Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

This meeting to order, and Meredith, would you please call the roll?

Ann Berger? Present. Rick Bunn? Present. Michael McCormack?

Present.

Linda Thomas? Present. Joe Circusi? Present. Charlotte Burry?

Present. I need a motion to approve the minutes of the July 16th, 2026 meeting.

Motion.

Second? Second. Any changes, deletions, additions? All in favor, say goodbye by saying aye.

Aye.

Thank you. Okay, welcome again to the Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you who have never been here before, this is what we call a quasi-judicial hearing. This is like a courtroom. You have a petitioner. There's public speaking at the time that you're called. There's rebuttal by the petitioner. This board made up of Scott Reale on the end from the Development Services Division, our city attorney who keeps us straight and narrow, James Saunders, and the lady that provides us with every bit of information that a petitioner ever sends us is Meredith, and she runs the show. To the petitioners, when your item is called, we ask that you come to that microphone. Please state your name and spell your last name and state your address. At that time, Mr. Reale will read into the record the city's report and then you can present your case. At the end of presenting your case, except for the first item, I will open it up for public comment. And those that want to speak will come to this microphone and do the same thing. State your name, spell your last name, and your address. And we ask, since this is a judicial type hearing, please talk into the microphones because everything you say is kept on the record. Also, anyone who even thinks they're going to speak before this commission, I'm going to, in about one minute, ask you to stand and raise your right hand, and Meredith will administer the oath. Okay, Meredith? Those that want to speak or even think you're going to speak, please stand, raise your right hand, and Meredith.

Do you swear or affirm the evidence you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you, you may be seated.

Thank you. Our first item on our agenda is PNZ 2611000016. It is a request for a rehearing for a previously denied application. There is no public hearing on this, but will the petitioner please come forward?

Good evening. Jay Lefka, L-E-F-K-A, 2323 Coral Ridge View Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33308. Thank you.

Are you going to speak, sir?

No, ma'am.

Okay. Okay. Scott, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, members of the board and the public. This is just a brief. This is not a public hearing. This particular item. I just wanted to start saying that at its July 16th, 2026 meeting, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to deny variance application PZ 26. The requested variance would have permitted construction of a new single-family residence on a waterfront lot located at 1900 Bay Drive with a rear setback of five feet from the property line in lieu of the required 25-foot setback from an abutting waterway or canal. The motion to approve the variance failed by a vote of two in favor and four opposed. On July 27, 2026, the applicant submitted a written request for a rehearing, together with supplemental information that the applicant contends satisfies the criteria for granting a rehearing under the Zoning Board of Appeals Rules of Procedure. At this meeting, the board's consideration is limited to determining whether the applicant has met the procedural criteria necessary to grant the rehearing. The board is not being asked to reconsider the merits of the variance request at this time. Should the Board grant the request for rehearing, the variance application will be re-noticed in accordance with applicable public notice requirements, including mailed notices and publication in the Sun-Sentinel, and scheduled for a new public hearing, and that will be at the October 15, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, because the meeting last month was canceled. An excerpt of the ZBA Rules of Procedure Governing Rehearing Request is provided below. Any petitioner who may be aggrieved by a decision of the ZBA may, within 10 days from the date of the decision, was orally pronounced, but not thereafter, apply to the ZBA for a rehearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board, or unless heard earlier by a special meeting. And the petitioner requesting a rehearing shall establish all of the following. There are three criteria. One, that there is new evidence which could not have been discovered before the hearing by exercise of due diligence. Two, that the evidence is material and not merely cumulative. And three, that there is a strong likelihood that the new evidence will affect the results if a new hearing is granted. Now the ZBA shall render its decision after hearing arguments based on the foregoing criteria. The concurring vote of five members of the board shall be necessary to grant a rehearing. The public hearing for any rehearing that is granted shall not be considered during the same meeting that the rehearing request is scheduled to be heard. For motions for rehearing that are approved, the rehearing will be heard at the next available ZBA meeting. Again, that would be October 15th. The applicant's written request for a rehearing and the accompanying supplemental evidence have been provided herein for the board's consideration. And there is no staff recommendation here. It is strictly between the applicant and the board members. Thank you, Scott.

Good evening. I don't know if anybody has any direct questions. When we were here at the previous one, comments were brought that it was going too far to the back of the property. We pulled it back to be within line if the pool was at grade. Staircase is just the egress. We turned it because that was a comment being outward. All of this is required because the state requires for the east of the coastal control line that you have to be above base flood elevation. Base flood elevation is 7.0, grade is 8.0. So unless we're going to have a one foot deep pool, it has to be elevated. I give you backup, which I got from another house that we did, but that means that the pilings have to come up above grade, support the bottom of the pool, and in theory that the whole thing breaks away and slides, like the whole structure. That's what requires, that's what we looked up, the architect did everything. But we tried to account for everything being pulled back to be in line with the other properties. But the state and flood requirements require it to be elevated. I don't know if there's any direct questions on that, but that's our main crux of why we're here. And the CCL line, just for people to know, is right at the street, so it affects the whole house. It's not like you pull further back and then you could drop it. You can't do that on that street by the state requirements.

Thank you. Does the board members have any questions? And this would be a motion to have a rehearing on this item based on new evidence. that the petitioner will present and schedule for october meetings so any questions board members or a motion i i think just a regular motion to say to approve the special acceptance Is there one on there for that? I don't think so. I think it's just for the variances and stuff.

It would be a motion to- Open up and re- The motion, Madam Chair, the motion for rehearing is what's being placed here. So basically, what would happen is that the person who is going to make a motion approving placing this item on the next agenda for consideration.

Okay. It's a motion to place this item on the next agenda for reconsideration. I guess I just made it.

Yes.

So moved. Second. Second. Second.

All right. Any other questions from the board? Meredith, would you call the roll, please?

Madam Chair, before you do that, again, for purposes of, I'm not sure what the decision is going to be. And as I have counseled the board before, that because we have three standards that are mentioned here, it would be beneficial for purposes of whatever the result is, that somehow in the record, it's determined what this board has found. as it relates to these three items. And the three items that are before you is whether or not this particular applicant or appellant has presented new evidence that could have been discovered, that could not have been discovered before the hearing, the exercise of due diligence, that the evidence is material, not merely cumulative, And that there's a strong likelihood that the new evidence will affect the result if a new hearing is granted. Just for purposes of record and assistance to our office in developing the document, if somehow the board could have a discussion to elucidate some of those items, it'd be great.

Well, Mr. Attorney, we have a new gentleman on the board that wasn't here the last time to know what was discussed. The petitioner just gave us just kind of a cursive overview of the items because we figured if he gets another hearing that he can delve into it. But it's up to the board members if they have any questions. Do you have any questions, Mr. Bunn?

No, I don't. I was just going back to where from what he presented does not change my mind on what happened the last time because, you know, We're not stopping him from building on his property. He can build on his property. He can't do the extra things on his property that he wants. And that, talking about the pilings and stuff, to me doesn't change that.

Well, okay.

Can I just respond really quick? So that's not really the issue right now. It's whether or not he's presented enough new evidence that wasn't before to grant the rehearing. So it's a matter of if you look at his rehearing request, he does go through, not only does he submit, obviously, now a new revised site plan, also he has completed a further code review. that is in addition to a new evidence that he's now submitting in order to get a rehearing.

Right. Is all that new evidence submitted?

Yes, that's all in your backup. Is it in our backup? Yep, one, two, yep. Each item was in detail. He went through each of the criteria, the three criteria.

Can I ask just a quick question procedurally? You said all five have to confirm yes for a rehearing? Is that right?

Yes. Super majority, yeah, five out of six, yeah.

Do you want me to answer that one question? Any further questions of the board? I guess it's all the roll.

Karen Berger?

Yes, as to rehearing.

Joe Circusi?

Yes, as to rehearing.

Rick Bunn?

No.

Michael McCormack?

Yes, as a rehearing.

Linda Thomas.

Yes, as a rehearing.

Charlotte Burry.

Yes, for the rehearing. You will have your rehearing, which will be set for October 15th, and it will be noticed properly, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Item number two is a variance for Hillsborough Shores Executive Club, PNZ 26-11000017. Will the petitioner please?

Good evening, my name is Joe Harper, I'm the owner of South Florida Dock and Seawall. Last name Harper, H-A-R-P-E-R. I live at 961 Monticello Avenue in Davie, Florida, 33325.

Thank you. Mr. Reale.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The applicant landowner is requesting a variance from section 15103G2 of the Pompano Beach Code of Ordinances to allow the replacement of an existing finger pier that extends approximately 46 feet 6 inches from the measurement reference line into the waterway, exceeding the maximum permitted extension of 20 feet, and to allow a finger pier with 8 feet exceeding the maximum permitted width of 4 feet as stipulated by code. The subject property is located at the Hillsborough Shores Executive Club condominium along the east side of Bay Drive between North Ocean Boulevard and Norfolk Street on the Barrier Island. The applicant proposes to replace an existing pier within its existing footprint along the shoreline of Wahoo Bay. According to Code Compliance Case 25-09000885, the existing structure is in disrepair and requires replacement. Chapter 151 limits finger piers in waterways to a maximum extension of 20% of the width of the waterway, or 20 feet, whichever is less. The existing finger pier extends approximately 46 feet 6 inches from the measurement reference line. The requested variance would allow the replacement pier to maintain this existing length, which exceeds the maximum permitted extension by approximately 26 feet 6 inches. Although the finger pier currently exists, the replacement of the structure requires compliance with current provisions in Chapter 151. Because the existing pier exceeds the maximum permitted length and width established by Section 151.03 approval of the requested variance is required prior to replacement. pursuant to Section 151.09 requests for variances from the standards of Chapter 151 must first be reviewed by the Marine Advisory Board. And at its July 18, 2026 meeting, the Marine Advisory Board recommended approval of the requested variance. The Marine Advisory Board recommendation memo, including an analysis of the applicable review standards, is included in the supporting documents for this application. The MAB recommendation memo notes that Chapter 151 does not specifically address the limited number of wider waterways where longer finger pier may occupy only a relatively small percentage of the waterway width. In 2021, the ZBA approved a similar variance, that was P&Z case 21-11000014 for the city's Wahoo Bay Finger Pier located at Royale Rogers Family Park, immediately north of the subject property. Should the board determine that the applicant has provided competent substantial evidence to satisfy the eight variance review standards, staff recommends the board include the following conditions as part of the order. One, obtain all necessary governmental permits and approvals, including building and zoning compliance permits. And two, development shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted with this application. I would like to say that with us tonight is Mr. David McGurk, he's the chief engineering inspector. And he's able to assist with any technical questions related to this request that the board may have. Because this is not the zoning code, this is a different part of the code of ordinances that I'm not familiar with. And that concludes my report. Thank you, Scott.

It's yours.

Yes, I've went through an extensive permit process on this project, which because of the issue with the marginal dock and the finger pier, the city actually separated the permit for the seawall from the permit for the dock and the pier. Which I have a permit for the seawall and I'm working on the seawall now. Now the existing dock that is nine foot wide, Was previously permitted, it was about five years ago when I did another section of wall on the same property. It was like 180 some foot of seawall. And I permitted the replacement of this dock back then and the pilings. Now that we're putting the new seawall in front of the existing seawall that's failing, of course the dock and the finger pier have to be removed in order to do the seawall work. uh... everything's going back in the same footprint to tell you the truth it's not going to be as wide or as long because of the new seawall going in front of the existing seawall once that's done like a nine foot wide marginal dock will become a five foot wide marginal dock but it's still in the same footprint except for part of its now new seawall and the pilings aren't being replaced so you know we're not altering the structure at all that's something i previously permitted on the other project i did there now the finger pier that's there The thing's old. I mean, I didn't deal with that. I've done other structures on the property, but this is in the same area where the new seawall is being replaced. And we're also replacing that in the same footprint. So it's not like we're altering anything. And when he spoke of, you know, the city's structure they have there at the park, that structure realistically goes farther out in that bay than anything on that bay. That thing goes out 100 feet. And, you know, it's a very wide bay. Even the Marine Advisory Board said, I don't even know why you're here. There's certain bodies of water that you shouldn't have to really go through a variance for, like Lake Santa Barbara, like this body of water. When something's that massive and you're only going out a short distance into that body of water, it doesn't come anywhere near the navigational waterway or, you know, interfere with navigation. So... That's basically what I'm here to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Thank you. Mr. McGirt, do you have anything to say to us?

