Housing authority withdraws Adderley Cove rezoning after heavy neighborhood opposition
Loading...
Summary
The board heard a public hearing on a Pompano Beach Housing Authority request to increase density to 96 affordable units on an ~8.6‑acre site. Dozens of residents opposed the rezoning citing traffic, infrastructure and neighborhood character; the applicant withdrew the item and the authority chair proposed reconvening with residents.
The Planning & Zoning Board opened a public hearing Jan. 14 on NL818 (Adderley Cove), a rezoning request by the Pompano Beach Housing Authority to use Broward County density‑bonus policy 2.16.3 to increase buildable density on an ~8.2–8.64 acre parcel from roughly 41 units to 96 units (RM‑12). Staff said the site would be eligible for the density‑bonus formula and recommended approval with a condition that restrictive covenants be recorded by building permit to ensure at least 10 units are deed‑restricted for 30 years and that the site’s maximum development not exceed 96 units.
Housing authority and applicant representatives described the proposal as 96 affordable units, and Jean Dolan said staff found substantial evidence to support the request. The housing authority representative stated the intent that the future 96 units would be restricted to low‑income households (50–80% of area median income).
The hearing drew extensive public comment: long‑time residents including Elizabeth Massey, Robert Kinchon, Charles McClure and many others opposed the rezoning, arguing the neighborhood was planned for single‑family or low‑density development, that local streets and infrastructure (one‑way access, drainage and water pressure) could not safely support the proposed density, and that past housing projects had not met community expectations. Concerns were expressed repeatedly about traffic, emergency access, property values, and the process and timing of the rezoning request.
After hearing testimony, Whitney Ralls, chair of the housing authority, said the authority heard the community and proposed to pull the item and work with residents on a different design. Applicant counsel and the agent subsequently confirmed the application would be withdrawn from the board’s consideration that night. No rezoning vote occurred; the withdrawal means the item will not advance to the City Commission in its current form and the applicant indicated it would return after further community engagement.
Next steps: the housing authority indicated it will reconvene with community stakeholders to rework the proposal; any revised application would return to the Planning & Zoning Board and then to the City Commission.
