The Zoning Commission of Palm Beach County voted Sept. 11 to recommend approval of a rezoning and a class A conditional use that would allow a 53‑unit townhome project, called Nash Trail, on roughly 7.57 acres north of Lantana Road and west of Haverhill Road.

The applicant proposed rezoning three lots from Residential Estate (RE) to RS and a class A conditional use to permit 53 fee‑simple townhomes (about 7 dwelling units per acre). Staff found the requests consistent with the MR‑5 future land‑use designation and recommended approval subject to conditions. The commission voted to recommend both the rezoning (item 5a) and the conditional use (item 5b); the conditional‑use recommendation passed with one commissioner recorded as opposed.

Why it matters: the application changes the allowed density from three single‑family homes (one per existing lot under RE) to a townhouse subdivision that neighbors say will alter drainage, privacy and the rural character of adjacent Agricultural/Residential (AR) properties.

Project and staff details: Doug Murray of WGI, speaking for the applicant, said the site plan concentrates homes toward the east side to maximize separation from western neighbors, preserves three tree‑preservation areas and proposes a total of 0.84 acres of recreation and open space. Murray said the plan includes a 20‑foot incompatibility buffer with a 6‑foot SIMTech (composite) fence along portions of the western boundary and a 6‑foot opaque fence along north and south property lines. He also described a parking plan and said Nash Trail will provide a 0.45‑acre recreation area.

Staff described the item as a remand from the Board of County Commissioners after a legal challenge; staff outlined tree‑preservation numbers and buffering and noted the application includes an administrative request for workforce housing density bonus. Wendy Hernandez, project manager, and Timothy Haines, environmental manager, described the county’s tree preservation and mitigation review process and said preserved areas become enforceable as part of the development order.

Key points of contention from neighbors and applicant responses:
- Berm and wall: Neighbors asked for a 3‑foot berm plus a concrete wall along the full western AR boundary. The applicant proposed a concrete wall only where required by code (southern 325 feet adjacent to bona fide agricultural use) and a SIMTech composite fence for the remaining portion to reduce heavy machinery impacts on tree roots. The applicant said a 3‑foot berm would require about 18–23 feet of ground disturbance (3:1 slopes plus top) and would likely harm root systems and require removal of additional trees; the applicant argued the SIMTech option lessens tree loss while meeting wind resistance standards. Neighbors said the SIMTech product may not withstand hurricane‑force winds as well as a concrete wall and that a full wall would better protect agricultural uses and reduce light and noise impacts.
- Tree counts and mitigation: The applicant’s presenter said 254 trees (and additional buffer trees) would be preserved in place; staff noted the project’s official tree disposition lists approximately 612 existing trees with 234 to remain in place and 327 slated for mitigation, which translates (due to tree size multipliers) to an obligation for the equivalent of 1,097 replacement trees. Staff said precise mitigation locations and final civil plans will be reviewed and enforced at final site plan (DRO) and via protection‑of‑native‑vegetation permits; Timothy Haines explained the county requires barricades for preserved trees and double mitigation if trees preserved in place are lost because of construction.
- Utilities and access: Water‑utility staff require that water and sewer lines extend to the project property line (a stub‑out). The applicant agreed to construct the lines to the property line; staff said a neighboring property owner could later apply to connect and would bear connection costs. Road improvements will be required only to the point where the project contributes trips (improve 50 Second Drive to the project entrance and transition back to existing road), staff said.
- Workforce housing: The developer requested a workforce housing density bonus; the application proposes an off‑site exchange for workforce units. The applicant offered to increase the obligation from 4 required units to 6 workforce units, which will translate to 9 rental units under the county’s multiplier for off‑site rental exchange.

Public input: Five neighbors spoke, emphasizing flood concerns, tree‑loss fears, the effect on equestrian uses and property values, and urging a continuous concrete wall and larger berm. The commission asked questions about survey accuracy (applicant confirmed a survey showing 7.57 acres) and the mechanics/timing of the off‑site workforce unit construction (staff said the exchange builder obligation must be in place prior to issuance of the first residential building permit).

Commission action: The commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning (item 5a) and the class A conditional use for townhomes (item 5b). Staff will enforce tree‑preservation, drainage and buffer conditions at the final DRO stage and through environmental and engineering permits. The class A conditional use recommendation recorded one opposed vote.