Zoning board continues variance request after split votes on 5-foot gate at Bunker Ranch Road

A West Palm Beach resident’s request to keep a 5-foot driveway and pedestrian gate at 344 Bunker Ranch Road was continued by the city’s Zoning Board of Appeals on Nov. 6, 2025, after divided votes failed to produce the four affirmative votes required for a final decision.

The request, filed by homeowner Fernando Rodriguez, sought a one-foot variance from section 94-302(b) of the City of West Palm Beach Zoning and Land Development Regulations to allow a gate built at 5 feet within the front setback instead of the permitted 48 inches. ‘‘We would it's already built. We would like to, obviously keep it, and that's why we're here today asking to see if we can if we can keep the 5 foot gate,’’ Rodriguez told the board during his presentation, adding that neighbors had submitted letters of support and that the gate was intended to address safety and security concerns for his wife, daughter and pets.

City staff, represented by planner James Roman, recommended denial. Roman said the approved permit set contained a proviso limiting front‑setback gates to 48 inches and that the gate was built at 5 feet by mistake. He noted visible gaps in the installation and concluded the hardship arose from the applicant’s contractor rather than the property itself. ‘‘We would have to recommend denial because of the following 4 reasons,’’ Roman said in his presentation; later he told the board, ‘‘The contractor would go back out there to refix the problem that they caused.’’ Staff also reported local police and traffic statistics: within a quarter‑mile of the site there was one calls to 344 Bunker Ranch (an audible alarm), 14 reports categorized as suspicious persons in the quarter‑mile area, and 33 traffic stops, four at the nearby South Dixie and Bunker Ranch intersection.

Board members debated the proper remedy and whether granting relief would create an unfair privilege for this property. One board member cited the applicant’s likely financial burden if forced to rebuild the gate, while others warned that granting a variance for a contractor error could set a precedent. Two separate substantive motions failed to win the four votes required under the board’s rules: a motion to deny (moved by Alfred Fields, seconded by Sherry Hack) failed on a 3–2 count; a subsequent motion to grant the variance (moved by Vice Chair Emily Savage, seconded by Hack) likewise failed to secure four affirmative votes.

Given the split outcomes, the board voted unanimously, 5–0, to continue the item to its next regularly scheduled meeting and asked the applicant to return with additional documentation, specifically whether the fence company would cover the cost of re‑fabrication or repair to bring the installation into compliance and any additional evidence addressing how the variance criteria in Article 2, Sec. 94-38(d)(6) would be met.

The board’s proceedings also included standard quasi‑judicial protocol: members were sworn and made ex parte disclosures, staff confirmed the permit record and submitted photographs and survey plans, and no in‑person public commenters spoke at the hearing. The board noted a roughly even split in its weighing of code criteria, contractor fault and neighborhood support and directed staff and the applicant to provide the requested follow‑up at the continued hearing.