Miami Lakes board approves modified variance for pool and driveway at 14020 Cypress Court with conditions

The Planning and Zoning Board approved a modified variance for the property at 14020 Cypress Court that authorizes a limited encroachment into the survey tie line for a proposed pool and sets conditions for driveway and landscaping work.

Planning staff presented the application (listed in the record as VARH 2025-0033 and in packet materials under a similar file number) as requesting multiple variances from sections of the town code (staff cited sections under the 13-15 series). Staff said the proposal sought to expand an existing pool deck that already extends beyond the survey tie line, enlarge the pool to extend past the tie line, reduce setbacks for driveway edges to the interior property line, and increase driveway width to 46 feet where a maximum of 20 feet is normally allowed. Staff recommended denial of the proposal as shown in the submitted plans.

The property owner who spoke at the hearing identified herself as Joyce Semi Dandan and gave the address as 14020 Cypress Court; earlier materials in the packet listed the applicant name as Yoiselle Miranda. The owner said she had attempted to locate historic permits and microfilm records but had been told many documents were destroyed in a fire. She described hiring a contractor to handle permitting and construction, later having the project shut down by code enforcement when work began without permits, and said she had removed the old pool and had not poured any concrete for a new pool.

Neighbors and residents testified in opposition. Robert Madden (14000 Cypress Court) and Christopher Crowley (14151 Leaning Pine Drive) said the property’s hardscape and pool work already extend toward the lake and the tie line, expressed concern about large-scale encroachments on the lakefront, and criticized the amount of unpermitted concrete and ground disturbance visible on the site.

Board members discussed available alternatives and the town’s variance criteria: compatibility with development patterns, potential substantial detriment to adjoining properties, whether the applicant’s circumstances are unique, and whether strict application of the code imposes an unnecessary burden. Several board members noted that the deck appears to have existed prior to the town’s incorporation and that existing conditions in aerial imagery dated back to at least 1990, but they also noted that changes after a property sale must conform to current code and that unpermitted work is a separate compliance issue.

After debate the board accepted a friendly amendment to the motion. The amended approval authorizes a limited 3-foot encroachment into the tie line for the pool, requires a minimum separation between the pool and the house of 8 feet 8 inches, limits the pool to 30 feet by 14 feet, and requires the property owner to remove or remedy the concrete and other work poured or placed without permits so that the remainder of the property is brought into compliance with town code (driveway, landscaping, drainage, and any other concrete). The motion passed by roll call (Board Member Cruz: yes; Board Member Julia: yes; Board Member de la Sierra: yes; Chairman Leoncio: yes).

Town staff had recommended denial of the original plans; the board’s approval was narrower than the original application and included explicit remediation requirements and dimensional limits. The board directed staff to ensure the final permit plans and any required remediation comply with the stated conditions before issuing further permits.