requests. Board members cited the high standard for variance approval, the lack of a special or unique condition not caused by the applicant, and the need to avoid signifying that construction errors can be regularized by retroactive variances. Staff recommended, and the board accepted, that the proper remedy is correcting noncompliant construction to match permitted drawings or pursuing lawful design changes prior to construction.
The applicant may revise the pier to conform to the approved permit or resubmit compliant plans for review.