David McGirt, MCGIRR, 13 Southeast 19th Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida. I'm the Chief Engineering Inspector for the City of Pompano Beach. Engineering Department has no problem with this project and agree with the MAB.

Thank you very much. Does the board have any questions of the applicant?

I just wanted to clarify, so it's going to be exactly what's on the picture, they're going to be pretty much the same distance and all that?

Yeah, we're taking it out and putting it back in once we redo the wall. I even have a copy of the survey here which shows everything, structures and everything on the property. But yeah, I'm just wanting to- Replacing it. The main reason why I'm doing this at all is because the seawall's failing. We have to take those structures out in order to do the seawall, so.

Thank you.

Any other board members have any questions? Okay, this is a public hearing. Anyone in the audience that is for this petition? Anyone in the audience that is opposed to this petition? Hearing none, public hearing closed. Any other board comment? If not, a motion.

I'll make a motion. In P&Z case 2611000017, I move to find there is competent and substantial evidence in the record that all requirements for granting the variance have been met. And we grant the variance subject to three? Two. Two, conditions requested by staff, excuse me.

Thank you, do I have a second?

Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any further comment from the board? Hearing none, Meredith, please call the roll.

Joe Circusi? Yes. Karen Berger? Yes. Rick Bunn? Yes. Michael McCormack?

Yes.

Linda Thomas?

Yes.

Charlotte Burry?

Yes. It has been granted, sir.

Thank you so much for your time, folks. Have a good evening.

You're very welcome. There's one thing I had forgotten to say in the beginning of the meeting and that's my bad. The people that are sitting in between Mr. Reale and the city attorney, we are all citizens of the city of Pompano Beach and we serve on this board because we serve our city without any compensation. Sorry, guys. Okay, item number two, which is a special exception. PNZ 26111700007. Petitioner Andre Cappy.

I am not Andre.

Okay, well would you please state your name and- Sure.

Spell your last name and- My name is Julian Maxwell Stein, S-T-E-I-N. My address is 1114 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard, Pompano Beach, Florida 33069. Thank you.

Mr. Reale.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In this case, the applicant landowner is requesting special exception approval as required by Section 155-4228A1 of the Pompano Beach Zoning Code in order to utilize the subject property for outdoor storage as a principal use. The subject property is located along the south side of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and the east side of North Andrews Avenue in the northwest CRA. The subject property is a vacant triangular shaped parcel consisting of approximately 6,074 square feet and located within the I-1 General Industrial Zoning District with an industrial future land use designation. Historical records indicate that the property was previously larger and supported an industrial use. However, portions of the property were acquired through eminent domain. in association with the FDOT Broward County Andrews Avenue Extension project in the early 2000s. The remaining parcel has remained vacant following the acquisition and presents redevelopment challenges due to its limited size and irregular configuration under the current dimensional standards of the I-1 zoning district. The applicant proposes to utilize the site for outdoor storage as a principal use to support the operations of Marine Max Electronics located at 1114 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard. No structures are proposed as part of this application. Pursuant to section 155-4228-A1, outdoor storage as a principal use requires special exception approval within the I-1 zoning district. The current site plan application, which is P&Z 26-1200016, was reviewed by the Development Review Committee on July 15, 2026. During the review, the project planner identified dimensional and development standard deficiencies related to minimum required lot area, 10,000 square feet is required, 6,074 square feet is provided, and the minimum required number of parking spaces. One space is required, zero spaces are proposed. A separate variance application, P&Z 26-1100018, has been submitted in conjunction with this special exception application requesting relief from these two standards. Approval of the requested special exception does not authorize deviation from applicable dimensional or development standards, and any relief from the standards is subject to separate review and approval through the associated variance application. Based on the site plan and supporting materials submitted with the application, the proposed development appears capable of complying with applicable use-specific standards for outdoor storage, including required screening, buffering, landscaping requirements. The applicant has proposed landscaping and site improvements that exceed minimum code requirements and are intended to further the objectives of three comprehensive plan policies, and I'll just touch upon them. Policy 01-0404 says that special exception uses along major corridors, including the city's gateway streets, one of them being MLK, will be required to provide landscaping and beautification in excess of standard code requirements along major street frontages. Policy 01-0721 says to amend the land development code to require special exception uses along major corridors, including MLK, to provide landscaping and beautification in excess of standard code requirements along major street frontages. and the third applicable policy and from the comprehensive plan is 010803 and that's to continue the construction of facilities such as roadway drainage water sewer facilities and enhanced medians and other street section beautification efforts in the northwest dr martin luther king jr boulevard northwest 31st street and atlantic boulevard corridors and encourage auto oriented and industrial development along these gateway corridors to provide enhanced roadway frontage for both the building facades and landscaping visible from the roadway to beautify the corridor. Based on the proposed site improvements and conditions of approval, staff finds that the proposed outdoor storage use is generally consistent with these comprehensive plan policies. Although the proposed use is industrial in nature, the enhanced landscaping, buffering, and screening improvements proposed along Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, a designated gateway corridor, are intended to improve the visual character of the corridor while maintaining compatibility with surrounding industrial uses. The subject property is located in an established industrial area characterized by warehouse, manufacturing, contractor distribution, and utility-related uses. The surrounding properties are zoned I-1 and developed with industrial and warehouse uses. The nearest residentially zoned properties are separated from the site by Andrews Avenue and the CSX Railroad corridor, thereby eliminating the potential for adverse impacts on residential neighborhoods. Outdoor storage associated with warehouse, contractor, utility supply, and distribution uses is common among permitted and established industrial uses throughout the industrial area. The proposed use would not introduce a land use type inconsistent with the established industrial development pattern. Furthermore, the subject property is surrounded by arterial roadways and industrial development, limiting the potential for land use conflicts and sensitive uses. Given the industrial character of the surrounding area and the prevalence of outdoor storage activities associated with permitted industrial uses in the I-1 zoning district, the proposed use appears generally compatible with surrounding industrial development. Based on the site plan and supporting materials submitted with this application and subject to compliance with applicable provisions of the zoning code and conditions of approval, the proposed use is not anticipated to create significant adverse impacts related to noise, traffic, visual character or other operational characteristics on surrounding properties there are thirteen special exception review standards and should the board determine that the applicant has provided competent substantial evidence sufficient to satisfy the thirteen special exception review standards staff request the board include the following three conditions as part of the order one obtain all necessary governmental permits and approvals including site plan building and zoning compliance permits. Two, approval and satisfaction of the associated variance application. Again, that's 26-1100018, prior to the issuance of permits associated with the special exception approval. And the third recommended staff condition, substantial compliance with the site plan submitted with this application and associated site plan application PNZ 26-12000016, including enhanced landscaping and beautification improvements consistent with the comprehensive plan policies 01-0404, 01-0721, and 01-0803. And that concludes my staff report for the special exception. If you would like, I can... Give an extremely brief summary of the two variants, or would you rather I wait until- Okay, on this particular one, this would be one motion, and on the variants would be two motions, or we- Correct, one for the special exception use itself, two for the requested relief from the two- The board want to combine these two? The Assistant City Attorney doesn't recommend that.

I say we vote on this one first.

Yeah, we'll do this one first, Scott. Just the variance. Yeah, this is for the special exception and we'll do the variance next.

Okay, good evening everybody. My name is Julian Maxwell Stein. I'm the owner of Max Marine Electronics and SMAX LLC. I'm the property owner, the developer, and the owner of the business that hopes to use the property. Max Marine Electronics has been in Pompano Beach since 2013, in business since 2011. We have two locations, both of which are in Pompano Beach. over 30 employees, and what we do primarily is refurbish and resell marine equipment. We sell new marine parts that we've liquidated from boat builders and other marine businesses, and we also produce obsolete parts through 3D printing and assembly. Our location at 1114 Dr. MLK Jr Boulevard is our main facility. We do have another small leased facility at 290 Southwest 8th Avenue, which is on Andrews, south of Atlantic. We are proposing this outdoor storage facility roughly a quarter mile west of our facility at 1114 Dr. MLK Boulevard. The site is intended to function as an extension of our current facility that can be used for light outdoor storage. We have a couple of small cargo trailers that we use when we liquidate product from different sites around the area. that we now have in parking spaces in our parking lot and you know this is intended to sort of relieve some of those pain points we also have satellite tv domes the big domes that you see on on big yachts that are on the racks in our warehouse and taking up valuable space we have empty pallets we have a radar tower right now that we got um that was intended to go on 165 foot yacht that never made it onto the yacht that's that's currently being stored in our warehouse so This outdoor storage facility is really just a yard. And I want to stress that if this were contiguous to our current facility, we would not be here. It would be considered accessory outdoor storage. We would be going through planning and zoning on that, but we would not need any variances. We would not need a special exception. However, because the property is not contiguous with our current property, it's located a quarter mile down the road, we have to apply for the variances and special exception because it is considered principal use. Currently, the site is vacant, there is grass, there are no trees, there is no landscaping. And the site does have some nuisances, including illegal truck parking and littering. That truck was there, I took a picture of it, and that's a very common thing around here. When we designed our site plan, our intent was to minimize as many variances, as many administrative adjustments, as many things that would cause issues, and to really put our best foot forward. We're utilizing, this used to be the Horn Platte, there used to be a building here, Scott pointed out, and it was taken through eminent domain. We're utilizing an existing, access easement to enter and exit the site. We are providing a superior buffer width along MLK, 10 feet is required, we're providing 13 feet. And we're also taking that type C buffer around the east side of the property in excess of the code, which does not require that wall to wrap. But we feel that because there's vacant land next to this land, aesthetically it's going to look better if we do that, and so we are. The wall that we're going to build is going to be a nice precast wall that's going to be painted. It is not going to be a block and stucco job. And again, this is a small in and out storage yard. This is not somewhere where people are going to be working. It's not somewhere where people are going to stay. We're literally going to pull in, drop something off, and leave. And it is not open to the public. The crown jewel of this project, in my eyes, is the landscaping. And as Scott pointed out, that's a very big part of the compatibility with the comprehensive plan. There are 13 trees that we are providing as a part of our landscape plan, 12 are required. Do more trees, but we do have a limitation on the amount of trees we can fit on the site because we have underground utilities along MLK as well as overhead utilities. But what we do not have in trees, we make up for in shrubs. There are 15 shrubs required. We're providing 133. Over half of those are pitch apple clusias and we have some firebush and saw palmetto making up the difference. And those all are concentrated along the frontage on MLK so that this really looks good when you're driving by. We also have added three feet of buffer to the MLK facing side so we can put six palm trees inside of the wall so that when you're driving and looking at it, you'll see your ground cover, your shrubs, you'll see the wall, and then there'll be palm trees over the wall. It'll really look good when it is done. And we have done this before. Above the picture on the top is our old is our current facility, and the picture above is what it looked like before we built. There was grass, you could see the outdoor storage that didn't need any buffers behind the building. And there were vagrants living on the land at certain times. And below is our facility, and these are not doctored images, these are Google Street View images that anybody here can look at. So in summary, we feel that we, and by the way, I've kind of combined the variances and special exceptions in my presentation because they kind of go hand in hand for us. If we don't get one, we don't get the other, but I realize that procedurally the board needs to hear each individually and discuss each individually. But we do feel we meet the criteria for the special exception as well as the variances. Scott already went over the compatibility with the comprehensive plan. I do want to add one thing to that though. There is policy 01.23.04, which states consider the effects of land use and zoning decisions on the marine industry. We are a marine industry company, we are a very important part of the marine industry ecosystem down here. Not only will this help us grow, help us succeed and eliminate a pain point that we have, but this will help a lot of other marine businesses in Pompano Beach. We are kind of the life savers for brokers, boat dealers, Marina's service guys, when they can't get help from the manufacturer, they turn to us and we deal with it every day. So I really appreciate the time tonight and if you have any questions, I am happy to answer them. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Does the board have any questions?

