Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legalize Attached Roof Patio topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board legalizes large attached roof after deliberation; lot‑coverage variance approved and rear‑setback approved on reconsideration
Summary
The board approved a 45% lot‑coverage variance and, after a motion to reconsider, also approved an 8.5‑foot rear‑setback variance to legalize a recently constructed attached roof/patio at 312 Southwest 184 Way; the owner was cited for work without permits and must proceed with building‑department reviews.
The Pembroke Pines Board of Adjustment approved variances June 5 to legalize an attached roof structure and terrace at 312 Southwest 184 Way, granting a 45% maximum lot coverage for buildings and, after a reconsideration, an 8.5‑foot rear setback in lieu of the 15‑foot requirement.
Owner Ronald Cuevas and counsel Christopher Machado told the board the constructed wood roof was completed in late 2024 and that the property received a courtesy notice from code enforcement on Nov. 15, 2024 (code case 241103449) for work performed without a permit. Machado provided the board a five‑page planning memo and said three neighbors submitted letters of support; an HOA board member who had initially approved an aluminum design later reported the work because the owner installed a wood structure rather than the approved aluminum option.
Counsel argued the improvement is consistent with public policy encouraging heat‑mitigation measures and noted the roof uses a high‑albedo (white) finish. He told the board that the accessory roof is similar in character to other rear‑yard improvements in the neighborhood and that affected neighbors had provided written support.
During the hearing, the board first voted down the rear‑setback variance. Following a motion to reconsider brought by a board member, the board re‑considered and approved the 8.5‑foot rear setback; the lot‑coverage variance (45% instead of 40%) was approved separately. The chair and staff emphasized that approval of the variances does not substitute for required building permits. Staff and the chair advised the owner to work with the Building Department and obtain as‑built documentation, licensed engineering review and any required remedial measures; counsel acknowledged that the owner will need to satisfy building‑department requirements, including footing and structural documentation.
The board's action legalizes the structure for zoning purposes but triggers a comprehensive permitting and inspection process before the structure is fully legalized for code and building compliance.
