Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

West Palm Beach ZBA approves variance for 336 Ryland Drive cabana with 14.5-foot height cap

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The West Palm Beach Zoning Board of Appeals on June 5 approved a 20-foot variance to allow a 216-square-foot cabana within the 25-foot front setback on a double-frontage lot at 336 Ryland Drive, with a condition capping building height at 14.5 feet.

The West Palm Beach Zoning Board of Appeals on June 5 approved a variance allowing a 216-square-foot cabana to be built 5 feet from the south property line at 336 Ryland Drive, a double-frontage lot in Commission District 5. The board granted the variance 4-0, adding a condition that the cabana and related patio and mechanical equipment be limited to a maximum building height of 14.5 feet.

The variance reduces the required 25-foot front setback by 20 feet for the rear side of the double-frontage lot. Sandra Jaramczyk, associate planner for the city, told the board, "Staff is fully supporting the cabana for the double frontage lot because of the hardship that the double frontage imposes on the property," while noting staff’s recommended height limit of 10 feet to lessen visual impact along the neighboring street.

Applicant Jessica Strange, who identified herself as the owner of 336 Ryland Drive, told the board she seeks the accessory structure to provide air-conditioned storage and family space. "I kindly request that you consider my proposal to build this accessory structure," Strange said, describing a yard already occupied by a permitted pool, mature foliage and a privacy fence that she said screens the cabana from view.

Board discussion centered on two issues: whether the south side of the lot functions as a rear yard given the placement of the pool and driveway, and the visual impact of a conditioned accessory structure placed 5 feet from a front property line on a street with houses whose primary facades face that street. Board Member Jonathan Burgess said landscaping and a roofline that matches the primary house could address visual concerns, asking staff to consider "condition language that [provides] screening potential through landscaping instead of building restriction." Vice Chair Emmeline Savage moved the approval and Member Sherry Hack seconded.

The board’s formal motion, made by Vice Chair Savage and seconded by Hack, cited the application, staff report and testimony as competent substantial evidence and found the variance criteria of Article 2, Section 94-38 had been met. The motion applied the 20-foot variance to the proposed cabana, its mechanical equipment, the adjacent patio deck and any other accessory structures within the 25-foot south setback and set the maximum building height at 14.5 feet. The roll call vote recorded yes votes from Jonathan Burgess, Christopher Hagen, Emmeline Savage and Sherry Hack; the motion passed 4-0.

Planning staff had recommended approval of the setback variance but proposed a 10-foot height limit to "avoid detrimental impact to the front yard aesthetic of the neighborhood," citing the cabana’s proximity to the street and existing frontages on Ruslan Drive. Staff also told the board that mailed notices for the variance addressed the setback request and did not include the staff-recommended height limitation, and that neighbors had submitted letters supporting the project.

The property was described in the record as about 0.15 acres; the proposed accessory structure is 216 square feet and would sit approximately 6 feet from the primary structure and about 5–7 feet from the side and rear fences and pool edge, per the application and site plan submitted to the board.

The board’s decision permits construction with the stated conditions. No members of the public spoke at the hearing, and staff confirmed that written support from adjacent neighbors was included in the packet.