Title
REQUEST TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FOR THE TOWNGATE (CEDAR WAY) SIDEWALK VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 4 FOOT SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROADWAY FOR A 40’ PRIVATE ROADWAY INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 4 FOOT SIDEWALK ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROADWAY FOR A 40’ PRIVATE ROADWAY.
Summary Explanation and Background
1. Jaime Cole, as attorney representing the association (Towngate Master Homeowners Association), is appealing a decision by the Planning and Zoning Board.
2. On May 8, 2025 the Planning and Zoning Board heard Variance Request ZV2024-0008 to permit the removal of an existing 4 foot sidewalk on one side of the roadway, where a 4 foot sidewalk is required on both sides of 40’ private roadway.
3. Roadway design standards for the Cedar Way subdivision is regulated by the Towngate Planned Unit Development Guidelines.
4. In 1998, the Cedar Way community, a subdivision of Towngate was approved through site plan SP 97-82.
5. The variance is being sought to remove the existing sidewalk along the north side of the Cedar Way community, specifically along NW 24th Street, due to ongoing maintenance challenges. Towngate Master Association is the owner of the subject property and is responsible for the maintenance.
6. Planning and Economic Development staff, do not make recommendations on variance requests.
7. After hearing testimony, reviewing the application as well as the statements from the applicant, the Planning and Zoning Board voted to deny Variance ZV2024-0008 by a 3-0 vote. Only three Board members (Labate, Aloy, Zacharias) were in attendance. The applicant was provided an opportunity to defer their application to a future meeting due to only three board members being in attendance and a unanimous vote for approval.
8. Section 155.311 of the City of Pembroke Pines Code of Ordinances allows for an affected party to appeal decisions made by the Planning & Zoning Board to the City Commission.
9. Section 155.311 APPEAL OF BOARD DECISIONS states the following:
(C) Appeal of Board Decisions
1. Decisions of the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Board, collectively known as “Board”, in quasi-judicial proceedings are subject to appeal to the City Commission by either the city, petitioner, or an affected person as defined in this code based on lack of competent and substantial evidence to support the Board's ruling.
2. Any person seeking to appeal must file a written request to appeal with the Director of Planning and Economic Development, or designee, no later than noon on the seventh calendar day following the meeting at which the Board has rendered a final decision.
3. The applicant filing the appeal shall submit a written statement to the Director of Planning and Economic Development no later than ten days before City Commission meeting at which the appeal shall be heard. This written statement shall state with specificity why the appellant believes that the Board's decision was not based on competent and substantial evidence. This written statement shall be included in the agenda for the City Commission meeting at which time the appeal shall be heard
4. The person filing the appeal shall bear the cost of all advertising and notice requirements associated with the appeal.
5. The appeal shall be presented to the City Commission as soon as practicable, subject to the notice requirements and procedures set forth herein, for a final determination as to whether or not there was competent and substantial evidence to support the Board's ruling.
(D) Appeal of City Commission Decisions. The final determination of the City Commission with regards to the applications specified in this LDC is subject to judicial review in a court of competent jurisdiction.
(E) Hearings. Hearings before the Planning and Zoning Board and City Commission are not trials de novo but rather appellate in nature. Appeals shall be limited to the written record and new additional evidence shall not be presented.
10. The intent to appeal the Planning and Zoning Board decision was submitted May 13, 2025 and was consistent with code requirements.
11. The applicant's statement regarding why the Planning and Zoning Board's decision was not based on competent and substantial evidence was submitted by the applicant in a timely fashion, consistent with code requirements. Nonetheless, upon review of the documentation, it appears that additional information was included in the statement regarding Cedar Way’s change in position and a subsequent survey taken within the Cedar Way community. This information was not presented to the Planning and Zoning Board and may not be considered by the City Commission as newly presented evidence is excluded from the appeal.
12. The Planning and Zoning Board minutes are provided in the backup paperwork. The video of the Board of Adjustment meeting can be accessed through the following link <https://ppines.granicus.com/player/clip/1041?view_id=1&redirect=true>
13. Request City Commission action on the appeal of the denial of Zoning Variance ZV2024-0008.
Financial Impact
FINANCIAL IMPACT DETAIL:
a) Initial Cost: None.
b) Amount budgeted for this item in Account No: Not Applicable.
c) Source of funding for difference, if not fully budgeted: Not Applicable.
d) 5 year projection of the operational cost of the project Not Applicable.
e) Detail of additional staff requirements: Not Applicable.
FEASIBILITY REVIEW:
A feasibility review is required for the award, renewal and/or expiration of all function sourcing contracts. This analysis is to determine the financial effectiveness of function sourcing services.
a) Was a Feasibility Review/Cost Analysis of Out-Sourcing vs. In-House Labor Conducted for this service? Not Applicable.
b) If Yes, what is the total cost or total savings of utilizing Out-Sourcing vs. In-House Labor for this service? Not Applicable.