Trustees hold request to raise bulkhead after contested technical debate

David Aslanian, representing 1st Coastal, presented the trustees with a site-specific flood and sea-level-rise analysis for a property on Tarpon Road, saying the current bulkhead top is about 3.75 feet and an 18‑inch raise "is not sufficient to cover projected sea level rise and the 5 year return period storm for overtopping over the lifespan of this bulkhead." He told trustees he had secured concurrence letters from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of State and that neighbor letters and an HOA president letter supported the project.

Trustee Sarah Topping said she appreciated the volume of materials but warned that the canal at issue is a dug canal with site conditions different from open shorelines, and she raised concerns that raising the bulkhead and filling behind it could change runoff dynamics for adjacent properties. Topping said the board must avoid creating a precedent that would push adjoining owners to raise bulkheads later.

Trustees and other participants discussed competing standards: Aslanian described his team’s method of combining sea-level projections, FEMA 5- and 10-year storm surge levels, and wave activity to arrive at recommended top-of-bulkhead heights. He told the board his team considered a compromise and recommended a 12‑inch raise in light of state permitting guidance and agency concurrence; earlier submittals had referenced an 18‑inch increase. A homeowner who spoke during the discussion urged the board to allow a 12‑inch raise and said, "I'll go 1st. I'll be more than happy to go 1st at 12 inches, you know." That homeowner also said the HOA supported the change.

Trustees pressed staff and applicants for site-specific clarifications (how the proposed height compares with immediate neighbors, how a fill would affect upland-upland/bay interactions, and which earlier permits predate pier-line rules in the trustees’ Blue Book). Several trustees said they were sympathetic to the homeowner’s desire to protect property but noted potential baywide consequences if bulkheads are raised unevenly.

After extended questioning and public comment, the trustees decided to hold the application for additional review of an earlier nearby permit and the pier-line regulation history so the board could confirm whether a prior permit established a precedent. The applicant was told to provide any outstanding documentation to staff; trustees did not adopt a final permit condition at this hearing.

Next steps: The trustees will review any older permits and the pier-line chronology, and the application remains on hold pending that review.