Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board denies request to allow boat parking forward of front building line at 1617 North Lakeside Drive
Summary
The Planning & Zoning Board voted unanimously Oct. 1 to deny a variance that would have allowed a boat and trailer to be parked forward of the front building line at 1617 North Lakeside Drive, finding the request did not meet variance criteria; staff had noted site constraints and one written public objection.
On Oct. 1, 2025 the City of Lake Worth Beach Planning & Zoning Board voted unanimously to deny PZB Project Number 25-01500004, a variance request to allow a recreational boat and trailer to be parked forward of the front building line at 1617 North Lakeside Drive.
Senior Community Planner Karina Maldonado told the Board the vessel had been the subject of a prior Code violation and was removed in May when the property owner applied for a variance. Maldonado summarized staff findings that the site is constrained by a narrow side yard, lack of rear-alley access and an in-ground pool, and that while Criteria #1 and #4 were met, Criteria #2 and #3 were not: "recreational boat storage is a convenience not a fundamental component of reasonable residential use," she said. Staff also noted one written public comment in opposition from Michael Anderson and Cristina Steinhaus (1531 N. Palmway).
The applicant said a previous owner had parked a boat in the driveway and that "it seems similar uses are in the neighborhood and [he] does not see how it affects the appearance of the neighborhood." Board members questioned whether the request met the legal criteria for a variance and cited precedent, including a prior denial for a Federal Highway property. Board Attorney Elizabeth Lenihan advised that a variance "may" be approved only if all criteria are met.
Vice-Chair Daniel Walesky moved to disapprove the variance "as it does not meet the criteria based on the data and analysis in the staff report;" Mark Humm seconded. The vote was recorded as "Ayes all, unanimous," and the motion carried, denying the variance. The Board noted required conditions would have applied if the variance had been approved.
