Fort Lauderdale board denies driveway variance for landlocked lot on Southwest 17th Place

The Fort Lauderdale Board of Adjustment voted down a request by property owner Honey Levy for a variance that would have allowed driveway access from adjacent parcels to a landlocked lot at Southwest 17th Place.

Levy, who identified herself as the owner of the parcel, told the board that the lot has no legal access and that she purchased it believing it to be buildable. She asked the board to approve a variance under the Unified Land Development Regulations so she could construct a driveway and obtain building permits. Levy said she and her attorney had attempted to reverse the sale after discovering the access issue and submitted survey and title documents during the application process.

Neighbors opposed the variance during the public hearing, saying the proposed access would route vehicle traffic and construction loads across private residential drives and narrow streets. Henry Alvarez, who said he has lived across the street since 1991, told the board the lot has been landlocked “for as long as I’ve lived there” and warned a new access drive could be the start of further subdivisions and increased traffic. Kelly Salsamendi, a 17th Place resident, presented a copy of the Nancy Williams plat and argued the 25-foot easement shown on that plat is limited to specific lots listed on the plat and therefore does not grant Levy access. Several other neighbors — including Martin Kessler and Maria Nemenendez — described potential effects on privacy, property values and repeated heavy truck traffic from prior fill and utility work.

Board members and staff focused on the legal status of the easement. Planning staff and the board walked through the submitted plat and a warranty deed included in the application package and explained that the Nancy Williams plat dedicates a 25-foot ingress/egress/utility easement for the perpetual use of the owners of lots 1–3 on that plat. The board’s summary of the evidence indicated those dedications and a separate warranty deed combine to give exclusive use of the 25‑foot easement to those specified owners — not to Levy’s parcel to the south.

Members also questioned the applicant’s due diligence. Testimony from Maria Nemenendez described the listing language, a sequence of email and in‑person inquiries to city staff beginning in early September, a contract and a closing in late September, a survey ordered September 26 and a request to the seller to reverse the transaction on October 8. Levy and a contractor said they had sought building‑permit information from city staff during the purchase process but that the specific access limitation was not clearly identified for them before closing.

After discussion, board member Fred Strassau moved to approve the variance under Section 47‑24.5.D.3.E of the Unified Land Development Regulations, and the motion was seconded. The motion failed on a roll call vote. Recorded votes during the roll call as stated at the meeting were: Mister Meade — No; Mister Jones — No; Mister Strassov (Strassau/Strassov name appears in the record) — No; Miss Ratburn — No; Mister Hoag Plenge — Yes; Vice Chair Wolf — No; Chair Elfman — No. The board chair announced the motion failed and the matter concluded without an approval.

Because the board denied the variance, Levy’s ability to obtain a driveway permit to access the lot via the discussed parcels is unchanged; the landlocked status and any legal remedies remain matters for private resolution (for example, through title or deed negotiations or litigation) or for a future, refiled application that addresses the easement and access issues identified by the board.

The case record submitted with the application includes surveys, the Nancy Williams plat, a warranty deed and email correspondence with city staff that the applicant cited during testimony. City staff on the record (including the acting zoning administrator referenced in the applicant’s package) had previously commented in writing about section 47‑24.5 and public‑street access requirements in the ULDR, and those citations were discussed during the hearing. The board indicated the plat and warranty‑deed language limited the easement’s users to the lots listed on the plat and that the applicant’s parcel did not have the right to that easement as a matter of record.

The board moved to the next agenda item following the vote. No new variance was approved for the Southwest 17th Place parcel at this hearing.