Yeah, I just got a few. Go ahead. So you're going to have lights in there or anything? You said no one's going to stay there.

We are going to have video surveillance. We are going to have access control. We are going to have lighting. It's going to satisfy all of the code required things that as far as and so on and so forth. All of that will be there, yes.

It'll be gated, locked.

Gated, locked, yes, absolutely. Excellent, thank you.

Any other board members have any questions?

I have a quick question that I'm just curious about. When you say outdoor storage, a lot of the items that you just mentioned are quite expensive. Are they covered in any way?

Frankly, it sounds expensive, but There is no reason for someone to steal a satellite TV dome for a yacht. It's basically a big piece of fiberglass that, and frankly, anything we keep at this outdoor storage facility is something that, apart from the trailers which are insured, is something that we're not going to lose any sleep over if it gets stolen, but we do genuinely feel like with all of the video surveillance the um the lighting the access control that we're not going to have issues with theft in our current facility a quarter mile down the road we have never had anybody break into our our facility or into our parking lot and that's it's been about five years now i appreciate that i was just more curious too though aside from theft but are you covering them with tarps like is it like what

How are you storing it, essentially?

A satellite TV dome, for instance, would be stored, bolted to a pallet, and it would be stored outside. I mean, these are outside in the open air, on the ocean, getting rained on, salt water, etc. They are made to be outside.

So you're not storing anything like- They're electronics that are on boats that when necessary- No, absolutely not.

We have 10,000 square feet to store that stuff. This is for the things that take up a lot of room but could be stored outside.

Thank you. Yes. Any other board members have any questions? Hearing not, can I have a motion, please?

Motion.

Madam Chair, this is a public hearing.

That's right, I'm sorry. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for this petition? Anyone in the audience to speak against this petition? Hearing none, public hearing closed. Thank you, Meredith.

In PNZ case 261700007, I move that we find there is competent and substantial evidence in the record that all requirements for granting the special exception have been met and that we grant the special exception subject to three conditions requested by staff.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Okay, I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion from the board? I would just like to make one comment.

Thank you very much for taking the consideration of the surrounding areas and people that come in there to go above and beyond what you're doing with that because we have certain facilities in the area that people don't do that and residents have to look at that on a daily basis or drive by it. So as a long-term citizen of Pompano, I appreciate you stepping forward and stepping up your program.

Absolutely, I wouldn't do it any other way. We're very proud of the facility we built, and we want to continue to do that.

And thank you for that. Absolutely. Further questions or discussion? Meredith, would you call the roll, please?

Joe Circusi?

Yes.

Rick Bunn?

Yes.

Karen Berger? Yes. Michael McCormack?

Yes.

Linda Thomas? Yes. Charlotte Berry?

Yes. Special exception granted. Thank you. Now we'll go on to the variants, B and Z 26, 11000018. Mr. Stein, I'm sorry, you have to state your name and again for the record.

That's okay. Julian Maxwell Stein, do you need my address as well? Yes, please. 1114 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard, Pompano Beach, Florida 33069.

Thank you, that's in case the tape gets broken. Perfect.

Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Reale, it's yours. Yes, and I'll make. This staff report, very brief because a lot of it is duplicative from the special exception. But in this case, the applicant landowner requests variances from the Pompano Beach Zoning Code in order to facilitate development of a vacant property for principal outdoor storage as follows. The first is from section 1513402C. which is to allow a 6,074 square foot lot to be developed in lieu of the minimum 10,000 square foot lot area required by code. And the second variance request, Section 155.5102 , which is to reduce the minimum required parking number of spaces from one to zero. So again, Just to summarize, the existing lot area was created through eminent domain rather than the actions of the landowner. That's why it's 6,000 square feet now. And with respect to the parking variance, the applicant has stated that there's no business actually being conducted there. No employees or customers will be stationed at the site. There is no need for parking, and it's such a small, constrained site that you really need all usable space for the storage. So again, this is a variance. There are eight variance review standards. Should the board determine that the applicant has provided competent and substantial evidence to satisfy those eight review standards, staff recommends the board include the following conditions. as part of the order. One, obtain all necessary governmental permits and approvals, including site plan building and zoning compliance permits. Two, development shall be in substantial compliance with the site plan submitted with this variance application and associated site plan application PNZ number 26-12000016. Three, approval of the associated special exception application, which is 26170000. 07 shall be required prior to commencement of the outdoor storage use and the fourth recommended staff condition approval of these variances shall not be construed as approval of any other deviation from the requirements of the pompano beach zoning code and that concludes my report thank you mr stein would you like to say anything further on the variance part since you kind of put everything all together but

I don't have much else to say. We genuinely feel like we meet all of the review standards for the variants. And I would just hope that if there is any question about that, that we can have a discussion about it.

Thank you. Does the board members have any question?

Okay, this- I have a quick question, sorry, for procedural. Do we have to do two motions?

Yeah.

I'm asking because there's two variances. Do we need separate motions?

You need two separate motions.

Thank you.

Okay. We'll call one variance number one, and we'll call the other one variance number two. Okay? But does the board have any questions of the petitioner? Okay. This is a public hearing. Anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for the petitioner? Anyone in the audience to speak against this petition? Public hearing closed. If there's no further questions from the board, let's have a motion for variance number one.

Variance number one. In PNZ 2611000018, I move that they find competent and substantial evidence in the record that all requirements for the granting the variance have been met and that we grant the variance subject to four conditions requested by staff.

It may offer suggestion that it be three since you've already approved the special exception.

I will take back and make it three conditions requested by staff.

Scott said it. Do I have a second, please?

Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion from the board? Hearing none, Meredith, please call the roll.

Joe Circusi? Yes. Karen Berger? Yes. Rick Bunn?

Yes.

Michael McCormack?

Yes.

Linda Thomas. Yes. Charlotte Burry.

Yes. Okay. If there are no further questions, I don't have to open up another public hearing. We did that, right? Okay. Are there any further questions from the board on variance number two? Hearing none, may I have a motion?

Motion. On variance number two, in P&Z case 2611000018, I move that we find that there's competent and substantial evidence in the record that all the requirements for granting the variance have been met, and that we grant the variance subject to one condition requested by staff.

Three.

Three. The fourth one was a special exception, but Scott read it, and that's why. Okay, we have the motion. Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion from the board? Hearing none, Meredith, please call the roll.

Joe Sarkozy? Yes. Karen Berger? Yes. Rick Bunn? Yes. Michael McCormack? Yes. Linda Thomas? Yes. Charlotte Burry?

Yes. Your variances and your special exception were granted and I look forward to seeing those beautiful trees on MLK.

Thank you for supporting our vision and I promise there will be no tarps on the site.

Thank you. Thank you. Have a great evening. You too. Item number four is a variance. Delson Silva, P&Z number 11000019.

Good evening. Good evening, Madam Chair, Vice Chair, members of the board, city staff, city attorney. I'm Fernando Leyva, residing at 3110 Northwest 95th Avenue in Coral Springs, Florida 33065. Thank you. I'm here representing the applicant and land owner, Mr. Delson Silva, on the variance before you.

Okay, thank you very much. Mr. Reale.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening again, everyone. In this case, the applicant landowner requests a variance from section 155, 3204C of the Pompano Beach Zoning Code, which establishes the intensity and dimensional standards for properties within the RS3 zoning district. The requested variance would permit an existing addition to the principal dwelling to encroach 4 feet 9 inches into the required 7-foot interior side yard setback, resulting in an interior side yard setback of 2 feet 3 inches. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Northeast 50th Street and Northeast 17th Drive within the Pompano Beach Highlands subdivision. Although original building permits could not be located, available records indicate the subject property was developed with a single family residence in the late 1950s. Historic aerial imagery and property records indicate that a breezeway enclosure and a modest residential addition were constructed in the early 1970s. The Highlands neighborhood was annexed into the city of Pompano Beach in 2004. Code compliance case number 26-06000562 indicates that an attached covered patio was constructed without first obtaining the required permits. The submitted survey and site plan show the covered patio is located approximately 2 feet 3 inches from the interior side property line. As the covered patio is attached to the principal dwelling, it is considered part of the principal structure and therefore required to comply with the minimum seven foot interior side yard setback. Broward County property appraiser aerial imagery indicates that the covered patio was not present in 2024 imagery, but first appears in 2025 imagery. Although the conceptual site plan also depicts an interior addition to the residence, that portion of the structure complies with all applicable setback requirements and is not part of this variance request. The variance application was submitted in response to the active code compliance case as part of the process necessary to address the setback deficiency before pursuing the required permits. The Bureau of Fire Prevention has reviewed the requested variance and does not support the request as currently submitted. Fire prevention staff indicates that the proposed approximately two foot setback from the property line would not provide adequate fire separation from the existing structure on the adjacent property and would not provide sufficient access for firefighting operations or laddering along the south side of the structure. The applicant states that the corner lot configuration contributes to the claimed hardship because the property is subject to both a 25-foot required front yard setback and a 15-foot required street side yard setback, reducing the available building envelope. Corner lots within portions of the Pompano Beach Highlands and Cresthaven neighborhoods are subject to similar setback requirements that may reduce the available building area compared to interior lots. The board must determine whether these circumstances constitute the type of extraordinary and exceptional conditions contemplated by the variance criteria and whether any such conditions are independent of the construction undertaken without the required permits. Permanent research indicates that there is one open building permit. It's from 056454 for a brick paver driveway. This permit is unrelated to the act of code compliance case and is not the subject of this variance request. Approval of this variance would authorize only the requested reduction in the required interior side yard setback for the attached covered patio. It would not legalize work performed without permits or waive compliance with applicable building code requirements. Should the board determine that the applicant has provided competent and substantial evidence to satisfy the eight variance review standards, staff recommends that the board include the following conditions as part of the order. There are four of them. The first, the applicant shall obtain all necessary governmental permits and approvals, including building and zoning compliance permits. Two, the applicant shall substantially comply with the plans submitted with this variance application. Any enlargement or modification of the attached covered patio or other improvements affecting the approved setback shall require separate review and approval. Three, the applicant shall obtain closure of all open building permits and resolve all outstanding code compliance violations to the satisfaction of the city prior to issuance of a certificate of completion or certificate of occupancy as applicable. And the fourth recommended staff condition approval of this variance shall not be construed as approval of any other structures or improvements that do not comply with the requirements of the Pompano Beach zoning code. And before I conclude, I'd like to acknowledge that with us tonight is Mr. Mario Sotolongo, our code compliance director, and he will be available for any questions related to that code compliance case. That concludes my report.

Yes, before you present your case, I would like Mr. Sotolongo to come up and

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the Board, Mario Sotolongos, City of Palm Point Beach Code Compliance Director. As Scott mentioned earlier, we have an open case. This case was generated by the Building Department, Inspector Carlos Puentes, and is for work conducted without permits. So should the Board be inclined to approve the variance, that will provide then the avenue for the applicant to secure a permit and legalize the structure.

Now, okay, and this, the building department notified you what year? 2020, 24, 2025?

This case was opened in 2026.

