Oakland Park planners recommend land-use change and rezoning to allow five single-family homes on church parcel

The City of Oakland Park Planning & Zoning Board recommended approval on June 9 of a small-scale future-land-use amendment and a companion rezoning that would allow a former church property at 1670 Northeast 30 Eighth Street to be subdivided for single‑family homes.

The board voted to recommend changing the property's comprehensive-plan future land use from Community Facility (CF) to Low Density Residential (L‑5) and to rezone the site to R‑1 (single‑family). The Planning & Zoning Board transmitted both recommendations to the City Commission for final action and to Broward County for required review.

Why it matters: The change would permit up to 5 single‑family houses on the property under Oakland Park's zoning rules (staff said the county's gross‑acreage standard would technically allow six, but the city's zoning and lot‑size rules limit the site to five). Neighbors, property owners across Cherry Creek and local conservation advocates urged protection of the creek, retention of trees, and limits on roadway access during construction.

Staff presentation and applicant statement Rick Buckeye, Planning Supervisor for the city, described the requested future‑land‑use amendment (case CD24‑30CP) as a “small scale land use amendment” and said the surrounding neighborhood is primarily single‑family. He and Director Sierra Marrero explained the approval path: recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Board; hearings before the City Commission; review by the Broward County Planning Council and Broward County Board of County Commissioners; and final recertification of the local future land use map.

Applicant representative Andrew Schein said the church property owner is closing and the congregation has sought a buyer. “The church is going to be closing their doors, you know, whether we're here or not,” Schein said, describing the proposal as “just to make it match the surrounding area” with single‑family homes. He told the board the developers plan to minimize paving and keep the conserved green area near Cherry Creek.

Neighborhood concerns and conservation easement Multiple residents urged stronger protections. Carl Seibert of Friends of Cherry Creek said the project overlaps a portion of the Cherry Creek conservation easement and made three specific requests: obey the easement restrictions, retain existing trees, and make sure contractors do not discharge materials into the creek. “The easement essentially says you can't touch anything there. Easy peasy,” Seibert said.

Other neighbors questioned how many homes would fit on the parcel, whether units would be two stories, and whether the existing green space should instead become a park. Joyce Rowe, who owns three acres across the creek, asked whether the developer would seek access to the city‑owned green space adjacent to the site and noted the lotowner’s calculation that the site measures about 0.93 net acres.

Staff and applicant responses Director Sierra Marrero and Mr. Buckeye told the board that the portion of green space along Northeast 30th/8th Street is dedicated right‑of‑way and not part of the private parcel; staff said the city does not intend to open 30th/8th Street through that green space and would restrict any extension beyond the applicant's driveway access. Marrero also placed on the record that the conservation easement area is not proposed to be disturbed: “We cannot touch that area. We are not asking to touch that area,” the applicant’s representative said.

Staff clarified the density math: county and city future‑land‑use density is measured on gross acreage (including half of the right of way), which can yield a slightly higher theoretical unit count; the city’s zoning/dimensions and minimum lot sizes, however, limit the proposal to five single‑family lots. Buckeye and Marrero explained that detailed site design, building height and lot configuration will be addressed later at the subdivision/replat and building‑permit stage.

Formal actions and votes The board took two linked actions and recommended both to the City Commission: - Land use amendment (case CD24‑30CP): Recommendation to change the future land use from Community Facility (CF) to Low Density Residential (L‑5). Vote recorded: Member Avila — yes; Member Gross — yes; Member King — no; Member Peterson (chair) — yes. Outcome: recommendation approved. - Rezoning (case CD24‑31RZ): Recommendation to change the zoning classification from Community Facility to R‑1 (single‑family). Vote recorded: Member Avila — yes; Member Gross — yes; Member King — yes; Member Peterson (chair) — yes. Outcome: recommendation approved.

Next steps and procedural notes If the City Commission adopts the land‑use amendment, the application will be transmitted to the Broward County Planning Council and the Broward County Board of County Commissioners as required for small‑scale amendments. Staff said it expects the land‑use amendment to be scheduled for the City Commission on July 16. Subsequent actions — rezoning, subdivision/replatting and building‑permit reviews — will follow local review rules; staff noted that replatting/subdivision will return for additional public and technical review and that certain building‑level permits will be processed through the Development Review Committee (DRC) and the building department.

Board and resident suggestions Several board members and residents urged additional neighborhood participation outreach beyond the two meetings the applicant reported having held. Staff offered to prepare a memo summarizing restrictions, the applicant's stated intent, and applicable conservation‑easement limitations. Residents asked staff and commissioners to commit publicly to preserving the city‑owned greenway and to enforce the easement protections if construction proceeds.

Ending The Planning & Zoning Board's recommendations now move to the City Commission and then to Broward County for final action on the land‑use amendment. The record shows repeated public concern about creek protection, tree retention and access; staff and the applicant told the board they expect to address detailed design and conservation issues at later review stages.