Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dock Variance 1982 Vina Del Mar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves two tie‑pole variances for dock at 1982 West Vina Del Mar Blvd
Summary
After technical testimony about wake and mooring safety, the board approved two tie‑pole variances to allow a wet slip tide‑pole configuration at 1982 West Vina Del Mar Boulevard, subject to conditions including an as‑built survey and limits tied to the submitted plan.
The St. Pete Beach Board of Adjustment approved a limited variance allowing two tie poles at 1982 West Vina Del Mar Boulevard to create a wet slip suitable for a 30‑foot sailboat. The approval was conditioned on the slip being installed only as depicted in the submitted dock plan and on providing a final as‑built survey verifying dimensions.
Owners Scott and Katie Sullivan, who have owned the property since 2019, said the request is narrowly tailored: they are not asking to extend the dock or add a lift; they seek two outside tie poles so the boat can be secured with spring lines and not repeatedly damage lines and cleats during heavy wake events. "What we're asking for is a limited variance to install 2 tie poles on the right side of our existing dock to safely moor a 30 foot sailboat," Scott Sullivan told the board.
Contractor Brian Burge (Edge Marine) described the proposed pilings arrangement and said the configuration is common for wet slips and would not expand the dock envelope beyond neighboring examples. He said the proposed pilings would keep the boat centered in the slip and reduce impacts from wakes by allowing spring‑line attachments.
A nearby neighbor, Dan Kearney, testified in opposition and disputed a document in the application packet he said bore someone else's signature; he also argued alternative dock designs had been discussed that would avoid the need for a variance. The applicant said they had sought a neighbor's signed 'no objection' and obtained one in October 2024 but could not secure the second signature despite outreach.
Board members weighed whether increased commercial traffic and wake in the channel constituted a condition of the land or a change in circumstances sufficient to meet the hardship criterion. After hearing technical testimony that the tie poles would be set where shown and would not prevent adjacent owners from using their slips, a motion to approve the tie‑pole variances passed.
Conditions recorded in staff's recommendation were attached to the approval: the authorization is limited to the wet slip depicted in the materials submitted; future boat lifts or other modifications must meet setbacks or return for additional approvals; and a final as‑built survey is required to verify compliance with the approved dimensions.
