Board of Adjustment grants two survey-cleanup variances but denies pergola variances at 720 Isle Of Palms Drive

The Fort Lauderdale Board of Adjustment granted two variances to correct surveying discrepancies for a house at 720 Isle Of Palms Drive and, in a separate vote, denied three variance requests tied to a freestanding pergola in the backyard, the board said during a hearing.

The decisions matter because the denial means the after-the-fact pergola does not meet the Unified Land Development Regulations and could be subject to code-enforcement action, including removal, after review by the special magistrate.

Andrew Schein, attorney representing the property owner, told the board the case returned after the applicant obtained a new survey that showed small differences from the original survey. He said the first two variances were “just cleaning up old surveying discrepancies” and that “the house itself . . . has not moved.” Schein also described the pergola as a shading device installed in September 2023 after the homeowner, identified in the record as Mrs. Quarterman, was diagnosed with skin cancer: “She decided to put in a shading device to be able to enjoy her backyard.”

A neighbor, George Eusen, opposed the pergola variances. He told the board the structure exceeded the size limit and setbacks in the code: “The freestanding structure is 324 square feet where 200 is the maximum that’s written in.” Eusen also said the pergola sat closer than 10 feet to the seawall and argued a permit would not have been approved if one had been sought.

Board member Pat moved to grant the two variances addressing the front- and side-yard measurements shown on the older survey, saying they were existing conditions and appropriate to correct for surveying error; the motion passed on a roll-call vote, 7-0. Later, Pat moved to deny the remaining three variance requests for the pergola — a side-yard setback variance (existing 5.22 feet where 10 feet is required), a rear-yard encroachment (2.9 feet into the rear-yard setback measured from the wet face of the seawall), and a request to allow a 324-square-foot pergola where the ULDR permits 200 square feet in the rear yard. The motion to deny also passed, 7-0.

City staff and counsel noted a pending code-enforcement case related to the pergola. Staff told the board that if the variance is denied, the existing code case will proceed to the special magistrate, who can order removal or require the owner to alter the structure to comply with code. Schein and others discussed measurement rules that apply when properties abut waterways; Schein told the board that the relevant measurement is “10 feet from the wet face of the seawall,” not from the edge of a dock or the visible water line, and that the property line in this block lies several feet landward of the seawall.

The board’s action was explicit that the two granted variances corrected the recorded setbacks for the existing house only; they do not run with the lot for future construction. The record shows neighbors raised concerns about privacy, property values and the lack of a permit for the pergola. The board heard photographic evidence and emails from neighbors during the hearing; staff confirmed some materials were not initially circulated to all board members and were added to the record during the meeting.

Votes at a glance: The board approved two variances to correct surveying discrepancies (front setback 24.43 feet where 25 is required; side-yard 9.1 feet where 10 is required) on a 7-0 roll call. On a separate motion to deny the three pergola-related variances (side-yard 5.22 feet vs. 10-ft requirement; rear-yard encroachment 2.9 feet into setback measured from wet face of seawall; pergola 324 sq ft vs. 200 sq ft limit), the board voted 7-0 to deny. The denial was recorded as a yes vote to deny, per the board’s roll-call procedure.

Following the denial, board members and staff explained enforcement steps: the existing code case will move forward and may be heard by the special magistrate, who can require removal or modification to achieve compliance. The board closed the public hearing after the votes and proceeded to the next agenda item.