Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council approves small dock variance at 901 North Atlantic Drive over staff objection

Town Council of Lantana, Florida · April 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Lantana Town Council voted 3‑2 to approve variance VAR‑25‑0002 allowing a 50‑square‑foot seating bump‑out and a 9‑foot dock where code permits 6 feet; staff had recommended denial, saying no hardship was proven.

The Lantana Town Council approved variance VAR‑25‑0002 for the property at 901 North Atlantic Drive on April 28, 2025, allowing a 50‑square‑foot seating addition and an increase in dock width from the 6‑foot code limit to 9 feet. The vote passed 3‑2 after brief deliberation.

Development Services Director Nicole Dritz told the council staff recommended denial because the applicant had not proven the legal hardship required for a variance and the property is otherwise conforming. Dritz said the application lacked unique conditions, and that the planning commission had previously recommended approval 5‑0 on March 26, 2025. “Staff is recommending denial based in part that no hardship has been proven,” Dritz said.

Applicant Mike Capatitis described the requested change as a “modest, bump out” of about 5 by 10 feet at the end of an existing dock, saying he had checked for seagrass, completed a bathymetric survey (reporting depths not exceeding about 4 feet at low tide), and secured his neighbor’s consent. “A 50 square feet is an incredibly small amount,” Capatitis said, and he argued the change is smaller than many neighboring structures.

During questioning, the town’s legal advisor cautioned the council that the application did not appear to meet the six statutory criteria for a hardship variance and warned that a legal challenge could be difficult to defend. The attorney said dock variances are judged differently because of riparian access, but added, “I can’t defend it. I mean, I’ll just tell you that right now. That doesn’t satisfy a single one of these six criteria.”

Several council members said they support reviewing and possibly rewriting island dock regulations so similar requests are handled consistently; others said the council must follow the code as written. Ultimately Council member Rivera moved to approve the variance; the motion was seconded and passed 3‑2. The applicant thanked the council after the vote.