Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Major Renovation Massing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves COA for 46 Marine Way with condition to set back terraced front addition
Summary
After extensive debate on massing, variances and waivers, the Historic Preservation Board approved the Certificate of Appropriateness, variances and waivers for 46 Marine Way, subject to a condition that the terraced front addition be set back from the south property line to meet current LDR requirements.
The Delray Beach Historic Preservation Board voted to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated variances and waivers for 46 Marine Way in the Marina Historic District on Wednesday, imposing a condition that the terraced front addition be set back from the south property line to meet the city’s Land Development Regulations.
Applicant Catherine Craig and architect Mariana Wood presented a revised design that reduced roof overhangs, softened a previously dominating front wall with terracing and landscaping, and changed the third‑floor profile to create a balcony and reduce visual bulk. Staff and board members examined scope, code findings and Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation during a lengthy hearing that included public comment from adjacent property representatives.
Michelle (principal planner) described technical findings and flagged four variances that the project required: a front setback reduction (proposed roughly 9 feet 8 inches vs. the 25‑foot requirement), a south side setback remaining at a narrow 2 feet 3 inches, a new rear setback variance, and a pool setback variance. Staff noted the project would vertically elevate the historic structure above minimum FEMA requirements (the proposal included areas at 12 to 14 feet NAVD compared with the FEMA‑based 9 feet NAVD) and that sections of the design raised concerns about the creation of a false sense of historic development and the project’s overall massing.
Roger Cope, speaking for an adjacent owner, objected to the eastward expansion of a front façade element that would push the finished floor several feet closer to the street and increase visibility and height. Neighbor counsel emphasized that the proposed terraced addition would move the existing nonconforming façade farther into the front setback and that the south‑side proximity to the adjacent property risked creating an overwhelming wall.
Applicant team representatives and owner Dan Edwards replied to public concerns during board discussion; Edwards stated he was willing to set the porch back to a 7.5‑foot setback on the south side to reduce impacts on the adjacent neighbor. After an extended exchange, a board member moved to approve the COA, variances and waivers (COA2024‑133) with the condition that the terraced front addition be set back from the south property line to meet the LDR requirement; the motion passed by roll call.
The board’s formal motion found that the request “is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations” subject to that condition. The approval carried despite continuing objections from several members concerned primarily about massing, the third floor’s visual impact and how future elevation of neighboring properties could change the streetscape. Staff noted some technical items and the requirement that any demolition of contributing accessory structures would follow separate demolition review and public‑notice processes.
Key clarifying figures presented in staff materials included floor‑area changes: a First Floor increase of about 246 square feet and a Second Floor increase of about 397 square feet, with a Third Floor reduction of about 85 square feet (a net change staff reported as roughly 457 square feet; staff also listed an overall conditioned AC increase figure in submittal tables). Variance dimensions cited in the staff report included the front setback reduction to roughly 9'8", the south side remaining at about 2'3", a rear setback reduction to 8'4" for portions of the addition, and a pool setback of about 7'6" in lieu of the 10‑foot standard.
The property owner and design team will return to the permitting stage to incorporate the condition; the board’s action authorizes the COA and associated relief as recorded in the motion with the stated condition. Any demolition of historic accessory structures or other changes that require separate review must be processed through the appropriate city procedures.
