Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Alright.

Good evening. The time is 05:01PM, Thursday, 05/07/2026. We will now call the city of Delray Beach Board of Adjustment meeting to order. Clerk, could you please call the roll?

Mark Ronald? Present. Brenda Cullenan is absent. Suzanne Donahue is absent. Michelle Wilson? Here. Laura Ramirez? Here. Jesse Slauscher? Here. John Delacio?

Here. We'll now move to approval of the agenda. Are there any changes or adjustments to tonight's agenda? Okay. Do we have a motion? Motion to approve. Second. All in favor? Aye. Against? All right. Passes. We will move on to minutes. There is one set of meeting minutes to approve, the April. Are there any changes or modifications to the minutes? Hearing none, is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Against? Right, minutes pass. We'll then move into the swearing into the public. If anyone is planning to speak tonight on agenda or non agenda items, if you could please stand to be sorted.

Please raise your right hand. By the authority vested in me as the notary of the state of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

GREGORY All right. Next are comments from the public on any non agenda items, if anyone's planning to speak on non agenda items. Seeing none, we will move into the public hearing items. So I will first read the quasi judicial rules. This hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Delray Beach quasi judicial rules.

The applicant in the city shall be permitted to present their case. The public shall be allowed to speak for three minutes each, or a maximum of six minutes if the person represents an organization or group of people who are present but agree not to speak. The Board and the applicant may be allowed to cross examine a witness. The city or the applicant will be allowed to offer rebuttal testimony. The decision to approve or deny an application or appeal may not be legally made upon the personal views as to whether a project is a good project or not, nor may a decision be based on the number of citizens who support or oppose a particular project.

The law requires that all decisions must be made on the basis of whether the project meets the requirements of law, the comprehensive plan, and the land development regulations. So with that we will read in the first item. Staff?

Hi. Good evening. I'm Jennifer Bues, planner, and the file number is 5526, and it's for 237 Southwest 27th Terrace.

Thank you. Has there been any ex parte communications? We'll just go down the row. No. I emailed staff some questions on the application. Other than that, we can now move into the applicant presentation. And just please state your name and address. Of course.

Sure. Hello, everyone. My name is Benjamin Loudon, and this is my wife, Adee Loudon. We're the proud property owners at 237 Southwest 27th Terrace.

Thank you. So

I'd like to begin by showing you all some aerial views, and you'll see in the next few slides of how our property is situated. We are proud owners of our home, and we are in the Woodlake community. And as you can see, we are on 27th Terrace, and then we also have another side street that connects at the corner, which is that's a 3rd Street as well. So you'll see that on the next slides.

Here is another aerial of our property. On the left hand side, you can see the front of our property and our adjoining neighbor of our duplex. Our property is a single story side of a duplex, and our neighbor's is two story.

Here, we'd like to illustrate another rearview of our home. As you can see, we also have a neighbor that faces Southwest 3rd Street, and he face he shares a fence line with us. And as we mentioned, we do share the same wall with our neighbor. And we have gone to them personally, and we have received letters of support from them which have been uploaded as well.

Here is a street view taken from the corner of Southwest 27th And 3rd Street. This is the front side of our property.

I do wanna point out that we have a roofline, and we did consider placing the addition in other parts of our property to try to avoid needing to get a variance. However, with this addition, it would not be in conformity with the with how the other properties would look, and it would face the busy street.

Here is another aerial view overhead. As you can see to the south side of our property, we have the swimming pool. And then just to the left of that is the area that Dee was talking about where we also considered an addition, which would not require a variance based on the setbacks that required. But the addition that we wanna do is to the right hand side of our property on the east side where the pavers are currently. And we'll get into more detail.

Here's a current survey of our property. As you can see, we are in the low density, and we belong to the low density residential district. What makes our community unique is we have a mixture of duplexes and single family homes. We are one of the 16 properties that are in a corner lot and that are a duplex. I do also want to point to your attention that presently, we are at a 30.9 foot setback towards the Northeast corner. And our lot is over 8,000 square feet at 8,145 square feet. And we are we will be discussing the variance that we are requesting for this project.

Here is the paved area on the rear side of our property where we would like to do an addition.

I do want to point out to your attention that for your reference, the addition would not extend beyond where the pavers are currently set.

And here's an architectural floor plan that was taken from the permit set that was submitted. Our addition would include 196 square feet covered porch area and 204 square feet of air conditioned area, which would be classified as an office. It would extend 13 feet and four inches from our current structure.

