Palm Beach County zoning panel denies Flamingo Terrace subdivision variance

The Palm Beach County Zoning Commission voted to deny a subdivision-variance request for a 1.98-acre property on Flamingo Terrace, concluding the applicant had not demonstrated the special circumstances required by county code.

The commission’s action, taken after public comment and staff presentations, blocks a plan to split the waterfront property into two one-acre lots that would rely on the existing, substandard roadway for access. The applicant had asked the commission to allow a 20-foot right-of-way and an 18-foot pavement width in lieu of the 40-foot right-of-way and 20-foot pavement width normally required under the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code.

Jeannie, the applicant’s representative, told the commission the owner, identified in the application as Gregory Lee d Lang, proposed two single-family lots consistent with the property’s LR-2 future land-use designation and existing single-family zoning. "This is about a 2 acre property currently," she said, and the proposal would result in two roughly one-acre waterfront lots, she said, adding the subdivision would meet the seven variance criteria in Article 2 of the ULDC as presented.

Scott Cantor, the county’s director of land development, urged commissioners to weigh the road’s history and existing condition. Cantor said the county holds a 25-foot deeded right-of-way for Flamingo Terrace from 1948 and that past county work in the 1980s and 1990s left the road as a narrower, shellrock-style facility that meets local design practice. "Single-family residential generates 10 daily trips per day," Cantor said, noting the peak-hour impacts used in the county’s traffic assessments and explaining that the subdivision would raise the PM peak-hour net by roughly one trip per unit.

Several neighbors and a retained attorney spoke in opposition. Dean Rosenbach, identifying himself as an attorney representing a group of homeowners, said residents feared the split would change the neighborhood’s character and increase traffic and safety risks on a narrow street. "This developer knew what he was buying. He was buying a single-family residence. Now he wants to convert this individual to change the character of the neighborhood," Rosenbach said. He urged the commission to deny the petition.

Commissioners debated legal standards for variances and neighborhood impacts. One commissioner described the roadway as "constricted" and said the parcel’s physical circumstances did not justify the variance; another commissioner questioned precedent and whether approval would invite similar applications for nearby parcels. Staff noted one previous administrative variance on a nearby lot that was a legal lot of record and thus not directly comparable.

Commissioner Vinicore moved to deny the subdivision variance request on the grounds that the applicant failed to meet criteria A and B of the subdivision-variance standards; Commissioner Kern seconded. After discussion the motion to deny with prejudice was adopted by the commission. The transcript does not record a full roll-call tally for each member in a way that assigns each vote to a named commissioner.

The commission also considered, and did not adopt, a substitute motion to postpone the item to the next zoning commission meeting; that postponement motion failed on a preliminary vote before the commission returned to and approved the denial motion.

The denial leaves the property’s existing single-family development rights in place and prevents the applicant from proceeding with the proposed two-lot subdivision as presented. Staff had recommended approval subject to conditions, including sewer construction to serve each lot and recordation of documents in accordance with Article 11 of the ULDC.

After the item concluded, the zoning director recognized two departing commissioners with service plaques. The commission adjourned following completion of the agenda.

Notes: transcript-supplied technical details used in this account include the applicant’s stated lot size (about 1.98 acres); the variance request (allow a 20-foot right-of-way and 18-foot pavement width in place of the 40-foot right-of-way and 20-foot pavement width normally required); references to the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) Article 2 and Article 11; and staff’s statement that single-family residential generates an estimated 10 daily trips per unit and roughly one PM peak-hour trip per unit.