To raise or not to raise, that is the question

Windermere Town Council members listened to multiple residents voice their opinion on dock repairs at the Town Council meeting Tuesday, May 9. 

Public Works Director Tonya Elliott-Moore said during Hurricane Ian, the docks at Lake Street and Lake Down parks suffered severe damage. 

“What we’ve had to do … to ensure we’re meeting the FEMA requirements is get someone to come out and assess the docks and provide a cost proposal back on repairing the structures,” she said. “What I asked that person to do was come back with their best-case scenario repair request, because I’ve worked in other cities that have 22 lakes, and I’ve never seen docks damaged this badly. … I wanted to make sure when we repaired the docks they would be more sustainable in the future.”

Elliott-Moore said the recommendation is to elevate the Lake Down Park dock by 18 inches.

Dena O’Malley, who spoke as a Parks and Recreation representative, said the committee believes raising the dock would take away from its functionality. 

“Back in 2019, the committee spent almost $30,000 to have the dock rebuilt and lowered,” she said. “The previous dock was not ADA compliant. … We want to really consider if it’s a good idea to raise it this high. I know it would help with hurricane damage, but we really have concerns that it will have a lot of issues.”

Resident Bob McKinley agreed and said he thinks raising the dock would be a waste of money.

Elliott-Moore said she previously was unaware the Parks and Recreation team had lowered the docks back in 2019. 

“I did get a hold of the contractor, and he came out and met me this morning,” she said. “He said that he feels strongly that if the community would like it left at its current height, he will be able to rebuild that structure to be sustainable. I feel better now that I’ve been able to talk to him, and he assured me that he has other docks at that same height in other towns that he has built to be sustainable.”

Elliott-Moore said she and Town Manager Robert Smith have received many calls and emails asking them to repair and open the docks as soon as possible. 

Resident Frank Walters voiced his thoughts on Lake Street Park. 

“I was very concerned about buying a property with the goings on at Lake Street Park,” he said. “I’m hearing encouraging things — that things are going to change at that park and get it back to being something that is peaceful and safe. … I just want you guys to know that I … will help you however we can to get things back to being peaceful and safe.”

The council unanimously approved repairing the docks at the current height with no increased elevation. 

COURT CONVERSATION

The council also heard a variance to allow a sport court in front of the principal structure at 65 Pine St. 

Town Planner Brad Cornelius said the property is “somewhat unusual,” because it’s a flag lot and is accessed by a private easement connecting to Pine Street. Because of the unique lot configuration, the variance is required to place the proposed sport court in front of the principal structure. 

“It does make this lot a little bit difficult in terms of how we look at where the front of the lot is,” he said. “The variance is simply to allow it in front of the house. Your code requires it to be either behind the house or to the side of the house. On this lot, it’s not wide enough for this house to have it on the side. They could put it to the back if they were to move the house further up to First Avenue. … The code doesn’t reference sport courts in the front yard, it says, ‘in front of the structure,’ ‘in front of the house.’”

Cornelius said the applicants, Nick and Susan Capone, are currently not proposing any lights on the court, and the court must follow the rules of the town’s noise ordinance. If the applicants were to want lights in the future, the code requires the lights to be fully shielded to diminish impact. 

Cornelius said the town received quite a good amount of response to the variance, including six letters in support and five in opposition. The ones in opposition were all from adjacent property owners. 

The Development Review Board previously discussed the variance and denied it 5-1, as it was concerned about the impact on the adjacent neighbors and it did not find there was a hardship as defined in the code.

Council Member Molly Rose questioned the location of the court on the property. 

“I have a hard time thinking of this as the front yard,” she said. “To me, it’s on the side of the house.”

Council Member Tom Stroup said he spoke to all of the neighbors and the biggest issue was the possible noise. 

Kevin Ball, representative of the applicants, said he thinks the court will impact the neighbors significantly more if it is placed at the back of the house. 

“In front of the house, we’re able to … sink it into the ground, build a wall around it and then have landscaping around it,” he said. “We’re really able to mitigate the noise by having it in the front. Having it in the back, we don’t have the ability to go into the earth; we’re not going to build a wall and break our lake view. … Some of the neighbors (who) were strongly against it will be more impacted if it’s in the back. The neighbors who are in front of the house — if we have to push the house 50 feet forward, that house, that two-story structure is going to be looking into their backyards.”

Rose made a motion to approve the variance as is. The motion passed unanimously.