Zoning board defers decision on Bunker Ranch gate variance amid questions over collector status and contractor error

The City of West Palm Beach Zoning Board of Appeals on June 4 deferred a decision on a one-foot fence-and-gate height variance for a residence at 344 Bunker Ranch Road, citing the need for an engineering interpretation of the roadway’s classification and updated crime data.

Fernando Rodriguez, the applicant, told the board the gates were fabricated at 5 feet although the permit and plan provisos specified a maximum height of 48 inches. He said removing and rebuilding the gates would create “financial hardship” after multiple permit hearings and cited neighborhood security incidents that he said support keeping the gates as built. “I’m simply asking to be allowed to leave it without having to incur more cost and time to redo it,” Rodriguez said.

Planning staff recommended denial, saying the application does not meet the city’s variance criteria and that the hardship results from the applicant’s or contractor’s actions rather than a condition of the property. Staff noted permit documents and site-plan stamps requiring a 4-foot maximum and said most surrounding properties rely on hedges for privacy rather than taller fences.

Board discussion centered on two technical points: whether Bunker Ranch Road should be treated as a minor collector (which by code would allow up to a six-foot fence in some circumstances) and whether updated crime statistics demonstrate a security need tied specifically to a one-foot difference. Vice Chair Emiline Savage and board members Sherry Hack and Dana Piccott said the way the road functions and recent development in the area were relevant; Board member Alfred Fields argued the ZBA lacks authority to reclassify a street and that an official engineering determination would be needed.

To resolve those questions, Vice Chair Savage moved — and Dana Piccott seconded — a motion to continue the case to the next ZBA hearing so staff can provide an interpretation from engineering and updated crime data. The motion carried 5–0 (Piccott, Christopher Hagen, Savage, Fields, Hack). The board instructed staff to supply both the engineering interpretation on collector status and current crime statistics when the case returns.

Next steps: Case 3555 will be placed on the next ZBA agenda after staff obtains the requested engineering interpretation and updated crime reports; no final variance decision was made at the June 4 meeting.