Planning Board approves Collier County Utilities upgrades and variances for 2559 San Marco Road
July 10, 2026 | Marco Island, Collier County, Florida
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Marco Island Planning Board on Friday voted unanimously to approve a site development plan amendment and a companion variance request from Collier County Utilities for work at 2559 San Marco Road.
Staff presented the project as a targeted set of upgrades to an existing treatment plant built in 1995, saying the work would add an elevated emergency generator, relocate and elevate an on‑site fuel tank to meet flood requirements, and improve pump and chemical feed systems. "Staff has no concerns with it," the staff member told the board and recommended forwarding the variance petition to City Council.
Mason Lundquist, an engineer with Tetra Tech representing Collier County Utilities, said the utility will keep the existing 500,000‑gallon storage tank rather than build a new one, focus on pump‑building improvements and move the fuel tank to an elevated outdoor location. He said the irregular lot shape and existing nonconforming structures made it impractical to meet certain setback and buffer standards without variances.
A board member asked about secondary containment for the tank; Lundquist said the design includes improved spill containment around the tank.
A motion to approve the site development plan "based on the recommendations of staff" carried without public comment; the clerk's roll call recorded yes votes from Member Henson, Member Farringer, Member Finkel, Member Hogan, Member Jensen and Chair Bailey. The board then approved variance petition VP26‑054 by a recorded roll call and moved the item forward to the City Council.
The approvals were procedural recommendations (quasi‑judicial matters) and will be subject to any required subsequent review by the City Council. The board's action included standard conditions that other agency approvals (public works, utilities) must be obtained or the approvals become null and void.
The board did not approve demolition of the existing tank; the engineer and staff said the plan retains the tank while making system and containment improvements.
The board adjourned without further public comment on the item.
Staff presented the project as a targeted set of upgrades to an existing treatment plant built in 1995, saying the work would add an elevated emergency generator, relocate and elevate an on‑site fuel tank to meet flood requirements, and improve pump and chemical feed systems. "Staff has no concerns with it," the staff member told the board and recommended forwarding the variance petition to City Council.
Mason Lundquist, an engineer with Tetra Tech representing Collier County Utilities, said the utility will keep the existing 500,000‑gallon storage tank rather than build a new one, focus on pump‑building improvements and move the fuel tank to an elevated outdoor location. He said the irregular lot shape and existing nonconforming structures made it impractical to meet certain setback and buffer standards without variances.
A board member asked about secondary containment for the tank; Lundquist said the design includes improved spill containment around the tank.
A motion to approve the site development plan "based on the recommendations of staff" carried without public comment; the clerk's roll call recorded yes votes from Member Henson, Member Farringer, Member Finkel, Member Hogan, Member Jensen and Chair Bailey. The board then approved variance petition VP26‑054 by a recorded roll call and moved the item forward to the City Council.
The approvals were procedural recommendations (quasi‑judicial matters) and will be subject to any required subsequent review by the City Council. The board's action included standard conditions that other agency approvals (public works, utilities) must be obtained or the approvals become null and void.
The board did not approve demolition of the existing tank; the engineer and staff said the plan retains the tank while making system and containment improvements.
The board adjourned without further public comment on the item.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