2026, okay. Thank you, Mario. You're very welcome. Actually, I'm sorry, does any other board member have any questions of Mr. Salon? Mario, okay, no. Please present your case.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Staff, I think it's been, the report is very well written. And let me just tell you first off that we do agree with the facts within the report, the staff report. And we also agree with the conditions that have been stated in such a document. Just to give you a little bit of context, Mr. Silva, The land owner, which is the subject of the variance, bought the house back in 2024. In 2023, the previous year, his wife died and he became really sick. I wish he was here. I was on the phone right before getting into the chambers, but I don't know. I haven't been able to communicate with him. And so as part of that, of his illness, he needed to move to a bigger place, and he found a house within the Highline subdivision. And they all admitted, members of the family, including himself, that it was a big oversight to go ahead and build the attached outdoor structure, which is really a patio, a covered patio and kitchen. He needed that because he saw that he needed to live with his daughter and her family to take care of him. So that is to give you a little bit of context. they fully realize that it was such a big oversight, they're willing to comply with the code to the fullest. And so that is the reason that we are here. As part of the application, we submitted a survey site plan and additional documentation and we believe that the review standards have been met and I'll be happy to go through each one by one in order to kind of give you a feel as to what is being thought out as part of the process. So please allow me to go ahead and look at my notes and And just to explain to you as to how we feel that we have met the review standards for the variance. Once again, the applicant land owner is seeking a variance from section 155, 3204 C of the Pompadour Beach Code to reduce the interior side yard setback from seven feet to approximately two feet and three inches. Part of it has been walking through the outdoor Kitchen or patio, there's a portion of it that is about 2 feet and 4 inches and just coming to 1 of the corners. It's about 2 feet and 5 inches, but for the most part, it's about. 2 feet and 3 inches, as you know, not a whole lot of the of the. of the site property line is not as straightforward, and that is, I think, the difference between the 2-3 and 2-6 feet as you walk through the structure. Going back to the applicable standards of review for this request. One more. So the number one standard is whether or not we feel that there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions And we do feel that there are some extraordinary conditions. Unique development standards applicable to corner lots as compared to similarly sized interior lots is limiting somehow the fact that the land owner is gonna be able to enjoy as much buildable land as people within the interior lots will do. Standard number two, the extraordinary and exceptional conditions referred to in paragraph A are not the results of the action of the land owner. The exceptional conditions identified in this application are inherent to the property and were not created by the land owner. The applicant has not come to the condition, but it has been passed upon the applicant. Standard number three, because of the extraordinary and exceptional conditions referred to in paragraph A, the application of this code to the land or structure for which the variance is sought would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the land or structure and result in unnecessary and undue hardship. We feel that because there are constraints, because of the rear yard is already constrained by a utility easement. And the street side yard being a 15 foot setback, the only side of the house is really the side yard which provide a practical area for any extension or any addition to be added onto the house. And that's how we feel we made that particular review standard. The next one is, which I believe is number four. The variance would not confer any special privilege on the land owner that is denying two other lands or structures that are similarly situated. Madam Chair, members of the board, approval of this variance, and we do respectfully ask for your support on this variance, but approval of this variance would not create an unfair advantage over similarly situated properties, but merely restores a reasonable development opportunity comparable to that enjoyed by interior lots. I've been in this field for over 35 years, Madam Chair, members of the board. And one of your duties really is to strike some equity between development and regulation. And given the conditions of the last few years, not only within the state of Florida, within our county, within Pompano Beach, but also within the country as a whole, looking at ways to afford property owners to be able to stay within their homes and enjoy their properties without having to incur into any additional expenses. If anything, this particular property As you can look at the picture, I understand it's before you on your monitors. If you look at it, it really blends with the character of the neighborhood. It really does blend with the property itself. And they're willing to do whatever is going to be addressed within the building codes, meeting the building codes. They're willing to be in compliance with the Pompano Beach regulations as a whole. The next review standard is whether or not the extent of the variance is the minimum necessary to allow a reasonable use of the land or a structure. And we feel that the requesting variance really represents the minimum relief necessary to accommodate a customary residential access or improvement, given the properties on the practical area that affords functionality, privacy, and compliance with the remaining code requirements. Moving on, the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this code and preserves its spirit. The variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the residential zoning district, which is the RS3 zoning district. And once again, I think that after the fact, In addition, it will preserve the proper residential character, privacy, and outdoor living space. In fact, we go even furthermore, the request preserves the spirit of the code by granting only the minimum relief necessary to address the property's unique quarter lot constraints. The variance, this is I think the seventh review standard. The variance would not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, or otherwise be detrimental to the public welfare. And we believe that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties and improvements within the vicinity. Last but not least, the variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan in that we are going to be meeting all the building codes that are applicable to this structure, as has been shown on the site plan that was submitted along with the application. The property owner, once again, will obtain a building permit or any other development order for the structure soon after the granting of the variance. As to the fire prevention comments, we did receive the comments from fire prevention. Personally, I was a little bit surprised having worked with fire departments for so long. So the number one comment, it says, two foot setback would not provide proper fire separation between the proposed structure and existing structure located on the adjacent property. It goes further on to say NFPA standards minimum distance between structures should be 30 feet, which kind of goes against the codes that are stipulated within your zoning code. The number two comment from the fire department, it says a two-foot setback does not allow for sufficient access around the structure for firefighting operations. I find it very difficult that a fire truck is gonna choose to go through it a side property line as opposed to going from the front side or the side street. So in response to those comments, We're saying that in Pompidou Beach, Florida, spatial distance layouts and zoning requirements are governed by the City of Pompidou Beach zoning code, while the structural design is governed by the Florida building code. Compliance with exterior separation rules shall be based on the distance From the property line, not from the neighbor's house, which is subject to be changed at some point. So once again, it should be based on the distance from the property line. Building and fire codes use the property line to establish fire safety buffers. With that, I conclude my presentation, Madam Chair. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Does the board have any questions of the petitioner?

Yes. Okay. Scott, clear something up for me. I'm a little bit confused, which that's not unusual.

Where you're allowed.

The addition that we're talking about, was that done without a permit?

Yes, it was, yes.

Okay. Also, I went out and physically viewed the property. the things were there that we're talking about because i've been interested in that things like that and i noticed when we're talking about the type c buffer it's intended to provide separation visual screening between potentially incompatible uses and zoning districts and so forth if i read this correctly the required buffer for type c I didn't see where any of these things have been done out there. No vegetation has been planted, no trees.

Excuse me, what item are you talking on?

One on the industrial park.

No, sir, this gentleman put a patio on the back of his house.

Oh, okay, I'm sorry, because it was the same thing. Okay, I apologize.

Okay, we're all confused tonight. I'm sorry. Does anyone else have a question for the petitioner?

What's Adam? Go ahead. I just wanted clarification on something. Talk in the microphone. The patio is existing.

It is.

When was the patio added to the property?

I believe it was done in 2025.

In 25?

Towards the end of 2025, so it's been almost a year, that is my understanding. Okay.

Madam Chair? Yes. One of the items that I, again, maybe Scott can assist with the question. I noted that fire prevention made significant comments that led to this issue and we do not have representative here tonight and so one of the things this board may want to do is to defer the item until we can get until you can obtain that particular specialty person to respond to what I believe is integral to the spacing from the property line. Scott, am I wrong?

Yes, Mr. Sanders, because I live up there. I live in Crest Haven. This happens to be in the Highlands, and I know the neighborhood like the back of my hand. And houses were built back then not to the city of Pompano Beach code. And there's probably more than one house up there that has something like this going on naturally and with permits years ago or whatever. But that's up to the petitioner, too, if he wants to come back when we bring the fire department back. And what does the board think we should do? yeah because of the uh because of what the fire department you know at number seven for safety i believe that that should happen can i have a vote on the board do you want to bring this back in october and invite the fire department to come and and yes he has to decide to come back thank you for asking the question yes i i asked him first but i thought i would you know if you appreciate it

I'm thinking I'm due to be back from Seattle, Washington on the 13th of October, and I believe your meeting is on the 15th.

Yeah.

Should anything happen? prior to my returning from Seattle, would it be possible if I have the applicant landowner attend the meeting? Of course. Obviously, I'll do my best to be here, but in all honesty, I believe I will, but I'm not sure.

Of course the landowner can be here. I mean, because it would really be this board, and hopefully this board will be here in October, all of us, and... And it's really basically just get the fire department what they mean and get that straightened out. It just seems to be kind of a worry for us because, I don't know, Scott, I've been on this board for a long time. I've never seen one of these where the fire department has said what they said.

I understand why you're giving the points of what the fire department, but it would be better if the board heard from the fire department what their recommendation and why they recommended that it's not safe.

I'm sure my client would definitely comply with your request. But I believe what he was asking, if he couldn't get back from Washington in time, would it be okay if the owner of this house came in? And I said, of course. Of course, so you're in agreement. And please don't give him a hard time, just give him a good time. We won't give him a hard time, we're pretty nice.

You really are, you really are. I've been in meetings of this nature, and you all seem to be very calm.

We just don't want to vote on something and give you an answer that we're not sure of. Appreciate it, Mr- Being honest.

So I guess I need a motion and a second to... Motion to move this one to next month's meeting. October the 15th.

261100019. Yes, and there's a motion.

Do I have a second? I second it. Second. There shouldn't be any further discussion. Meredith, call the roll, please.

Joe Circusi?

Yes, to move it to next month.

Linda Thomas?

Yes, to move it to next month.

Karen Berger?

Yes, but can I ask a question? I'm sorry, I didn't get a chance. I know we want to hear from the fire department, but can we ensure that they will be here? Okay, I just want to make sure. Thank you. Yes.

Rick Budd?

Yes.

Micah McCormack?

Yes.

Charlotte Burry?

Yes. And we hope to see you in October. Thank you. If not, please tell Mr. Silva he's most welcome.

Good night.

Okay, good night.

And just for the record, this will not be re-noticed because it was to a date certain. That's correct. We'll just make sure that somebody from FIRE is here to explain their memo.

Okay. Item number five. It's a variance, PNZ 26-11000020. Good evening.

Good evening.

Please state your name.

Sure, Ryan Abrams, attorney for the applicant. Your address, please, sir. My address is 888 Southeast 3rd Avenue, Suite 400, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Thank you. Mr. Reale.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, members of the board and everyone in the audience. The applicant landowner requests a variance from section 1554303P3B of the Pompano Beach Zoning Code, which establishes the standards for specific accessory uses and structures. The requested variance would permit a garage addition to the principal dwelling to encroach 15 feet into the required 20 foot Street side yard setback for a garage resulting in a street side yard setback of five feet. The subject property is located at the western terminus of Dover Road on the barrier island and is bounded by North Riverside Drive along the west property line. The subject property contains approximately 0.32 acres and is developed with an existing single family residence within the RS2 zoning district. The waterfront property is located on a corner lot, again at the terminus of Dover Road and a Butts North Riverside Drive. along its west property line. Unlike most residential lots in the surrounding neighborhood, the parcel has an irregular configuration resulting from a partial abandonment of North Riverside Drive approved by the city in 1991. This modification occurred prior to the applicant's acquisition of the property and created the property's current boot shaped configuration. The applicant proposes to construct a two-story addition attached to the existing residence. The first floor will consist of approximately a 592 square foot expansion of the existing garage, while the second floor contains approximately 848 square feet accessory dwelling unit. Section 1554303P3B of the zoning code requires attached and detached garages to maintain a minimum of 20-foot street side yard setback. The proposed garage addition and second floor accessory dwelling unit would encroach up to 15 feet into the required setback, resulting in a minimum street side yard setback of five feet. According to the submitted site plan, the greatest encroachment occurs near the northern portion of the addition, while the amount of encroachment decreases as the western property line angles away from the proposed structure. Staff notes that the proposed addition would be located adjacent to North Riverside Drive, a local residential street. The public right-of-way provides additional physical separation between the proposed addition and the nearest residential property located west of North Riverside Drive. The applicant states that the requested variance is necessitated by the property's irregular shape, corner lot configuration, and the increased street side yard setback applicable to garages. The applicant further states that these conditions substantially reduce the available building envelope and limit opportunities to expand the existing residence. The applicant further states that alternative configurations were evaluated but would either require additional relief from other setback requirements or would not provide a functional addition to the existing residence. According to the applicant, the proposed addition was reduced in size in an effort to minimize the amount of variance requested while maintaining a reasonable residential improvement. The board should determine whether the property's irregular shape, corner lot configuration, and historic historical right-of-way modifications constitute the type of extraordinary and exceptional conditions contemplated by the variance review standards and whether those conditions were not created by the current landowner and whether the requested relief represents the minimum necessary to permit a reasonable use of the property. Approval of this variance would authorize only the requested reduction to the required street side yard setback for the proposed addition. Approval would not waive compliance with any other applicable provisions of the Pompano Beach Zoning Code, the Florida Building Code, or any applicable federal, state, county, or local regulations. Should the board determine that the applicant has provided competent and substantial evidence to satisfy the eight variance review standards, staff recommends the board include the following conditions as part of the order. There are four of them. One, obtain unnecessary governmental permits and approvals, including building and zoning compliance permits. Two, development shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted with this application. Three, the proposed accessory dwelling unit shall comply with all applicable standards of Section 1554303A3, except for the street side yard setback relief expressly granted by this variance. Approval should not be construed as granting relief from any other applicable accessory dwelling unit requirements, including but not limited to parking, maximum floor area, or access requirements. And the fourth recommended staff condition, approval of this variance, shall authorize only the requested reduction to the required street side yard setback for the proposed addition, and shall not be construed as approval of any other deviation from the requirements of the Pompano Beach Zoning Code. That concludes my report, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Reale. Please.

