Board of Appeals approves 162-foot pier replacement for Shipping Creek Partners with safety-lighting condition

Chairman McGinnis and the Board of Appeals granted a variance on the application from Shipping Creek Partners LLC to replace an existing pier extending about 162 feet from the mean high-water line, a length that exceeds the county’s 150-foot limit and the ‘‘half-the-waterway’’ restriction.

Planning and Zoning zoning inspector Mike Galls told the board the county’s records show permit 808260 (issued Aug. 10, 1976) authorized a 100-foot pier, but aerial imagery in the QAC GIS shows a 162-foot configuration by 1978; staff said it had not documented a legally nonconforming authorization sufficient to allow replacement without a variance. Galls summarized the code limits and told the board the applicant needed approximately a 30-foot variance to reconstruct to the existing 162-foot length.

Applicant Grant Tannenbaum, one of the property owners, said the pier was in disrepair when the family bought the property and described a practical difficulty tied to the boats they keep. "The pier was in disrepair," Tannenbaum said, and he added that sailboats at the site require deeper water: "With the sailboats we have that have about 4 or 5 feet of draft ... it is a considerable difficulty to be able to use them without a variance out to a 162 feet." Contractor Mike Marsh of Boat Lift Unlimited testified that pilings were deteriorated — "Pilings are down to 6 inches in some places below water line" — and that lifts reduce usable depth by about a foot, making a shoreward relocation impractical for the applicant’s boats.

Board members questioned tide and depth readings and examined neighboring piers, which staff noted include several structures of about 163–167 feet in the same reach. After the board reviewed the statutory variance factors (including practical difficulty, peculiarity of the property, and lack of alternatives), a board member moved to grant the variance with the condition that the applicant install and maintain safety lighting at the pier’s outer end; the motion was seconded and the board voted in favor. Chairman McGinnis said a formal written decision would be issued.

The board’s approval was limited to the variance request before it; staff emphasized the applicant must document any legally nonconforming status and comply with any required permits and conditions enumerated in the written decision. The board noted the applicant would receive the formal decision and that the project must meet any other county and state permitting requirements before work begins.