Here's an additional view from the side. As you can see, we are not extending be beyond 13 feet and six inches, and we will have a flat roof to match the existing structure. And another thing we wanna point your attention is the height. It would be eight feet and two inches. As seen in the previous slides, we have homes that are next to us, both of our neighbors that have multistory, so we would not be infringing in any way with in regards to stealing any sunlight or getting in the way of that.

Here is a similar addition that was constructed within our community. This was before the ordinance was passed in 2023. As you can see, the rear setback is 15 feet around a little bit more, but it's within the fifth it's within the the required 15 feet setback, but it would not meet the new requirements of the 25 foot setback.

Here's some background information in regards to how this all came about. So in 1990, the LDR that we're going over had rear setbacks of 25 feet. And then in 1993, the setback was changed to 15 feet. And to summarize, basically, we are not developing a multistory duplex existing development. We are doing a single story development that would not infringe on any other people's right to enjoying the outdoor space.

Right. Here is a letter the right to build porches and screened in patios, and you can see where we have the red arrow pointing. I'll read that. Those of us who do not now have porches want to preserve the ability to install them in the future, and we want to reserve the same rights for those who will become our neighbors in the future. To deny these advantage, we feel, would be very unfair to all and potentially harmful to the value of our homes.

Here is another letter from 1992. So I like to bring your attention about how it speaks about the majority of developments within Homewood Lakes currently have screened in porches that were part of the original home construction. Our home is from 1982, and as you all could see, we had a pool built on our property, but no screened in porch. And it also speaks about how these screened in porches are aesthetically pleasing. They blend in nicely with the structures of all the duplex dwellings within the Woodley community, and they would enhance the value of the home.

Alright. In summary, our request is to have an addition 13 feet and four inches away. We have a rear setback of currently 30.9 feet, and we wanna request a setback of 17.6 feet, whereas this ordinance that was passed in 2023 requires a 25 foot rear setback.

We would all like to thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, this is a variance request for 4.3.4 k to allow 17.6 feet in the rear whereas a minimum of 25 feet is required for the construction of the one story addition. My presentation is very similar to theirs. I might be able to go into a little bit more detail but this is in the RL low density residential zoning. And some of the background, this was known as Homewood Lakes. It was constructed in 1982 with two seventy two duplexes and 23 single family homes.

Section C where the applicant lives is 24 duplexes and six single family homes. And during the development of Woodlake, there was a request that was made by the neighborhood to reduce the rear setback requirement of 25 feet. So way back then it was 25 feet and to reduce it to 15 feet to accommodate these screen closures. The request was ultimately denied. City Commission at that time felt it would have a negative impact on the similar zoning districts but back in 1993 they put an ordinance in that passed that took it back from 25 feet to 15 feet for a rear setback.

These changes again were initiated by the homeowners association of Woodlake and then in 2023 the ordinance twenty five twenty three increase the rear setbacks again for RL and RM back to 25 foot minimum. This was due to duplexes taking on an increasingly larger form. I kind of put this picture down below to show you that this is a good example of them taking it all the

way

out as much as they can maximize. I do not think the intention when Woodlake was built, again, you're looking at 1982 and the houses, duplexes weren't that large back then. I don't think they really cared back then how big your home was going to be. So I don't really think that the 25 foot setback for this duplex is really meant geared towards these older homes. This is the construction, the addition that they did show you where it's the covered porch in the office.

And again, this just here provides some of the zoning requirements. They're meeting everything and they're meeting everything at this point if but they are proposing the 17.6 for the rear. One more quick thing, their neighbor to the east, which would be their side, they have a 15 foot side setback. So between their 15 foot side setback and them having a 17.6 setback, there is still a very large amount of property that they would not be really infringing upon other people's rights. And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you. Is there any members of the public who would like to speak, although I don't see any? So maybe we'll move into the cross examination. Wanna start down there? I have no questions at this moment.

No questions for me? No.

No questions? Well, the

the cross examination and rebuttal is if the applicant would like to say anything or rebut anything that the city said.

Gotcha. Would you like to speak to anything the the staff said?

And if you do, if you could speak into the microphone. Yeah. I

would just like to clarify what you said regarding the neighbor that has a lot of clear space next to us. Yes. The property to the east, the the two story they're the single single the single family structure. Right?

To the east of us is Joe.

Yep. Yep.

That's I just wanted to confirm that that's the structure that we were talking about there.

