Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lantana council approves variances to allow single boat lift at 329 S. Atlantic Drive, limits future lifts
Summary
After a quasi‑judicial hearing, the council approved four variances to allow a boat lift on an existing nonconforming dock at 329 South Atlantic Drive, with a condition barring additional boat lifts or floating docks; the decision followed staff recommendation to deny and a split planning commission recommendation.
After a quasi‑judicial hearing that included staff presentation, expert testimony and council questioning, the Lantana Town Council approved four variances for 329 South Atlantic Drive (case VAR 24‑0011) by a 5‑0 vote on Feb. 24.
Development Services Director Nicole Dritz told the council staff does not believe the applicant demonstrated the legal hardship required for relief and therefore recommended denial. "Staff does not feel that the applicant has presented a hardship and is recommending denial for the application," she said. The planning commission, by contrast, recommended approval of the two side‑setback variances and denial of the width and length variances.
The applicants, David and Gilda Coley, were represented by zoning attorney Matthew Scott of Greenspoon Martyr. Scott said the request is narrowly limited to adding a boat lift to an existing, grandfathered dock and described three core hardships: (1) the property’s original 1929 platting and 50‑foot lot width make it impossible to meet current 25‑foot side‑setback requirements; (2) the site experiences higher boat traffic and wake activity that has damaged the owner’s moored boat; and (3) shallow nearshore bathymetry restricts safe operation to a narrow band of tide conditions. "This is not a desire to install something…It is out of pure necessity because of these wake issues in the area," Scott said.
Contractor Taylor McGinnis of Dockmasters Plus testified that pilings constrain modifications and estimated the owner would have a limited use window in a full tide cycle — "maybe 2 hours" — to operate a lift at the deepest available location. Council members pressed whether cutting the existing eight‑foot terminus down to six feet (the planning commission suggestion) and moving the lift to the new end would be practicable; McGinnis and Scott said moving pilings and reducing the structure would be difficult and might not provide adequate depth.
Throughout deliberations council members referenced the separate legal framework for dock variances and riparian access. Multiple members said dock variances are often easier to justify because water‑access rights are treated differently than upland setbacks. A majority favored a conditional approval to balance property access and neighborhood impact; the council approved the variances with a condition explicitly barring "any additional no other boat lifts or floating docks shall be permitted." The motion passed 5‑0.
Key technical details presented for the record included a requested 11‑foot south setback (code requires 25 feet), a requested 15‑foot north setback (code requires 25 feet), a dock width of up to 8 feet (code allows 6 feet), and a dock length of 125 feet (code allows 113 feet unless additional length is needed to reach 3.5 feet mean low water). bathymetry exhibits the applicant cited show depths in the proposed lift area of roughly 3.1 to 3.5 feet; staff noted the code permits extending a finger pier beyond 100 feet if insufficient depth requires it.
The council’s approval converted the dock to the approved dimensions for this property under the recorded condition; no further lifts or floating docks will be permitted under that action. The council’s vote was the final local action recorded at the meeting; no appeal or further procedural steps were announced during the session.
