Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waterfront Pergola Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variance to place attached pergola five feet from waterway at Garden Isles home
Summary
A request to allow a pergola attached to a single‑family home within the 25‑foot waterfront setback was denied after the board found the variance criteria were not met; applicant had argued attachment was necessary for structural reasons and to limit construction impacts.
The Pompano Beach Planning & Zoning Board on July 17 denied a variance that would have allowed an attached pergola to encroach to five feet from a waterfront property line in the Garden Isles neighborhood.
Staff explained the variance request (PZ25‑11000014) sought relief from the RS‑2 waterfront setback standard (25 feet) for an attached pergola; unattached accessory structures are permitted closer to the water but because the pergola would be attached it is treated as part of the principal structure and subject to the 25‑foot setback. Principal Planner Max Weems told the board that staff reviewed the application and recommended conditions if the board were inclined to approve — including that the pergola remain open on all sides and not be converted to an enclosed structure.
General contractor John Dougherty and homeowner (Mrs. Thompson) said the pergola is intended to make the rear patio usable in hot months and argued attachment was required because of site‑specific structural conditions (deep auger‑cast pilings and an engineered load path) and to avoid extensive excavation and additional heavy equipment that would increase construction time, cost and neighborhood disruption. Dougherty detailed how detaching the pergola would require additional helical piles or footings that could obstruct sight lines and damage porcelain pavers.
Board members asked about whether the pergola could be constructed detached and whether the claimed construction hardship was self‑imposed; staff clarified that the code permits detached gazebos at the waterfront but treats an attached covered patio as part of the principal structure. After discussion the motion to grant the variance did not carry; the board recorded no action to approve and staff noted the variance was not granted. Staff’s recommended conditions would have required the pergola to remain open and not be constructed atop the seawall if the board had approved.
Because the variance was denied the applicant may choose to redesign the structure to a detached gazebo that meets accessory-structure setbacks, or return with revised plans addressing the board's concerns.
