Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment Nonconforming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves legal nonconforming status but rejects several variances for 801–817 N. Federal Highway redevelopment
Summary
The Board of Adjustment approved variances preserving the legal nonconforming status of an existing commercial building at 801–817 North Federal Highway but declined related variances for streetscape, landscaping and parking that would have allowed broader site relief, leaving parts of the redevelopment plan uncertain.
The Fort Lauderdale Board of Adjustment on July 9 granted variances to preserve the legal nonconforming status of the existing building at 801–817 North Federal Highway but rejected related variances for streetscape, landscaping and parking requirements that the applicant said were necessary to avoid demolition.
Andrew Schein, attorney for the property owner, told the board the building has been largely vacant since 2015 and that redevelopment is constrained by the Downtown Master Plan’s requirement that setbacks be measured from the centerline of adjacent streets. Schein said the property was "left in the dust" when neighboring blocks vacated a small street (Northeast Fifth Terrace) that allowed larger, more developable lots elsewhere. "If we had to bring this into compliance, the new building would need to be 35 feet from the center line of the West Street ... and 70 feet from the center line of Federal Highway," Schein said, adding that complying with current setbacks would likely force demolition of much of the structure and make redevelopment unworkable.
Schein asked the board for five related variances to allow the existing building shell to remain while new additions would comply with the code. He described the structure as valued at about $600,000 on the tax roll and said proposed renovations would exceed 50% of that value, which ordinarily terminates a structure’s legal nonconforming status.
City counsel and staff advised the board on how nonconforming status is triggered and how right-of-way dedications and FDOT requirements could affect redevelopment. City counsel suggested language to clarify that any variance granted would "not affect the legal nonconforming status of the existing structure, which will remain subject to the provisions governing nonconforming uses and structures with the exception of the additions indicated in the backup." The applicant said new additions would meet current code and that the requested relief applied to the existing building shell only.
The board voted 5–2 to grant the combined variances that prevent termination of the building’s legal nonconforming status after an alteration or discontinued use (the two nonconformity-related requests). A subsequent motion to grant variances related to landscaping, streetscape design and subdivision layout failed on a 4–3 vote and therefore did not meet the supermajority requirement then in place for those items; that failure leaves unresolved whether the existing parking and streetscape would have to be brought completely into compliance (which the applicant said would remove six of 11 parking spaces and require demolition of the eastern portion of the building to dedicate right-of-way to FDOT).
Board members voiced divided views about honoring the Downtown Master Plan versus allowing an infill improvement on a narrow, substandard lot. Commissioner Jason (board member) said he "made a compelling case" for the project but stressed the importance of honoring the master plan. Another board member said structured parking or larger redevelopment would not fit the narrow lot and that the applicant’s requested relief was limited to allowing the building shell to remain while new construction met current standards.
The board discussed procedural options after the failed variance votes, including the possibility of a motion to reconsider or deferral so the applicant could work with staff to determine which specific variances remain necessary. No successful motion to reconsider was made during the meeting, leaving the failed variances in effect; staff advised that a failed variance on a substantially similar application can trigger a two-year waiting period under the current code for resubmission, which prompted discussion about whether that period should be shortened or clarified.
The case illustrates tensions between the Downtown Master Plan setback rules, FDOT right-of-way requirements and the city’s nonconforming‑structure rules. The applicant indicated he would confer with staff on scope and whether additional variances (or alternative compliance approaches) were still required.
