Planning board denies variance for proposed 4‑story, 22‑unit building after neighbors raise flooding and compatibility concerns

The Planning and Development Board on Feb. 10 rejected a setback variance tied to a proposed 4‑story, 22‑unit apartment building at Shenandoah Street and North 17th Avenue, ending the application after extended public comment and a split roll‑call vote.

Planner Omar Javed presented file 24DPV34 as a design and site‑plan application with requested corner‑setback variances for a four‑story, 22‑unit multifamily building on two parcels totaling about 20,400 square feet. Staff told the board the application had completed internal reviews and recommended design approval and variances if the board found the code criteria met.

Neighbors filled the public‑comment period with repeated accounts of neighborhood flooding and concerns about compatibility. Julie Tereschenko, a resident who lives adjacent to the property, said the stakes were personal: "If my house is flooded, and if I cannot get her in the car, and if she's having a seizure, I will have to bury her," referring to her adult daughter's medical vulnerability. Other speakers described garages and yards flooded in April 2023 and June 2024 and pressed the applicant and staff for independent hydrology studies that account for king‑tide and sea‑level impacts.

Architects for the project said the design would meet code parking requirements, include on‑site drainage wells, exfiltration trenches and civil engineering calculations that must be approved by county reviewers. "That system...does not interconnect with the sewer system," one project representative said, adding the drainage well would be engineered to retain on‑site runoff and satisfy pre‑ and post‑construction calculations.

Terry Cantrell, president of the Hollywood Lakes Civic Association, and other residents argued that the Regional Activity Center (RAC) boundary extended too far into an established single‑family neighborhood and said granting variances here would set a precedent. Residents also raised solar‑panel shading, loss of privacy from balconies looking into backyards and perceived shortcomings in earlier public notice for rezoning actions.

After discussion, a board member moved to approve the variance. The board recorded a roll call: Christine Corbo — yes; Odalys Delgado — no; Joseph Sadlin — yes; Richard Blattner — no; Tara Jafar Madar — yes; Bob Glickman — no. With a 3‑3 split, the board attorney declared the motion failed and the variance — and therefore the associated site plan/design approval that depended on it — did not pass.

The board's decision leaves open whether the applicant will return with revised plans that eliminate the need for variances or pursue a different review path. Staff said earlier in the hearing that the city commission had provided temporary flexible units to enable development while a broader comprehensive‑plan text amendment is pursued; staff also said they would provide the exact remaining count of flex units to the board after the meeting, because that number was not on hand during the hearing.

The board did not adopt the design or site plan for 24DPV34, and the file will not advance in its current form.