Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies certificate of appropriateness for 46 Marine Way after divided deliberations
Summary
After extensive public comment and debate over massing, scale and FEMA-driven elevation, the Historic Preservation Board denied the COA, relocation and variance requests for 46 Marine Way; board members cited the addition's mass and height overwhelming the contributing historic structure.
The Delray Beach Historic Preservation Board voted July 1 to deny the certificate of appropriateness (COA) for a contested renovation and relocation plan at 46 Marine Way, concluding that the revised design still failed to meet multiple local standards for visual compatibility and subordinate massing.
Applicant representatives presented revisions to a previously continued application: they reduced interior ceiling heights (lowering overall structure height about two feet), added window openings and decorative shutters, reduced the proposed pool so a variance was no longer required, and proposed a hyphen connector intended to preserve the original historic 987-square-foot house while attaching a larger addition raised to meet FEMA flood-elevation requirements. "We believe this project is about preservation" the applicant said while urging the board to allow adaptive reuse instead of demolition.
Staff summarized the revised proposal and said variances remain necessary because the existing structure is nonconforming; staff noted the project now requires two variances and waivers tied to the height plane and subordinate-massing findings. Several public commenters opposed the project on preservation grounds: preservation advocate Sandy Zeller argued the plans remain noncompliant with multiple Secretary of the Interior standards and the Delray Beach historic-preservation guidelines; Jim Chard cited rehabilitation guidance and cautioned the board about flexible application of standards.
Board deliberations focused on massing and scale. Some members said the revised plans made meaningful improvements and that the reductions and added detailing helped; others said the addition remains too large, is taller than the existing contributing structure, and overwhelms the historic house’s scale. A motion to approve the COA failed; the board then moved to deny the application. The denial passed on roll call with four members voting to deny and three members opposed.
The applicant has the option to revise and return to HPB or pursue an appeal to the City Commission.