All right, thank you. Good evening to the Chair and the members of the Board. I'm going to go through our presentation to review the criteria and the variance. I'll try to breeze through that. Thank you, Mr. Reale, for your explanation. So this is a single-family home. It's on the barrier island. It's just north of 14th Street and south of Hillsboro Inlet. Just to give you some context, there's a, so this is a corner lot. And I'll just skip ahead here so you can see the the aerial images. So this is a corner lot and it's a unique quarter lot. And that's why I think variance is appropriate here, because part of the property, as you see on boats on to the south and the other property on the west side, the neighbor on the west. Years ago, early 90s were granted, I guess there was a abandonment granted of that right of way. It used to be, and there's another plot just like it across where the plot had a road just terminating at the water, but the city was, I suppose, requested by lot owners in the in 1990s to abandon a portion of that right away and the home was constructed on, a newer home was constructed and as a result, as you can see on the, that's the western lot. The result is it's a boot-shaped lot. It's atypical in shape. There's really none other like it around here. And it means that there are unique site constraints that lend this property as being suitable for a variance and unique in its conditions. So just some views of the property. Up top here is a view of the front of the property to the bottom. That's taken from the right-of-way terminus, the street terminus. It's really functionally more of a driveway. This is not a street that's used for through traffic. It's just used by the residents and guests of the three properties that are on either side of that that right of way terminus. So it's functionally like a driveway. So as I was showing the initial slide here, the standard that applies to corner lots for garages because the addition that's being proposed here is a it's a two story addition on the side of the house. The first floor of that addition is an expansion of the garage. There's currently a one-car garage at this property. It's pretty small. It's a 13,000 square foot lot, but there's only 2,200 square feet of living space, so it's a relatively small home, but there's nowhere to expand without violating setbacks on the property. So one of the issues also is because it's a corner property, it's subject to that 20-foot standard on the side, and the one-car garage already sits at a 15-foot setback. And so there's really nowhere to go. in order for them to build anywhere then they're they're going to need some kind of variance but the reason that the i bring up that that road terminus is functionally driveways because that standard is meant for corner properties that are on a street that has through traffic and that's really not what this is so i don't think that provision of the code has really tended to a part of this situation It's a 50-foot right-of-way, so it's a pretty big publicly dedicated right-of-way. The swale is really large. It's like 35 feet from the road edge to the current edge of the home. It would be... It would be approximately a 20-foot setback from the edge of the pavement and the proposed structure. So it would still functionally meet the intent of the code, which is 20 feet setback. There's large swale. Again, that road is never going to be expanded because it's not for through traffic. This just shows the various setbacks that apply here. We're looking at, so to the bottom portion of the image where you see multiple lines, those are the various setbacks. The one that's furthest out is a five-foot setback. Inward from that is a 15-foot setback, and then from that is a 20-foot setback. Again, it's a two-story structure. It's adding approximately 1,400 square feet of additional floor area. One of the things, Mr. Wagner, he's the owner of the property. Derek Wagner, he's here tonight. He's raised a son in this house. He's been here in Pompano for 13 years. Before that, he was in Fort Lauderdale, so South Florida native. He's looking to add this addition because his parents are going to be residing with them and this particular design best accommodates that need. It's not an option really to build on top of the existing residence. It's financially infeasible without going and just building on the side. The other thing is if you build on top of it, it's likely going to cause a violation of the 50% FEMA floodplain rule. So they would have to bring the whole property up and it would cause probably need to just demolish it and start over and build a whole new home. So that's not really a good option here. This is another view of the site plan, a relatively modest structure. It's proportionate, I would say, to the surrounding built environment. There are some newer homes going up that are larger, but many of these homes in this area are 1950s builds. They're not huge. They're all generally in the 2,000 square feet, 3,000 square feet range. And if a new home were to go here, the height limit's 35 feet, and the lot coverage for a building is 40%. And so you can get a pretty big structure on here that would be, I think the massing would be disproportionate with the surrounding built environment. And I think it would be out of place. What's being proposed here is modest and in keeping with what's typical for this area. This is a rendering to just show how this would appear. Again, modest, comparable to the surrounding built environment. It does not stand out in a way that impacts neighbors harshly. So there's eight criteria. I'll go through each one, try to move quickly here. Extraordinary and exceptional condition. That's the lot here, the lot shape. The boot-shaped lot is just an odd Situation we looked into the option of potentially just abandoning that right of way since it is only used for the private residences on all three sides. But that wasn't really an option. So variance really was was the only option. But because of that boot shaped lot, there's really nowhere else to build. It's a like I said, 13,000 square feet lot, but only 2200 square feet residents. That's less than 25% when the lot coverage maximum is 40%. So it's significantly underdeveloped for what the potential really is, and that's really because of the unique site constraints of this boot-shaped lot. Not the result of the landowner, It was abandoned by the city. It's been the owner purchased well after it was abandoned in the 90s. So simply looks to make reasonable use of the property with the conditions that the landowner did not create undue hardship. So in order for the owner to get, you know, reasonable use of the land, again, 2200 square feet, foot home, small for this lot. One car garage is small in order to be able to accommodate an additional one car garage to make it two car garage and to be able to have additional living area. It's necessary to build out, and there's really nothing to do there other than violate a setback somewhere. The rear setback is 25 feet. The front setback is 25 feet, I believe, also, or 20 or 25 feet. And so there's nowhere else to go but sideways, really. And you can't go on the other side because there's already a 7.5-foot setback, it looks like. No spread, no special privileges being granted here. That's the other criteria. There's already been a variance granted for the home right across the street. That variance took into account the normal side setback, which was 7.5 feet. The normal side setback. There's a policy argument. That's what really should apply here because functionally, I would say it's a driveway, like I said, so we're being held to a higher standard as if it's a road that carries through traffic, which is not what it really is, but We have a property across that was granted a variance for a four point, I think four foot setback. I'll get into that with the next slide. That was a variance that was granted in 1995. So that was a 4.4 side yard setback. And here it's a five foot setback that we're proposing. So that's more than has already been granted to a neighborhood property owner. And so no special privileges being granted here. It is the minimum necessary. There was previously a larger design, but we did reduce it to try to get to the minimum footprint that made sense and that was feasible. Only the portion, as Mr. Reale said earlier, at the corner of this structure is actually violating a setback. And for that, we need it. It's not for the entire structure, so it is the minimum necessary. And it's in harmony with the code. That's where I mentioned earlier that there's a large grassy swale there, as you can see, and that's not going anywhere. That's actually maintained by Mr. Wagner, as every property owner nearby swale in the city is responsible for doing. And the result of this structure being put in is there will still be a 20 foot setback from the edge of pavement. So in all appearances, it will look like a normal setback. No adverse impact on the neighborhood. This is a dead end street and neighbors are not opposed. We have letters from four neighbors, one right across the street, in support of this project, in support of the design that's before you tonight. Four neighbors that have submitted their consent acknowledgements that we requested that they kindly sign and they did. Lastly, we need to show that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan and the comprehensive plan does contemplate that the zoning code accommodate designs with unique approaches like staggered setbacks and the preservation of established single family neighborhoods. Instead of this home being demolished and something new and potentially out of context built, we're preserving uh the neighborhood character here and just adding to it to update it and to allow the property owner to make reasonable use of the property by having his his parents move in and so we would respectfully submit that the competent substantial evidence in the record before you supports that a variance should be granted on this record and happy to answer any questions that you may have mr wagner i'm sure would be happy to to address any thank you very much does the board have any questions

Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for this variance? Were there anybody in this audience to speak against it? Public hearing closed.

Any questions from the board?

With no questions, let's have a motion.

I'll motion. In PNZ case 26-11000020, a move we find there is competent and substantial evidence in the record that all the requirements for granting the variance have been met and that we grant the variance subject to the four conditions requested by staff.

Thank you. Do I have a second? I second. Any other discussion from the board? Meredith, please call the roll.

Karen Berger? Yes. Linda Thomas?

Yes.

Rick Bunn?

Yes.

Michael McCormack?

Yes.

Joe Circusi? Yes. Charlotte Burry?

Yes. Thank you very much. It's been granted. You have a good evening. Now I'm going to ask the board, would you like to take a recess? Okay. We are now reconvening the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, and we will begin by item number six, P&Z number 26, 11000015. Variants from Pompano 450 LLC. Good evening.

Good evening. How are you? My name is Kyle. May you M. A. I. L. L. O. U. X. Address is 1110 Southeast 3rd Avenue in Fort Lauderdale. And we are here tonight to discuss the subject property.

Are you going to speak, sir? Okay, before Mr. Reale reads into the record, I want to make it clear on the record that I was contacted by a citizen by text and by phone today on this item. Did any other board members contact you?

Yes, I'd like to make it known that I've been contacted by a resident in the area.

Same here.

Karen Berger also via text.

Yes, also.

And I was contact.

Okay.

