Akar Mandal presented application PC-24 D6 on behalf of the Otman Cove Condominium Association, located at 1-10 16 Air Drive. The proposal involved replacing a 784 square foot wooden dock with a larger concrete dock and raising the current three-foot seawall to six feet. Ingrid Allen, a staff member, detailed the proposal, confirming that it met town code and comprehensive plan provisions, and had received the necessary authorizations from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers.

The board members delved into the technical aspects of the project, particularly questioning the qualifications of the contractor, Boat Lifts and Docks of South Florida. They sought clarification on the boat lifts associated with the project, which were confirmed to remain in place as separate structures supported by their own pilings.

Public input brought to light significant apprehensions about the potential for increased flooding due to the proposed seawall elevation. Diane Matthewman, a resident on Bel Air Drive, expressed her concerns, emphasizing that raising the seawall could lead to more water entering neighboring properties during storms or high tides. She articulated, “If a storm comes or a full moon comes with a big high king tide and the water’s coming over the seawall, that property gets no water, and their neighbors are going to get more water.” Matthewman suggested that seawall elevations should be a community decision to avoid adverse impacts on neighboring properties.

In response, a representative from the applicant’s side reassured that the construction would include design elements to manage water runoff effectively. He explained, “We build returns on each end of this property bordering the neighbors from the height of the cap all the way to the level with the property.” This design, he asserted, would ensure proper drainage without affecting adjacent properties. The representative emphasized that the construction would not exacerbate existing water issues from the intercoastal.

The board members focused on understanding the implications of the project on the surrounding community, particularly regarding drainage patterns and flooding scenarios.

A participant identified as Kitz from 106 Bair Drive raised additional concerns about the neighborhood’s aesthetic uniformity. Kitz pointed out the “slightly mismatched” conditions of the properties due to varying approaches by individual homeowner associations (HOAs) to seawall projects. She emphasized the need for seamless and uniform seawall improvements, especially with the impending holiday season and hurricane threats. Kitz elaborated, “Our water overflow doesn’t affect mostly on our side any of the pools because all of our pools are raised.” She noted that the different heights and designs of pools and seawalls across the properties would create a “check board front” effect during the improvement process. Kitz also expressed hope that the community would gradually achieve a more symmetrical appearance as updates progressed.

The conversation included technical questions regarding the construction details, particularly whether the existing seawall cap would be altered. It was confirmed that the seawall cap would remain, but new piles would be installed behind it, with a retaining wall constructed above. This clarification led to further discussions about drainage and the impact on neighboring properties. A board member concluded that the proposal was acceptable as long as the retaining walls did not adversely affect neighboring properties.