Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board fails to secure approval for carport setback variance at 2021 SW 30 Eighth Ave (PLNBOA25070005)
Summary
At a Fort Lauderdale Board of Adjustment hearing, the after-the-fact variance request for a carport at 2021 Southwest 30 Eighth Avenue did not receive the votes required for approval. The applicant cited a medical hardship; board members split over whether the variance met the legal criteria.
The Fort Lauderdale Board of Adjustment considered an after-the-fact variance request for a carport at 2021 Southwest 30 Eighth Avenue (case PLNBOA25070005) but did not approve the request after split votes.
Applicant Robert Flowers told the board his carport’s four 4x4 posts extend into his driveway and that the structure provides covered access to his back door. “I have a bad lower back, and I like to pull in, unload my groceries, and go into the back door,” Flowers said, asking the board to allow the existing structure to remain. Neighbor Victor Martin, sworn as a witness, said he had no objection and that the posts are not on his property: “I don’t have the problem because it’s not on my property.”
Board members discussed whether the request met the five criteria in the Unified Land Development Regulations (ULDR) for granting a variance, including whether the condition was self-created, whether the applicant was deprived of reasonable use of the property, and whether the site presented unique circumstances. Board member Pat Rathburn moved to deny the variance, saying the applicant had not established the required criteria and characterizing the structure as self-created; that motion failed on a 4–3 vote. Later, a motion to approve the variance (which would have allowed the existing structure to remain) also failed after the roll call produced four votes in favor and three opposed; under the board’s rules that margin did not meet the required threshold for approval.
Members noted the structure was built without a permit and emphasized procedural safeguards. Board members debated adding a condition tying any approval strictly to the existing carport footprint so that, if the structure were later removed, the right would not automatically extend to a new build. The applicant said he removed an old shed referenced in the board’s packet and that he had included photographs with his materials.
No formal variance was adopted at the meeting. The record shows: an initial motion to deny (moved by Pat Rathburn, seconded by Jason [last name on file not specified]) failed, and a later motion to approve (moved by Amy [last name not specified], seconded by Jay Shekman) also failed. The board returned the matter to the record and moved on to the next agenda item.