There you go, Mr. Reale. It's all yours. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening again, everyone. In this case, the applicant landowner is requesting a variance from section 155-5203-F3 of the Pompano Beach zoning code in order to reduce the required type C perimeter buffer along the south and west property lines, which abut the Highland scrub natural area from 25 feet to 20 feet. and 2.5 feet, respectively, on the existing industrial site to accommodate necessary vehicular circulation, parking, access to existing vehicular bays, and garbage removal. The subject property is located along the west side of the 4300 block of Northeast 11th Avenue in the Highlands. The subject property is located at 4301 Northeast 11th Avenue and is developed with a 12,700 square foot industrial building in the I-1 zoning district with an underlying industrial land use designation. The building was constructed around 1980 and the most recent site and landscape plan of record dates back to 2003 prior to the 2004 annexation of the Highlands area into the city. The property is situated within an area containing a mix of industrial, residential, and park-related zoning use districts. The south and west property lines directly abut the Highlands Scrub Natural Area. The applicant requests a variance from the Type C perimeter buffer requirements along the south and west property lines. Specifically, the applicant proposes to reduce the required 25-foot to 20 feet along the south property line and 2.5 feet along a portion of the west property line. According to the application, the requested reductions are necessary to maintain vehicular circulation, parking, access to existing vehicular bays, and garbage collection operations associated with the existing industrial development. And again, according to the applicant, the existing building and associated site improvements were developed under a site configuration that relied in part on an unpaved alleyway along the western side of the property. The applicant states that the alleyway was subsequently vacated by Broward County in 1999, thereby reducing the area available for vehicular circulation around the building. The applicant further states that approximately 26 feet and two inches exists between the western wall of the building and the west property line and contends that compliance with the full 25 foot buffer requirement would leave insufficient area to accommodate the functional vehicular access and on-site operations. With respect to the extent of the requested relief, the applicant contends that the proposed reductions represent the minimum necessary to maintain reasonable use and operation of the existing industrial site. The applicant states that the minimum 20-foot circulation aisle is necessary to provide access around portions of the building, including access to the existing vehicular bays and on-site garbage collection area. The required type C buffer is intended to provide separation and visual screening between potentially incompatible uses and zoning districts. Because the requested reductions occur along property lines adjoining the Highland scrub natural area, the board should consider whether the proposed reduction in buffer width would remain consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning code. And whether it could adversely affect the adjacent natural area or surrounding properties. The applicant contends that the affected areas are located along the side and rear of the property and are not visible from the public right of way. The applicant further contends that maintaining adequate vehicular circulation would improve the functionality and safety of the existing site. Should the Board determine that the applicant has provided competent substantial evidence to satisfy the eight variance review standards, staff recommends the Board include the following conditions as part of the order. One, the applicant shall obtain all necessary governmental permits and approvals, including building and zoning compliance permits prior to the commencement of construction. Two, development shall be in substantial compliance with the site plan submitted in support of this various variance application, including the site plan associated with building permit application 25-3751. Three, the approved reductions to the Type C perimeter landscape buffer shall be limited to the specific areas depicted on the plans submitted in support of this variance application. And the fourth recommended staff condition, approval of this variance shall not be construed as approval of any other deviation from the requirements of the pompano beach zoning code it should be noted uh... that there is an active code case twenty five dash zero nine zero zero one one zero zero uh... tied to the subject property for work done without permits and uh... mario so long ago fees here can um can speak further on that if if you so request it um additionally i do want to point out that we did receive four letters of opposition and one was from the south florida audubon society and they have asked that the matter be postponed until broward county parks and recreation and appropriate county environmental staff have received the proposal and provided written comments concerning the impacts of the Highland scrub natural area. But I do want to point out that the county was sent a mailed notice of this variance request, as we're all owners of real property within 500 feet of the subject property, and they have not yet provided any written comments to date. That concludes my report. Happy to answer any questions. Again, Mario is here. Thank you.

Yeah. Before you make your presentation, Mario, Mr. Sotolongo.

Good evening Madam Chair, members of the board, Mario Sotolongo, City of Point Huapiniche Code Compliance Department. As Scott mentioned earlier, we have an open case for work conducted without permits. The case has already been heard by a special magistrate and three extensions have been granted to accommodate the permit process. This case is coming back before the magistrate on October 2nd, I believe. I mean, to be complied by October 2nd. Should you be inclined to approve the variance, then that will open the possibility for permits.

Excuse me, Mario, but could you please tell me what the code violations for that was done without a permit?

Okay, so there were three items on the case. One for electrical work conducted without permits. Number two, for the parking area, expanded and resurfaced with our permits. And interior work conducted with our permits. I believe item one and three are already covered under permit 25, 37, 52. So all that is left is the parking area.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. You're very welcome.

Thank you very much. Oh, does any other board member got any questions in the area?

No.

Thank you. Please go ahead with your presentation, sir.

Yes, thank you. So we have on the screen here, we have the proposed site.

Please speak into the microphone.

So yes, on the screen here, we have the proposed site plan. I would like to make mention that this site plan was developed after several meetings with zoning and landscape staff to try to accommodate the needs for the owner, Mr. Saba. Mr. Saba operates his business out of this building and employs nearly 50 employees that primarily live in Pompano. And I think the main issue that we are requesting a variance for is on the west side of the building. As Mr reality mentioned, this is where there was a vacated alley and there was a prior approved site plan for this property that showed not just. More access on that side, but also parking and a dumpster area. So we are actually. proposing to reduce what was previously approved historically in an attempt to accommodate the new zoning code. And as Mr. Yali mentioned, we are requesting a variance for the Type C landscape buffer. So on the west side of the property, we are proposing a fence as required by the type C landscape buffer with landscaping as required by the type C landscape buffer up until the point where it does narrow down to about two and a half feet that we're requesting the variance for. So on that west side, we will be providing as much of the landscaping as we can as required by the Type C landscape buffer, as well as the fence that is required by the landscape buffer. And to just reiterate what Mr. Riley had mentioned, the required 25-foot landscape buffer on that west side would not permit vehicular access to the entirety of the site and allow the site to operate as it needs to to provide as an industrial building as it's zoned. The other variance that we're part of the variance that we're requesting is on the south side of the property. In that location, we are requesting to reduce the landscape buffer down to 20 feet, which is actually an administratively approved reduction. It's really the west side reduction that has us here tonight. But on that south side, we are proposing a 20-foot landscape buffer, again, with the required fence and all of the required landscape on that side. I don't know. Yeah, so we do have, I mean, we have a rendering here of, you know, depicting what the fence with the landscape is gonna look like. You know, again, we are maintaining on that south side the full landscape requirements and fence, and on the west side, we are maintaining all of the landscape requirements up until that part where it narrows on the northwest corner of the building. I have full responses to all of the seven points, but I think this summarizes what we need, what we need the variance for, and why we feel that it's approvable. Would you like to say anything?

Good evening. Thank you all. My name is Michael Saber. The last name is S-A-B-A 4301 Northeast 11th Avenue, Pompano Beach 33408. Since I bought the building, I've made improvements to the building, which they say in deteriorate that there were things done without permits. After applying for permits and plumbing permits and electrical permits, not only did they come in and see it, they said it was not necessary. Changing out a toilet, there was no need to put a plumbing permit there. On the outside of the building, we did nothing but lighting. The wall pack lighting on the building, they needed a permit. That was it. That was taken care of. All those permits were closed. On the south side of the building, there was asphalt with grass growing through it, and the building was in disarray for many, many years. The person I bought the building from was there from 1977, owned a printing company. The gentleman was a really nice guy. His name was Dennis, but he never did a thing. The parking lot was in disarray. There was no lighting on the building. The building looked like an abandoned building. On the south side of the building, which we're talking about now, was an abandoned street years ago. It was New Jersey Avenue, which was abandoned. And it was a road, which then grew grass through it because he never did anything. But there's six bay doors there that he was getting deliveries, which we need to get deliveries. It's an industrial building. So in that defense, that's where we are. I've had maybe six different meetings with the city, a lot of it in different things. And listen, I'm all about improving. I own another property in Pompano. I employ a lot of people in Pompano Beach. We bought an industrial building to bring revenue. My real estate taxes are now about $77,000 this year, which I pay to the city and employ a lot of people. I think as a property owner of an industrial building, I notice a lot of people here tonight, for whatever reason, my building is kept very well. Landscaping is cut, garbage is picked up, it's well lit. It looks like, I don't know if anybody's been there, but the building is kept very well. And I would always accommodate any neighbor which had any complaint about anything that was going on that I can do. Unfortunately, it's an industrial building, and I can't control the traffic that would come in into an industrial building like deliveries. I mean, there's a marble guy next door that delivers marble, and there's another business next to that. It's unfortunate, but it's commercial, it's industrial. With that said, i'll leave it to uh to you guys to make a decision and uh if you have any questions i'm here to answer thank you thank you thank you thank you you finished yes yes okay does the board have any questions

Okay, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on behalf of the petitioner? Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak against this petition? Come forward to the microphone.

okay now have you been sworn in yes okay and do exactly what they did state your name spell your last name and your address please my name is speak into that my name is andrew ladnowski i live at 4330 northeast 11th avenue pompano beach i try to be a good neighbor i'm opposed to this project i actually appreciated once mike on for allowing me once to borrow his parking so i feel bad that i have to come on this discussion. There was no asphalt before in this place. This was coral rock that was fresh, and he was right. He did improve the aesthetics on the outside of the building because it did look rough. There was coral rock and grass, just kind of like what mine is, it's sand and rock. I don't recommend this. There's not one tree or shrub on that property. So even in industrial area, there's no vegetation, no fencing, no hedging, nothing on the interior. I was the gentleman that sent the text to everyone, so public disclosure. And I tried to attempt to send you another picture where we're not even unloading the trucks where he's saying we're unloading them, we're actually unloading them on the street. I just sent you guys a video where we have a loader that's unloading on the actual street. So we need to kind of work on addressing that issue. It's a little misleading that one picture that you have in that presentation. where it shows the truck having to make that turn to get to the back of the building, a little misleading because those are parking spaces that he's designated. So is it a fire lane or is it a parking lot? So if it's a parking lot, when there's a fire, are you gonna call tow truck and pull all the cars out of the parking lot and then allow the fire trucks to get access to the back of the building? So there's a little bit of misleading. I mean, I think we need to go pause on this for a moment take a look at what the real requirements are, have something a little documented better with the, you know, some easement that we're talking about, the fire department for, I think, a previous person, need to have that redrawn to show that, hey, is this place, you know, does he have a safe place to unload his trucks? He should, I agree, on his existing format. The other concern, Hannah, is obviously if you're increasing that parking, it's really increased, we've never had this volume of traffic in our neighbourhood that it's been used to this density. So it'd be almost like if someone's, and we also have like a, you know, so it's been really expanded, the use of this property compared to the previous owners. It was 40 years, I guess the term that you guys had, I forgot the term that someone used on this property. Oh, shoot. undue hardship without relief. The neighborhood has got the hardship because it's really increased the traffic, and the traffic is parked sometimes on the street to unload and get into this bay as opposed to his trucks parking into his parking lot, which is space. Currently, even if he had the easement removed, even though he had the less space. Sorry, because I lost my sign.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Good evening, my name is Patricia Colon and I live at 4261 Northeast 11th Terrace. And I've lived in that area for the last almost 25 years. So the traffic is a real big problem with the people that deliver the trucks. They come down, I live on the next street over from 11th Avenue, so I live on 11th Terrace. So a lot of times they'll come and they'll make a mistake because we're all dead ends on that line. So they'll come down thinking that that's a side street that they can go down to the warehouses there. I don't know if it's his warehouse specifically, but I know it contributes to it. So we're really concerned about the traffic because now they come down our street and then they have to back up. and we have a lot of kids that live on our street right now, so it's a problem. And also, I'm really concerned about the reserve, the scrub area, because what's to say that, okay, if you take one section of that reserve and say, okay, I need a parking lot for that, what's to say that, okay, do you need, what else do you need on that? A garage on the next part, and to take out more and more of the scrub area. So I'm really concerned about that as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes ma'am.

Hi everyone, I'm Brandy Zabitol. I live within the Pompano Beach Highlands. I am president of the Pompano Beach Highlands Civic Improvement Association and I am here in support of my residents who live within my community. This has become a major hazardous area where the cars are not able to pass. There are kids in this area. the through traffic is becoming really uncontrollable. I understand that this is Designated a industrial area. This is our home. This is our quality of life And it seems like you've maybe outgrown the space for what you hope to do And i'm very happy for you that your your business is wildly successful However, this is our neighborhood and we have to live here And so if we continue to allow this it's going to continue to be a problem So in addition to that we also have the nature scrub right there and I to echo what the person before me said if we if we encroach on their land and we say that this is okay what's to stop them from moving forward it's just a fence for now but the whole entire property is concrete there are no trees the cars do not park in the parking lot and it's it's become a really big nuisance within my community so i hope that you hear what we're saying because this is our quality of life thank you i am sir thank you good evening everyone

Good evening, everyone. Thank you for your time. My name is Guilherme Serra. I live in 1130 Northeast 42nd Court, Pompano Beach 33064. I'm also a resident, so I have a couple of houses in that area. Yes, it has increased the traffic tremendously, and they do not park where they're supposed to. I actually have a picture here, if I can show it to you, of the truck being unloaded. May I approach the bench? I think that's the picture. Yeah, we got the picture. Everybody has this picture? Okay. Like the gentleman mentioned, yes, he has increased. He has over 50 employees. That's 50 cars more than what we have right now. The trucks, they do not respect the right of way, where they're supposed to come through. They come in every direction, in any directions. We do have kids that play on the streets nowadays. We still have those. And they're staying home because of the fear of the trucks and the traffic that has been increasing. So we please ask you to consider this, not allow this to happen. It already started wrong. They paved roads they were not supposed to. And that goes on and on. Thank you for your time. Excuse me.

Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Public hearing closed. Sir, you have your rebuttal.

Yes, please. Thank you. So first, I'd like to mention that all of the landscaping that that is proposed is still just proposed. It's not installed yet. So I understand that there's not a lot of landscape on the property now, but that is part of what we're proposing. I believe it's somewhere around 12 trees and 50 shrubs or some somewhere along that line to have the details of the landscape plan. Additionally, all of this is being contained on the property that's owned by the owner there is nothing touching the preserve it's all within the property line we're not we're not proposing anything outside the property line or in the preserve certainly not And I think kind of the bigger item here is if this variance doesn't get approved and we're forced to comply with the 25-foot landscape buffer, it's going to actually further complicate the truck delivery. And you're going to have trucks that are backing out of the site and backing down the road. So we're trying to do everything that we can to improve vehicular circulation within the constraints of the... of the code and request these variances to allow that to continue to happen thank you yes sir

i'm just going to comment on first of all i understand all their concerns the the block doesn't just have me on it as a business owner there's a marble delivery company that gets deliveries all day long with granite and marble and so on and next to him as well they have cars parked everywhere we're parked in our parking lot As far as landscape and beautifying the building, I think Scott has been at a few meetings. I've been asking to do that. I want to put new landscaping in the front. On the north side of the building, they're asking me to put six trees that are going to be against the wall of the building because it was on the last site plan from 1987 or whatever it was. And I brought it up at a couple meetings. Let me beautify the front of the building. Let me take those trees and put them in the front. Let me do something nice. And they keep shooting me down, no, let's just put it where the cars are going to hit it, where there is parking. It doesn't make sense, but I've had six meetings with the city to try and do various things. And on the south side of the building, I was going to improve that and put things, I just never got a chance. And I've been talking to the city since the very beginning. As far as the traffic, there's no more traffic than there was with the printing company. He had a lot of employees working there. The employees we have are part-time and full-time. There's never 50 cars there, but that's not what this meeting is about. They have a bigger problem. They need to address where they live. That's their business. I spoke my piece. I'm willing to do anything I need to do to beautify. I'm a big landscaping person. I would love the building to look beautiful. I've done a lot of improvements to the building, and I'm willing to do whatever is going to accommodate and make people happy as well with maybe some new trees or something that's going to beautify the area and won't look so commercial.

I have a question. Sure. How long have you owned this building? You talk about the previous owner. How long have you owned this building?

I bought it in November of 24. 24. And the owner that was there didn't move out, and I believe until February of 25, he was still getting his equipment out.

Okay, now question, let's say this variance is granted, would that help the traffic problem that these residents are very concerned about? Not that it's actually a big part of the variance, but since I have these people in here that are thinking that, by doing this variance, would it alleviate any street problem, let's put it that way?

Well, of course. Well, sometimes delivery trucks come in at once. We also have another neighbor who's not here on the block, Who doesn't allow anybody to go up and down in front of his house. He puts a garbage can outside and blocks the street. So we're dealing with that situation.

It's their home, that's why.

Yeah, so that's another situation that we're dealing with, which I went there, rang his doorbell, and tried to talk to him about it, but that's his place, that's his business. I will address the other day when they were taking pictures of the truck parking in the lot. I went across and rang a doorbell because I don't want to be enemies of these people. I want to do whatever we can to accommodate. And even regardless of whatever they said, I'm going to go back and speak with my team. And I'm going to make sure that deliveries come in and no one's on the street. Not because I have to do it for you, it's because this is their homes and I want to accommodate and do whatever I can. On the other defense, the gentleman with the pink shirt comes up here and complains about cars. He approached my manager and asked him if he can park 20 cars in my parking lot because he's having a party. So I don't know what all that's about. Yeah, okay. So in one respect, you don't want the parking, but yet you want to use it when you have a party. But okay, thank you.

I have a question. Sure. Actually, two questions. First, what is your business? And secondly, can you address the first variance element that You have to show there's extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this particular land that then justifies this variance.

So my business is Cologne. We bottle and ship Cologne manufacturing out of the building. And then he'll explain the-

Yeah, so as regards to what makes this an extraordinary acceptable condition, that would be the vacated alley that was previously utilized as building circulation. And I do actually have the landscape plans on screen now. I had misspoke earlier. It's 25 trees and 166 shrubs that's being proposed to be planted. And again, I do want to emphasize that forcing the west side of the building to comply with a 25-foot landscape buffer is only going to further complicate the use of the trucks for the building. You're going to completely cut off the northwest corner and have a one-way street, essentially, where trucks are going to be backing out of. It's not feasible. And if that is what is enforced, it's going to make

the operation significantly worse madam chair i have a question questions you say you've owned the property since 2024. yes uh were you aware because i'm seeing here where you have multiple code violations were you not aware that you had to have a permit before you did all that

The electric and the plumbing inside the building, we didn't change anything electrically. That was signed off. And inside the building with the plumbing, there was no plumbing done other than toilet and sinks. As far as outside, yes. The outside was, that area was asphalt with grass growing through it. So yes, I did asphalt it without a permit, if that's the question.

That's the question I was asking. Did you know you had to have a permit and you did it without a permit?

No, I didn't know I needed a permit for asphalt. Because it was asphalt already, I just did it.

Okay. Were you aware of the type C buffer zone that you're supposed to have on that property that you're asking for a variance for?

No, there was no buffer there at the time.

I know that.

And it was access to six garage doors. He got his deliveries through the side of that building. There's six garage doors there.

There's a demand in the city for properties to be landscaped properly, especially commercial properties. My question was that you're asking for relief from buffer zone. So if you're asking for relief, did you not know that beforehand that you should have all had this stuff done?

No.

So you did all these? building inside and outside without permits and all this other stuff. Now you're coming in asking for forgiveness.

No, I'm not. I didn't do anything inside. The only thing I needed a permit for in electric, I pulled plumbing. You could look it up. You could look up plumbing and electrical. There was nothing found inside. They just came at a formality. The only thing I needed was to change the wall packs on the outside of the building, which we then had a permit for. Other than that, painting the building and doing what I did, I didn't.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Anybody else on the board have a question?

Over here.

Oh, yeah.

Yes, Michael. Is your property commercial or industrial? Industrial. Are there differences between the requirements between the industrial and the commercial?

Yeah. Mr. Yali can answer that.

Yes, yes, industrial as type C perimeter buffer requirements, but I do want to point out that had there not been work without permits, The old landscape plan wasn't as stringent as what today's landscape code is. So this is actually an improvement to what the original landscape plan showed. We now have much more, increased perimeter buffer and screening standards, which were triggered based on work done without permits and then meetings with staff. And so we went back and forth. And originally, it was like, well, let's just permit what was done. And then we said, no, no. You have to come into compliance now that you've but new asphalt on the south side, you now have to come into compliance with the perimeter buffer and screening standards. So in some ways, this is gonna be a better product than what it was originally. And they weren't required to do type C buffering before. And there is just, Much of the west side meets the intent of it. It's just that one corner in the northwest based on getting around it with vehicles that they're asking for the relief.

Thank you, Scott. I got one more question. On this nature preserve that is next to it, is any of this work that's being proposed up there actually approaching on lands that do not belong to them, like a nature preserve?

No, all work proposed is on the subject property.

Thank you, Scott.

uh madam chair i just need to for purposes of the record um two items one that traffic you need to look at the criteria you know i always emphasize to you all look at your criteria for granting this variance and that's what you need to focus on traffic that occurs outside of this is not a part of that criteria that's number one Number two, as what has been said, I'm trying to focus you on what is the requested variance and why is this applicant here? As Scott has just said, and I want to just emphasize that the reason this applicant is here is because of what got triggered in relationship to the type C buffer and that amount that was required. and that because of the configuration of this building in relationship to its property line, they cannot accomplish it and comply with the vehicular circulation around the building in the northwest corner. Am I correct so far, Scott?

That's correct, yes.

And that's the reason why they found themselves before you requesting a variance. Thank you.

Do you have a question, Mr. Bunn?

I'm sorry, I have one more question. What I don't see in this folder here that I have seen in the other ones earlier this night is any recommendations of the fire department. Is there one there?

That is a really normal recommendation from the fire department a lot. And if they usually just kind of like write it off. I don't remember seeing one.

I did not receive one. Our fire inspector did retire today, but I did not receive any correspondence from fire.

Okay. So that's why it's not there.

Is that something that has to be in the packet?

Is that something that has to be in the packet, Scott?

No, it's not required. We ask the fire to provide a memo.

Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. Is there any other questions of the board? Hearing none, can I have a motion?

I'll do the motion. Go ahead. Do it. I got it? Okay. All right, let's see. This is for the parents. NPNZ case 2611000015. I move to find there is competent and substantial evidence in the records that all the requirements for granting the major temporary

No, variance.

Variance, sorry guys, I apologize. I move, find that there is competent and substantial evidence in the records that all those requirements for granting the variance has been met and that we grant the variance subject to the number four condition required by staff.

Second.

Any further discussion from the board? Meredith, please call the roll.

Linda Thomas.

Yes.

Joe Circusi.

Yes.

Karen Berger?

No, and do I need to put my reasons on the record, James?

No, you don't.

Okay, I find that they did not meet several of the requirements, one, three, and I believe six.

Rick Bunn?

No.

Michael McCormack?

Yes.

Charlotte Burry.

I'm going to have to say no for the same reasons because of one, three, and six. The variance fails.

Thank you.

What happens when it's a tie like this, 3-3?

I guess you're ready to go.

That you guys are ready to go.

Yes, I guess I have to, for a major temporary use permit, planning zoning number 26, 1-5-0-0-0-0-0-1-4. Please state your name and all that stuff. Good evening.

Heidi Davis with the law firm of Gunster, 450 East Los Olos Boulevard, Suite 1400, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33305.

Thank you. Mr. Reale.

