Mark Burgess of Shorefront Consulting presented a revised seawall replacement plan for 10 Surfside that lowers the previously proposed height change to a one-foot raise (target elevation ~4.9) and removes fill from the project. Burgess said the revised approach limits disturbance and retains an enhanced vegetated buffer inland of the wall.
Property owner Tom Grimes told the commission he had consulted direct neighbors and said they submitted letters of support; Grimes said, "I've spoke to both direct neighbors and they're both in support of this," and urged a practical solution to recurring storm damage at the property.
Opposition focused on coastal-process concerns. Attorney Paul Rivere, speaking for an adjacent easement-holder, argued hardened structures cause reflective wave energy and end scour and urged softer alternatives. "The concept that I've always thought was we want to have soft solutions," Rivere said, and cited historical fill and moderate-wave-action evidence suggesting the area experiences wave heights in excess of one foot that could make reflection and scour meaningful.
Commissioners probed technical details (how ends of the wall would be treated, whether sloping alternatives were possible, the presence of nearby higher bulkheads) and asked staff to include DMF/DMF-like conditions and in-water work restrictions. Britney reported letters of support from two direct neighbors and summarized public comment opposing the project submitted earlier.
After lengthy debate the commission voted to approve the seawall reconstruction with standard bulkhead replacement conditions (DMF timing restrictions, required monitoring and vegetated-buffer enhancements). One commissioner recorded a dissenting vote based on concerns about potential end effects and redirection of wave energy. Staff will incorporate standard in-water and time-of-year restrictions and require additional planting and monitoring required under the order of conditions.