Wellington board deadlocks on request to reduce 15-foot buffer at Blue Cypress subdivision

The Wellington Planning, Zoning and Adjustment Board deadlocked 2–2 on March 18, 2026, on a requested variance to reduce portions of a 15-foot-wide Type B landscape buffer along the east property line of Lots 12–14 in Tract B of the Blue Cypress subdivision. The applicant sought a 5-foot encroachment (leaving a 10-foot buffer where the pools would abut) to accommodate private swimming pools.

The applicant’s agent framed the variance as a narrowly tailored fix for three unusually small lots and said the proposal would not reduce overall plantings and would add about 961 square feet of buffer elsewhere. The agent noted the lots were subdivided in 2022 and that construction permits have been issued for houses planned to be roughly 5,000 square feet, and explained that stormwater retention would be addressed through the engineering review required before permits are finalized.

Opponents, represented by attorney Jana Loda, urged denial. Loda said the 15-foot buffer has been shown on multiple prior approvals and plats dating to 2000 and that the buffer protects the adjoining equestrian preserve and Black Watch Farms to the east. She argued the hardship is self-created because the current applicant acquired the property in January 2024 and had time before the plat was presented and recorded in September 2024 to redesign lots or adjust the plat. Loda also raised drainage and berm concerns tied to the South Florida Water Management District permit, saying the district’s permit and the established development order call for a continuous buffer and a berm that could be difficult to accommodate in a reduced width.

Rob Gray, the property owner, told the board he had attempted to resolve encroachment issues administratively and through the HOA before bringing the variance request, said he did not want to be in this position, and reiterated that required engineering reviews will address drainage.

Board members probed technical details: staff confirmed Type B buffer requirements (15 feet, a shade tree every 30 linear feet, continuous hedge and shrubs) and that the code allows width reductions only in limited circumstances. Several members noted the applicant had the opportunity to redesign lots after purchase, while others said variances are meant for site-specific problems and that additional conditions—retaining walls, denser plantings, a berm and engineering requirements—could mitigate impacts.

After public comment (no members of the public spoke during the open comment period), a motion to approve the variance with conditions (a 5-foot reduction resulting in a 10-foot buffer for the pool lengths on Lots 13 and 14, additional landscape material to create a denser buffer, and engineering requirements including a berm or retaining wall if required) was moved and seconded. The board vote resulted in a tie and the motion failed (2–2). The board discussed whether a failed motion equates to a denial and staff advised that a failed motion means the proposal was not approved; staff also noted a denial resolution could be presented or the parties could seek an amendment to the development order or a future application.

What remains: the variance application is unresolved. The board did not approve the requested encroachment at the March 18 meeting; the applicant and interested parties were encouraged to try to negotiate conditions acceptable to both sides, or else the village could prepare a formal denial resolution. The board noted that any engineering approval for pools would still have to meet drainage and permitting requirements even if a variance were granted in the future.

Meeting minutes and the staff report list the petition as 2026-0001-VAR (Blue Cypress Track B landscape buffer variance). The board may revisit the item if the applicant and the interested party reach an agreement or if the applicant pursues an amendment to the development order or a new application.