Thank you. For our last item tonight, the applicant landowner is requesting a major temporary use permit from the provisions of Chapter 155, Article 5 of the Pompano Beach Zoning Code, and specifically Section 155.5203 in order to temporarily partially demolish two existing buildings on the subject property down to their existing concrete slabs and utilize the demolition materials in concrete slabs for fill material for the proposed approved industrial development, rather than completely demolishing the structures and installing drought-resistant ground cover as otherwise required by code. The subject property is located in the northwest CRA on the north side of West Atlantic Boulevard between North Andrews Avenue and the South Florida Rail Corridor, which is utilized by TriRail. The site is directly adjacent to a Wawa convenience store and gas station. The subject property is an approximately 8.6 acre parcel located at 1501 West Atlantic Boulevard and is currently developed with two vacant one story structures. The property is located within the I-1 General Industrial Zoning District and has an industrial land use designation. The property is surrounded primarily by industrial and commercial uses and is located, again, adjacent to the South Florida Rail Corridor. The property has an approved site plan, which is PNZ number 23-1200007, for the redevelopment of the site with a 176,408 square foot industrial warehouse and distribution facility with accessory office space. And it also has received a temporary use permit, which is PNZ 25-1500008, allowing temporary truck parking while the permanent redevelopment project proceeds through the remaining development and permitting process. The two existing structures on the property have been vacant for an extended period, and according to the applicant, have been subject to repeated trespassing, vandalism, and graffiti, despite efforts to secure the buildings, creating ongoing maintenance and safety concerns. The applicant is therefore proposing to demolish the existing structures, but is requesting a major temporary use permit to allow the buildings to be demolished down to their existing concrete slabs, rather than requiring the slabs to be removed. and the disturbed areas restored with drought-resistant sod or ground cover. The applicant also proposes to crush masonry material generated from the demolition and temporarily stockpile the material onsite for potential reuse as fill material during construction of the approved industrial development. The applicant has asserted that the proposed partial demolition does not constitute a total demolition under section 155.520.3 . And regardless of that interpretation, the applicant is requesting the major temporary use permit to authorize the proposed temporary site construction, including the retention of the existing concrete slabs and temporary stockpiling of crushed demolition material pending redevelopment of the property. Section 155.520.3 establishes requirements for demolition sites intended to ensure that vacant or disturbed properties are appropriately restored and stabilized and do not become sources of blight, erosion, dust, debris, or other adverse impacts. staff recognizes that the property has an approved site plan for future redevelopment and that the existing structures are proposed to be removed in advance of construction requiring the applicant to completely remove the slabs restore the site to its pre-demolition condition and install ground cover could result in additional site disturbance and improvements that would substantially be removed when construction of the approved development commences. Retaining and using suitable demolition materials on site may also reduce the need to import film material during future construction. The proposed temporary condition is generally compatible with the industrial character of the surrounding area, provided the remaining slabs and stockpiled material are properly maintained and do not create adverse visual safety, drainage, or environmental impacts. The applicant has indicated that crushed masonry material would be stockpiled within the interior of the site and maintained at a height no greater than the elevation of the existing slabs, thereby minimizing its visibility from adjacent rights-of-way and properties. Staff finds that the request is temporary in nature because the property has an approved site plan for permanent redevelopment. However, because the requested condition involves leaving portions of the former development and demolition materials on site following demolition, any approval should be conditioned to ensure that the site is properly maintained and does not remain indefinitely in its temporary condition. Subject to the recommended conditions, staff finds that the requested major temporary use permit may be compatible with the intent of the zoning code and surrounding industrial uses. Should the board determine that the applicant has provided competent substantial evidence sufficient to satisfy those seven temporary use permit review standards, staff request the board include the following conditions as part of the order. One, the approval shall be limited to the partial demolition of the two existing structures leaving the existing concrete slabs in place and the temporary onsite crushing and stockpiling of demolition material for potential reuse as fill in connection with the future development of the property. Crushed demolition materials shall be stockpiled only in the location depicted on the approved conceptual plan and shall not exceed the elevation of the adjacent existing concrete slabs. Two, the property shall be maintained in a safe and clean and orderly condition throughout the duration of this temporary use permit. The site shall be kept free of trash, debris, graffiti, invasive vegetation, and other conditions that may constitute a nuisance or code violation. The remaining slabs and stockpiled demolition materials shall be maintained in a manner that does not create visual blight or other adverse impacts on surrounding properties or public rights-of-way. Three, the remaining concrete slabs and stockpile demolition materials shall be incorporated into the approved redevelopment or otherwise lawfully removed from the site as part of construction associated with site plan PNZ number 23-1200007. And the fourth recommended staff condition, if building permits necessary to commence construction of the site plan have not been obtained prior to the expiration of this temporary use permit, the applicant shall remove the remaining concrete slabs and demolition materials and restore the affected areas in accordance with section 155.5203 of the zoning code, unless an extension or subsequent approval is granted by the city. That concludes my report. I just wanted to note that the applicant has worked with staff meaning development services and code compliance there were vagrancy issues and trespassing which i'm sure the applicant can get into and so we feel that this is kind of a compromise that that works for both the the applicant and the city and that concludes my report i'm available for questions

Yeah, I have to tell you, not that it's important in this meeting, but half of my house went out of electricity, and FPNL was coming while I wasn't there, and I was just reading that they fixed it.

Yay.

So I'm sorry.

No, that's much more important. That is much more important. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Scott, for all that staff report reading. I know that's a lot, but Heidi Davis again with the law firm of Gunster here tonight on behalf of the applicant, which is Alliance West Atlantic LLC. They are the owner of the property at 1501 West Atlantic Boulevard. With me tonight is Eric Carlson from Alliance, if you have any questions for him. And we're here to, as Scott said, request a temporary use permit. The property is approximately 8.6 acres, and it's consisting of one unified site, which formerly contained three parcels. The property is located north of West Atlantic, west of Andrews and I-95, and east of the railroad tracks, located immediately adjacent to and behind Wawa. The property is zoned I-1, general industrial, and the surrounding area consists of heavy industrial distribution centers and truck facility uses. For many decades, this property has been used as this industrial uses, including warehousing distribution, truck facilities. The Ariels only go back on the property appraiser to the late 80s, but they have been here operating on this property since way before, like 1970s. Once Alliance purchased the properties and unified them, Its focus was to obtain the site plan approvals and develop the distribution facility. Property has an approved site plan for the distribution facility and is waiting on the final entitlement approvals. However, Alliance has had to constantly work with BSO and code enforcement on combating vagrants who are breaking the locks and windows to enter up and set up camps that are living inside these buildings, painting graffiti. And we've had to continually paint the sides of the buildings only for it to return shortly thereafter. And as Mario's here, he can attest, Alliance has had to continually clean up, paint, replace windows and doors, and board up and secure the premises. The effort and cost to maintain these structures have been exorbitant. So even though the development of the proposed warehouse distribution facility may not commence until next year, Alliance has decided to demolish the structures on the property now to stop all the unlawful activity on the property. So due to FEMA regulations, in order to construct the proposed development, Alliance will need to fill the property to meet and raise up the property to meet these current flood standards. So crushed masonry can be used as fill. And since the buildings are on concrete slabs and one or more of the buildings are made of concrete, instead of crushing it up and hauling the material off site for disposal into a landfill, Alliance is requesting this temporary use permit so that it can demolish the buildings now instead of in the future when the development commences in order to stop the vandalism and homeless camps on the property. Alliance applied for the demolition permit with the intention of leaving the concrete slabs in place so they can be crushed later and used as fill, which complies with the definition of demolition per the city's code, which states that it is the intentional dismantling or tearing down of all or a part of a structure and all operations incidental thereto. The code allows a portion of the structure to remain, so leaving the slabs in place complies with the definition of demolition. Additionally, sod or ground cover installation is required per zoning code section 155.5203 when a structure is totally demolished. The structures are not being totally demolished, so we are requesting the temporary permit to leave the slabs in place and not have to put the ground cover. Additionally, if the large concrete slabs were removed, it would disturb additional earth-triggering erosion and stormwater permitting. Having to install landscaping and sod now just to have to remove it later for the proposed development would be counterproductive an inefficient use of resources that being said we're here to request the temporary permit to allow these slabs and crushed material to remain temporarily on the property without the requirement to install sod so this is what the building looks like today it's looking northwest from atlantic And this is building A on the property. It's the most southern building. The red line is just for illustration purposes, but basically everything above the line will be demolished and crushed. This is a photo. It's, again, just for illustration purposes only, but this is what is proposed will look like, the slab, once the building is removed. And it will be remaining on the property. The crushed material will be put on the north side of the building A and will be no higher than the slab. So pursuant to section 155, 2412, the applicant satisfies the seven review standards for a major temporary use permit. We submitted a detailed narrative with our application, but I'll touch on them as we go quickly. So the first one is the partial demolition of the building will be temporary until such time as Alliance commences construction on its approved distribution facility and will comply with staff condition number four. So it's a temporary use permit. It's only good for a year unless it's extended, but that's all we're asking for, you know, right now. The parcel demolition complies with code in keeping the concrete slab and the crushed concrete to utilize as fill for the future development is in harmony and spirit with the code, intent of the code. Demolishing the structures and clearing the property is correcting this existing detrimental condition. This is a heavy industrial area and keeping the slab and crushed concrete temporary and the property will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. This temporary use has no adverse effects or noise impacts. There's no principal use on the property. Again, these buildings were vacant, so once they come down, there's no principal use on that property, but it is approved for the industrial distribution facility. It is consistent and compatible with the I-1 zoning district and the surrounding uses. The property is over 8.6 acres and has sufficient land use area for this temporary use. The application complies with the applicable use-specific standards in section 155-4403. As shown on this slide, a site plan has been prepared to provide the locations where the buildings will be demolished to the slabs and where the crushed masonry will be placed. The crushed masonry will be set back between the building slabs. Because building A is an L-shaped structure portion of that jutting out toward the east, if there's the construction, the masonry material will be placed behind that, so there's no visibility to see that from the roadway. The masonry material will not exceed the slab height, and the yellow line on the second is going to be the approximate location of where a six foot high construction demolition fence will also be installed. So this is just another imagery of what the fence will look like. But this fence, it's kind of hard to see, but this fence is six feet high and the slab is lower, at least it's four feet or lower. So this construction fence will be all the way around the property as well. Oh wait, I wanted to go back. Also on the west side of the property, you can see in the distance all the landscaping back there along the railroad. So that is the screening. There's a lot of screening back there, so it won't be visible from the railroad or the other side of the tracks. This is from the corner looking northeast, and this again shows the building, which will be demolished, and the dense landscaping that is covering that property. So in sum, we respectfully request a temporary use permit to allow the partial demolition without the need to remove the concrete slabs or to install the sod or the ground cover at this time. Because of the future development, Alliance would like to keep the masonry material on site to use for fill without having to haul it off to a landfill, bring additional fill back on the property at the time of construction, or sod the property, the whole property, and then have to remove the side during construction, which we feel is very counterproductive. We're committed to ensuring the fill material does not exceed the height of the concrete slabs, and we'll maintain the property. And pursuant to the demolition permit, again, the opaque six-foot fence will be installed around the property. We agree with staff's conditions, and if you have any questions, we're here to answer them. Thank you.

Thank you. Does the board have any questions of the petitioner?

Yes. I just have one. Yes. Do you have an approximation as to how long the demolition will take? Demolition?

I don't think it takes a long time at all. Say your name and go ahead.

I guess it would depend on the person. We have a new address, sorry.

Hi.

Hi, my name is Eric. My name is Eric Carlson. Our address is 1100 East Hector Street, Suite 390, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

Your demo.

The question for the demo, right.

Yes, the question, how long it would take.

Yes, ma'am. It's going to be like two and a half months to demo, just down the slab. Thank you. Does the board have any other questions?

Hearing none, can I have a motion?

Yep.

Madam Chair, public hearing.

Well, there's no one in the public. Would you wish to speak for the item? No. Would you like to speak against the item? Public hearing closed, Meredith. Ready.

In P&Z case 26-15-00-0014, I move that we find that there is competent and substantial evidence in the record that all the requirements for the granting of the major temporary use have been met and that we grant the major temporary use subject of four conditions requested by staff.

I second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any further comments from the board? Hearing none, Meredith, please call the roll.

Joe Circusi? Yes. Linda Thomas? Yes. Karen Berger? Yes. Rick Bunn?

Yes.

Michael McCormack?

Yes.

Charlotte Burry?

Yes.

Thank you very much. So great to see you again.

You're welcome.

We'll see you soon. Thank you.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, that concludes our meeting. Does our city attorney or anybody have any words of wisdom for us this evening? No. I have one that I think might be funny. Would somebody one day tell me why the P and Z numbers have to have four and five zeros in the middle? I mean, come on. The city doesn't do 15 million P and Z cases a year. And I always wondered that. When I first learned about computers, it was called the binary system, one, two, one.

They're very ambitious.

What?

It just, I never knew. And now that I'm on television and everything, maybe somebody from the planning and zoning department can tell me why we have four or five zeros.

It's a good question. It started before I was part of the city.

Yeah, it must be the way the computers are set up. But we get confused sometimes when there's only four zeros. Maybe there's supposed to be five and it's so small you're trying to count zeros.

I think, Madam Chair, we just love hearing your voice.

I think you're picking on me, but any event meetings over. Thank you all for coming Everybody get home safe Motion meeting is adjourned