Planning board approves masonry-with-PVC compromise after dispute over Paradise Bank wall

The Planning & Zoning Board of the City of Boca Raton on Nov. 7 voted to approve a staff-amended variance for a boundary wall at the Paradise Bank site at 3800 North Federal Highway, directing that masonry or precast wall be installed at the district boundary line and that PVC fencing may be used only where necessary to accommodate Florida Power & Light infrastructure.

The action follows months of review after the bank constructed a precast masonry wall offset from the required district boundary line. Tori Boone, zoning manager, told the board that the wall was built at a different location than shown on approved plans, that the city issued a code violation in March 2024, and that staff’s analysis concluded, “The application as submitted does not meet all criteria.” Staff recommended denial of the variance to keep the wall where it stands and instead recommended approval of a modified variance that would place the fence on the property (district) boundary but allow PVC where FPL access is required.

The applicant’s representative argued the as-built masonry wall reflected field constraints, particularly three FPL poles and underground utilities that prevented installation of a continuous masonry footing in the required location. “A variance is warranted,” the representative said, describing the poles and the limited space near them as the reason the masonry panels could not be installed at the property line.

Neighbors urged caution. Lois Ring, an owner of one adjacent lot, said the bank’s decision to move the wall produced a narrow, unmaintained corridor behind adjacent yards that has been used by trespassers and that moving the wall to the property line would force removal of landscaping and equipment. “The bank created their own issue by arbitrarily moving their wall before discussing their issues with the city,” she said, and asked the board to deny the applicant’s request and push the applicant to explore other concrete wall options before turning to PVC.

After public comment and technical questioning of the contractor about panel installation, the board first voted on a motion to approve the variance as requested by the property owner (to keep the masonry wall in its current, as-built location). That motion failed. The board then considered staff’s recommendation, amended to allow PVC “where necessary around FPL infrastructure” and masonry or precast otherwise; that amended staff recommendation passed by recorded vote, 6–0.

Under the approved outcome, the applicant must submit a site-plan amendment showing the fence in its approved location and may use PVC only for small boxed sections around FPL poles where FPL access is required; otherwise the wall must meet the city’s unpierced masonry requirement (or be constructed of precast panels acceptable to staff and FPL). The board’s approval was procedural and advisory for the variance; any required building-permit amendments and final inspections remain subject to city review and FPL approvals.

The board’s action resolves the immediate compliance question raised by the code violation but leaves open implementation details: the applicant may return with an amended site plan and material specifications consistent with the board’s conditions, and neighboring homeowners will be notified through the site-plan amendment process.