Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan 20 NE 24th topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lazy Lake council issues concurrency certificate for 20 NE 24th Street, lifts stop‑work order pending Broward County submittal
Summary
The council found the 20 NE 24th Street site plan met Village land‑development standards (lot size 21,300 sq ft) and approved a resolution issuing a Concurrency Review Certificate and authorizing lifting of a stop‑work order once Broward County permits are submitted; motion passed 3–0.
The Village of Lazy Lake council voted on Nov. 6, 2025 to issue a Concurrency Review Certificate for the site plan submitted for 20 Northeast 24th Street and to authorize lifting the stop‑work order upon the applicant’s submission of required Broward County permits.
Planner Christian Waterval reported the project meets Village land‑development regulations for lot size, setbacks, height and impervious area. Waterval noted three surveys and field measurements were reviewed; the site’s lot size was recorded as 21,300 square feet, exceeding the Village’s 10,000 square‑foot minimum. The planner said a final survey and an elevation certificate will be required before the project is completed and that copies of Broward County permits must be provided to the Village.
During discussion, council members and the applicant (represented by architect Robert Lincoln and an attorney participating by phone) raised site‑specific concerns. The council confirmed that a lighting pole located on the property line will remain part of the Village circuit but that the applicant may propose aesthetic modifications subject to Village review. Council asked the applicant to inspect a neighboring shoreline riprap example to inform erosion‑control options and requested the applicant discuss planting larger “character trees” to replace a removed oak canopy.
A resolution to issue the Concurrency Review Certificate and authorize lifting the stop‑work order upon Broward County submission was moved and seconded; the motion passed 3–0. The council recorded no recorded dissent on the action.
