Davie council denies after‑the‑fact front‑yard walkway variance at 1733 SW 140th Avenue

The Town of Davie Town Council on a voice/roll call vote denied a homeowner’s variance request for a widened front‑yard walkway at 1733 Southwest 140th Avenue, ruling that the proposal did not meet the town’s variance criteria.

The council’s decision came after a quasi‑judicial hearing in which the applicant, Janus Kozlowski, and his attorney, Jordan Isrow, said the wider paver path was built to allow emergency‑medical technicians to move a stretcher to the front door more easily following several seizure incidents involving Kozlowski’s granddaughter. David Quigley, the town’s planning manager, presented staff’s report and said staff found no special circumstances or building/land hardship that would justify the requested variance.

The disputed portion of the walkway varies in width; the applicant described the narrow parts as about 5 feet and the widest turning area as about 9 feet 5 inches. Town code allows walkways up to 4 feet in the front yard without a variance, and staff’s written analysis concluded the applicant had not demonstrated the property‑specific hardship required under section 12‑309 of the Davie land‑development code. Quigley also noted that some improvements depicted in the backup materials lie in the public right of way and are not part of the variance application.

Kozlowski testified that two prior emergency responses required stretchers and that, when responders used the driveway, the carport and parked vehicles blocked direct access to the front door. “The purpose…is to make easier access to the front door, mostly for use by EMS with the stretcher,” Kozlowski said. His attorney added that the walkway was designed with guidance from accessibility standards and that the wider turning area was intended to create space for a stretcher to be maneuvered, not as a purely aesthetic change.

Council members pressed applicants and staff on alternatives, including use of the garage entry, moving vehicles when visitors are present, and whether the steps shown on parts of the path complicate stretcher movement. Councilmember Whitman questioned why the applicant built the path without obtaining permits and said she found the three steps in the path inconsistent with a design focused on rapid stretcher access. Several council members, while sympathetic to the applicant’s family situation, said they could not find the required land/building hardship.

The Planning and Zoning Board had earlier voted to deny the variance (recorded in the staff file as a 6‑1 motion on November 12). At council, after deliberation, Councilmember Lewis moved to deny the variance; the motion passed on a roll call with Vice Mayor Hatton, Councilmembers Whitman, Lewis and Starkey voting yes.

Because the work was completed without an approved variance or permit, council discussion noted that if the variance had been denied, compliance options could include removal or modification of the walkway or a requirement to seek other remedies through the town’s code enforcement and permitting processes. The applicant said he intended to pursue whatever steps the council’s decision required.

The council’s decision was limited to the variance application before it; staff and the applicant each noted that any permit review (or after‑the‑fact permit) remains subject to separate technical conditions such as drainage and right‑of‑way issues identified during plan review.

The vote concluded the public hearing on the item; no members of the public registered to speak during the hearing.

The denial means the applicant cannot obtain a permit for the existing walkway dimensions unless the council later changes the decision or other legal remedies occur.