After court remand, board grants variance for landlocked lot on Southwest 17th Place

Fort Lauderdale Board of Adjustment · December 11, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Following a circuit court order that quashed the board's prior denial, the Board of Adjustment granted a variance for a landlocked parcel on Southwest 17th Place, concluding that the lot lacks access to a public road and that the applicant demonstrated the five ULDR variance criteria in the record.

The Fort Lauderdale Board of Adjustment granted a variance for a parcel on Southwest 17th Place that had previously been denied and then remanded by the circuit court.

At the start of the hearing staff read key portions of the court order, which found that the prior board lacked competent, substantial evidence to support its denial and that the record demonstrated a unique hardship: the parcel lacked access to a public road and was effectively unbuildable absent relief. Applicant counsel David Isaacson and owner representatives presented evidence that the lot is landlocked, described prior permit activity and a survey, and explained attempts to secure access. The applicant also said it had acquired an adjacent strip to facilitate a compliant access driveway and that title insurance explicitly excluded coverage for access.

Neighbors and nearby property owners (including Michael Pileggi, Marietta Menendez, Henry Alvarez and others) disputed aspects of the applicant’s due diligence and argued the board should delay action until litigation settled or more documentation was supplied. The applicant rebutted with sworn testimony that title insurance and a survey existed and that the property had no legal ingress/egress as currently configured.

Board members debated whether the hardship was self‑created versus attributable to historical parcel configuration, and whether the minimum variance necessary had been shown. After discussion, the board voted to grant the requested subdivision/lot‑line variances that reinterpret the side lot lines as proposed on the current survey. The board noted the circuit court’s ruling in its deliberations and recorded a roll‑call approving the motion.

The board’s decision restores the applicant’s ability to pursue development consistent with the variance; the order will be drafted by staff and placed in the public file.