Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Seawall Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board denies Lighthouse Point seawall variance for Snow family; recommends limited TCO extension
Summary
The Lighthouse Point Planning & Zoning Board voted to deny a variance request that would have allowed a residential seawall to remain below the city's 4.0-foot requirement. The board asked the mayor to consider a 12'to'18 month extension of the property's temporary certificate of occupancy to allow repairs.
The Lighthouse Point Planning & Zoning Board on Dec. 3 denied a variance request from Tim and Marybeth Snow that would have allowed an existing seawall at 2749 NE 26th Avenue to remain below the city's 4.0-foot code requirement.
Dave Dixon, the consulting city planner, told the board the seawall issue arose after a substantial renovation triggered the code requirement and the temporary certificate of occupancy required the seawall to be raised within 18 months. "This item is for a variance, to the elevation of the seawall," Dixon said in his presentation, explaining that a previous Marine Advisory Board recommended denying the variance and allowing time for the wall to be brought into compliance. Board members repeatedly questioned whether the wall was built below code or had later settled; staff noted that as-built elevation surveys were not required at the time the wall was installed.
The applicant, Tim Snow, said he moved into the house based on representations about the dock and seawall and presented contractor quotes to fix the wall. "We have proposals, quotes anywhere from $60,000 to $100,000," he told the board, describing the financial and logistical burden of removing and rebuilding the dock or raising the cap. Snow asked for time to complete repairs; he said he would raise the seawall if the city gave him a reasonable extension.
After public and expert testimony and deliberation, the board voted to deny the variance. Susan Motley moved to deny the applicant's request and the motion passed on roll call. The board then resolved to recommend that the mayor and the administration consider a time-limited extension of the temporary certificate of occupancy so the owners can complete repairs. The board's guidance asked the mayor to consider between 12 and 18 months; Ross (an administration representative) agreed to convey the recommendation to the mayor within several days.
The denial is limited to the variance request itself; staff and board members noted that a denial would put the property in violation pending any administrative extension or subsequent appeal. The board explicitly separated the variance decision from a request to the administration for more time: it denied the variance and asked the administration to consider a finite extension rather than tie the extension to the board's vote.