Okay. Yeah. Not the shared wall with our okay. Understood.

That's all that I wanted to bring up. Thank you. Thank you.

You don't have anything?

Okay. Okay. I guess just I don't have any particular questions, but more just conversation among us. It seems like if there ever was a case of what is the intent of the law in the history, this does seem like a pretty self evident case of something that's enjoyed by all of their neighbors, meets the intent of the law. What they're asking for is not is not violating the spirit of what counsel recently passed in terms of the 25 foot multistory like the the picture on the screen. So, yeah, I don't have any questions unless there's anything that was concerning presented. Okay. Well, I guess with that, we can

You want me to read the findings?

Yeah. I think we're ready to make the findings. Okay with that? Okay.

Alright. So this is file number PZ550Dash2026, and the address is 237 Southwest 27th Terrace. A variance request from the land development regulation section four point three point four ks development standards matrix, residential zoning districts to reduce the rear east setback to 17.6 feet whereas a minimum of 25 feet is required associated with the construction of a one storey addition. Pursuant to land development regulations 2.411 a five, following consideration of all evidence and testimony, the board of adjustment for the city of Delray Beach finds as follows. Number one, that special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not generally applicable to other lands, structures, buildings or subject to the same zoning.

Economic hardship shall not constitute a basis for granting of a variance.

Mark Ronald?

Yes. Are you agree?

Yes. Brenda Cullinan is absent. Suzanne Donohue is absent. Michelle Wilson?

Yes.

Aura Ramirez? Yes. Jesse Slauscher? Yes. John Delisio?

Yes.

Okay. That literal interpretation of regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties subject to the same zoning.

Mark Ronald? Yes. Brenda Cullenan is absent. Suzanne Donahue is absent. Michelle Wilson? Yes. Laura Ramirez? Yes. Jesse Slauscher? Yes. John Delacio?

Yes.

That the special conditions and circumstances have not resulted from the actions of the applicant.

Mark Ronald?

Yes.

Brenda Cullinan is absent. Suzanne Donahue is absent. Michelle Wilson? Yes. Or Ramirez? Yes. Jesse Slauscher? Yes. John Delacio?

Yes. That

granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied to other lands, structures, and buildings under the same zoning. Neither the permitted nor nonconforming use of neighborhood lands, structures, or buildings under the same zoning shall be considered grounds for issuance of a variance.

Mark Ronald?

Yes.

Brenda Cullenan is absent. Suzanne Donahue is absent. Michelle Wilson?

Yes.

Laura Ramirez? Yes. Jesse Slauscher? Yes. John D'Alessio?

Yes.

That the reasons established in the variance petition justify the granting of the variance and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land building or structure.

Mark Ronald? Yes. Brenda Cullinan is absent. Suzanne Donahue is absent. Michelle Wilson? Yes. Aurora Ramirez? Yes. Jesse Slauscher? Yes. John Delisio?

Yes.

That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of existing regulations, will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.

Mark Ronald? Yes. Brenda Cullenan is absent. Suzanne Donahue is absent. Michelle Wilson? Yes. Laura Ramirez? Yes. Jesse Slauscher?

Yes.

John Delisio?

Yes.

So we'll just request a motion to approve.

Seeing as the votes as they may, would someone like to make a motion?

I make a motion to approve.

Second. There's a motion and a second. Can we call a vote? Mark Ronald? Yes.

Brenda Cullenan is absent. Suzanne Donahue is absent. Michelle Wilson? Yes. Laura Ramirez? Yes. Jesse Slauscher? Yes. John Delacio? Yes.

Pursuant to LDR Section 2.1.7F, all decisions of the Board of Adjustment are final. Based on the entire record before it, the Board of Adjustment approves the variance solely for the purpose as presented at the meeting. The Board of Adjustment adopts this order this day of 05/07/2026.

Alright. That concludes the public hearing items. We will move on to reports and comments from staff.

We do not have any reports and comments. I didn't I know I don't have my slideshow up, but we don't have anything. The attorney? Anything? I was just wondering, are you guys aware that all actions are final and that any appeals go to the circuit court?

Yes. Okay. I was just gonna

let you guys know why we do do the

extras. Yes. We remember the last summer, the need to rehear.

What was that?

We remember some of the k the nuances of the cases last summer.

Okay. Yeah.

Yeah. Any comments from fellow board members? No. Alright. With that, we will adjourn.