Commissioners approve removal of 2.39 acres from Piper's Glen PUD and rezoning for seven‑lot Palm Cove subdivision, 5–2

The Palm Beach County Commission on July 2 approved a development order amendment to remove 2.39 acres from the Piper's Glen planned unit development and a companion rezoning to allow a seven‑lot single‑family subdivision called Palm Cove, voting 5–2 on both items.

The approvals include a conditional overlay that limits building height to 30 feet and attaches conditions addressing concurrency (connection to water and sewer), engineering/platting and a parks‑and‑recreation cash‑out to meet recreational requirements. The developer presented the proposal as a reduction in potential density — from an entitlement that could allow up to 12 units to a proposed seven units — and said buffers, a wall and landscaping would be used to reduce visual and drainage impacts.

Why it matters: Neighbors from the adjacent Tuscany Bay community urged the commission to honor earlier approvals and restrictions that kept the parcel as open space, raised alarm about tree clearing and questioned whether required tree‑removal permits and replacement were obtained. The parcel sits at the southwest corner of Piper's Glen Boulevard and Military Trail; residents said two‑story homes would overlook one‑story, over‑55 housing nearby and would exacerbate traffic and safety concerns at a busy intersection.

The developer’s representative told the board the site had been sold by the association and that the project would save and relocate native vegetation into buffer areas, provide a 20‑foot buffer along main roads and an 8‑foot buffer along the pond edge, and limit coverage to the zoning maximums. “We are only proposing to do seven dwelling units here,” the applicant’s representative said during the presentation, emphasizing the proposed density is well below the underlying MR‑5 land‑use maximum.

Residents contested some of those statements. Rose Berliner of Tuscany Bay said the community is an over‑55, single‑story neighborhood and warned that taller units would "look down on our roofs." Jeffrey Stevens said foliage had been removed from the parcel within months of purchase and asked whether tree‑removal and replacement permits were obtained. The applicant’s side said permits were obtained for removal of exotic species and for relocating vegetation into buffer areas.

Legal and procedural context: County staff and the planning division confirmed the hearing was quasi‑judicial and that the underlying future land use is medium residential (MR‑5). Staff identified three proposed conditions of approval: required water/sewer connections; engineering/platting requirements; and a parks and recreation provision to satisfy recreational obligations.

Board action and next steps: Following discussion about compatibility issues — including drainage, buffering, and maximum building height — Commissioner Flores moved a substitute motion to approve the two companion items with a 30‑foot height limit. The motion passed on recorded roll calls for each item by a vote of 5 in favor and 2 opposed. Mayor Baxter was recorded as opposed. The developer and neighbors were encouraged to continue working through remaining design details during the site‑plan/DRO (Development Review Officer) stage.

The commission record shows separate formal votes were taken on the development order amendment and on the rezoning. The applicant must complete platting, obtain building permits and satisfy DRO requirements before construction may proceed.