Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic Preservation Board denies after‑the‑fact setback variance for 3015 Washington Road
Summary
The board denied a request for a 4.15‑foot variance to cumulative side yard setbacks for a previously approved new single‑family house in the Prospect/Southland Park Historic District, finding the variance criteria were not met. The structure was already under construction when staff identified the cumulative setback deficiency.
The City of West Palm Beach Historic Preservation Board on Oct. 28 denied a request to grant a variance for new construction at 3015 Washington Road after finding the application did not meet the required variance standards.
Staff told the board the vacant lot is about 0.19 acres (roughly 8,450 square feet) in the Prospect/Southland Park Historic District and that the city zoning code requires a 20‑foot cumulative side yard setback. The applicant provided a 5‑foot setback on the south side and 10.85 feet on the north side, for a total of 15.85 feet, and requested a 4.15‑foot variance applied to the north side to reach the required total.
A neighbor, Alan Schutt of 3019 Washington Road, spoke against the variance. Schutt said he and his wife began asking the city for plans in April, received incomplete responses, and that the approved house as built looms over his property. "There is no other property on Flagler, Washington, which has a 5‑foot setback," Schutt said, arguing the proposal transferred value to the applicant and harmed adjacent property owners.
Board discussion emphasized that the variance must be judged on statutory criteria regardless of the building status. Several board members said the architect and city reviewers should have identified the zoning issue earlier. The board’s motion to deny concluded that the application did not demonstrate the special conditions and circumstances required under section 94‑38(d)(6) of the City’s zoning and land development regulations, that any special conditions were created by the applicant, and that the request was not the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use of the land.
The motion to deny was adopted; the board recorded a majority vote in favor of denial with one member recorded in dissent. The denial means the applicant may pursue administrative remedies available under city code, including corrective work or any appeals allowed by law.
The denial was limited to the variance request; other administrative or permitting questions discussed during the hearing were not resolved by the board and are handled by the city’s planning and building departments.
