Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
West Palm Beach commission overturns historic board, approves moving 1920s house 30 feet for redevelopment
Summary
After a de novo review, the City Commission granted a certificate of appropriateness to allow relocation of a contributing historic structure approximately 30 feet west at 426 30 Sixth Street, reversing a 7–1 Historic Preservation Board denial.
The West Palm Beach City Commission unanimously approved a certificate of appropriateness on a de novo hearing Monday to allow the relocation of an existing contributing structure approximately 30 feet west of its present location at 42630 Sixth Street, finding the relocation met applicable Secretary of the Interior standards and city relocation criteria.
Jack Rice, attorney for the appellant, said owner Emily Gutierrez would move the approximately 1923-era Doctor Daniel and Elizabeth Macintosh house 30 feet west to permit subdivision of the lot and construction of a new residence on the east portion. Rice told the commission the applicant obtained engineering letters and a declaration from an experienced historic-structure mover stating the house could be relocated safely if structural deficiencies were repaired before the move.
Sanamaria Ponti, assistant development services director, summarized staff’s review and said staff concurred with the applicant and recommended approval with conditions. Ponti said the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) heard the application in March 2025 and denied it by a 7–1 vote on the basis that the request did not comply with Standards 2, 3 and 6 of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Ponti said the commission’s review is de novo and must be based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing.
Commissioners discussed structural inspections, conditions and historic integrity. Ponti and staff explained that conditions tied to demolition and move permits would require the applicant to repair structural deficiencies and that preservation staff would inspect materials identified as original — for example, a porch entrance material flagged by staff for verification and conservation. Ponti said the relocation within the same site, with conditions, would facilitate renovation of a structure that has been vacant for an extended period and permit construction of a new house on the vacated area.
Commissioner Ward moved approval of the certificate of appropriateness, citing the staff report and finding that the relocation meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards for rehabilitation (section 94-49(c)(3)) and complies with the relocation standards in section 94-49(c)(4)(c) of the zoning and land development regulations. The motion passed unanimously; the commission did not give deference to the HPB’s earlier decision but reviewed the record and live testimony de novo.
Appellants provided diagrams showing the existing house centered on the lot and the proposed new lot lines (a 75-foot lot for the relocated house and a 100-foot vacant lot to the east). The applicant reported that City Engineering requested 25 feet of clearance from the edge of the median at an existing crosswalk, which contributed to the need to shift the house and adjust lot lines to accommodate a driveway and parking.
The approval is conditioned on compliance with historic-preservation permit requirements, structural repairs verified by staff prior to relocation, and HPB review of the design for the new building on the vacated portion. Staff said standard permitting steps — including demolition/move permits with conditions and inspections — will be enforced before any relocation occurs.
No recorded vote against the motion was made; the certificate of appropriateness was approved as moved.
