Site is maximum of 52.6 feet waterward of county’s 20-Year Pass Hazard Line
On a unanimous vote, with no comments from members of the public and no remarks among themselves, the Sarasota County commissioners on Aug. 27 approved a Coastal Setback Variance for the construction of a 193.1-foot-long seawall that will be a maximum of 52.6 feet waterward of the 20-Year Pass Hazard Line at 39 Sandy Hook Road N. on Siesta Key.
The site is located on Sarasota Big Pass, the county staff report said.
The new wall will be landward of an existing seawall, the report pointed out.
Two residential structures comprising a total of 3,910 square feet of habitable space stand on the property, the report added.
The existing seawall, which has been damaged by storms, is in “approximately the same location as the proposed seawall,” the report noted. The property’s shoreline “has been hardened since the 1960s,” it continued, “so it does not contain any viable sea turtle nesting habitat.”
“In some areas,” the report pointed out, “the existing wall will be left in place and secured to the new concrete cap” of the new wall. “The existing wall will be cut down to the mean high-water line in other areas,” it explained
The neighboring properties to the west have seawalls, as well, the report further noted. “The property to the east contains a small beach area located within a cove with seawalls on either side,” the report continued. “The seawalls on either side of this cove have prevented large-scale erosion or accretion of sediments, and, therefore, the shoreline has seen only minor changes since … 1974. Because the proposed wall modifies an existing wall, no additional impacts on shoreline conditions are expected in the area,” the report said.
A wooden dock and three concrete davits also are present on the site, the staff report added.
The Sarasota County Property Appraiser’s Office records show that the “site has been developed with [the] existing structures since the mid to late 1980s, leaving little space available for native habitat,” the staff report continued. No beach, dunes or coastal hammock is present, the report pointed out.
However, it continued, “Aerial imagery shows the possible presence of seagrasses approximately 80 feet off the seawall. If [the Coastal Setback Variance is] approved, the Petitioner will be required to use best management practices to prevent impacts to these seagrasses during construction.”
The applicant was Bonnie Fogarty, the report noted. The Property Appraiser’s Office records indicate that Foggarty and her husband, Edward, have owned the parcel since October 1986; they were granted a homestead exemption for it in 1989.
In providing facts that demonstrate the application’s consistency and inconsistency with county policies and regulations, the staff report first said, “The existing seawall could be replaced in the same footprint … without [the applicant’s] needing a Coastal Setback Variance.” Additionally, that part of the report pointed out that the site “is vulnerable to storm surge from a Category 1 hurricane.”
Moreover, it noted, “If the structures on the subject site were damaged during a storm event, the County may have to assist with clean-up efforts to remove debris from surrounding shorelines and roadways.”
In regard to all of the criteria for the board members to use in determining whether to grant the Coastal Setback Variance, a table included in the staff report said that, in six cases, no inconsistencies were found; however, in 11 of them, staff did provide facts demonstrating inconsistencies.
For example, one criterion for approval of the variance is that the measure will “[p]rotect beaches, beachfront dunes, beachfront bluffs, and beachfront vegetation necessary for maintaining shoreline stability.” Staff noted, “The property to the east contains a small pocket beach between existing seawalls.”
In regard to another county regulation, a criterion for the granting of a Coastal Setback Variance is that it will protect “upland structures from damage or destruction caused by coastal erosion.” Several factors were to be evaluated, in accord with that regulation.
The fact demonstrating inconsistency said, “There have been no reports of damage to the residential structures or public infrastructure in the immediate area.”