Marco Island City Councilors (many of them not on waterfront property) voted unanimously to restrict seawall contractors from using proximate (or any) vacant residential lots for staging seawall repairs/replacement materials. Rationale being that the staging lots infringe on neighbors peaceful and quiet enjoyment of their property.
Isn’t it ironic that when it is a city project as opposed to a home owner’s project, the city has no problem in infringing on the quiet enjoyment rationale. The STRP is an example.
One could also make the case that on Marco Island canals are like roads and perhaps should be a government responsibility to maintain/replace. Furthermore, wakes created by boats using the canals contribute to the seawall deterioration. There is no enforcement of the no wake zones in the canals.
Marco Island is a waterfront community with seawalls. Lot owners (not the city) have to pay for the maintenance and replacement of seawalls on their property; and now the city is going to add signficant costs by disallowing the staging of the seawall materials on neighboring residental lots. Incidentally, the neigboring lot owners often receive payment from the seawall contractors for the use of their lots. The council would deny these lot owners this income and force the sea wall replacement homeowners to pay extra charges to barge or truck in the demotion/replacement seawall materials.
So, there is the inconvenience of neighbors of the vacant lots having to put up with the mess next door when seawalls are replaced. These same neighbors, however, may in the future need to replace their own seawalls and if the proposed ordinance is passed, be faced with substantially higher costs because of the restriction proposed.
All of the waterfront property owners knew that their seawalls and their neighbors seawalls had a limitied life span when they bought their waterfront lots.
The Council/Planning Board need to get a handle on what these extra costs are when materials can not be staged on residential lots.
Just my thoughts having spent over $58,000 on my seawall where the contractor could use my neighbor’s lot.