Cape Canaveral council narrows path for rebuilds on old lots, approves amended nonconforming-lot ordinance 4-1

The City Council of Cape Canaveral voted 4-1 on Aug. 20 to adopt Ordinance 18-2024, an amendment to the city code governing nonconforming lots that clarifies when single-family homes and duplexes on older, undersized parcels may be altered, expanded or rebuilt. Mayor Wes Morrison cast the lone no vote.

City attorneys and planning staff told the council the ordinance revises section 110-196 (nonconforming lots of record) to state explicitly what “yard dimensions” mean (minimum lot coverage, minimum living area, maximum height and setbacks); to confirm that many existing one-story houses may add a second story so long as the addition stays within yard-dimension limits; and, in certain cases, to deem parcels that were never approved under subdivision regulations but already contain an existing single-family dwelling or duplex to be a “single lot of record,” allowing owners to request building permits for repairs, reconstruction or alterations.

The planning-and-zoning board recommended adding a provision that would allow a second story of habitable space within an existing building footprint even if that footprint does not meet current lot-coverage, living-area or setback standards, provided the vertical expansion complies with the zoning district’s maximum height limit. The council approved the ordinance after adding a clarifying amendment to include an adoption date in one subparagraph.

Resident speakers at the public hearing urged the council to pass the measure and to be cautious about unintended consequences. Longtime resident Adam Marara, who described buying a 1959 home on an undersized lot in Avon-by-the-Sea, told the council he and his family had worked with staff for two years on designs but were told the city code left them no path to proceed. “Without the passage of this ordinance, I’m really only left with two options,” Marara said: move away or pursue litigation, he said, urging council action to preserve older homes and keep families in the city.

Pat Campbell, another local resident and frequent commenter on code topics, said much of what the measure would do is already provided for in existing rules and urged the council to hold a workshop so property owners and staff could review the practical impacts and identify the specific parcels affected. “There needs to be some specificity put in here. This needs to be done through workshops,” Campbell said.

Council members said the ordinance was intended to solve documented cases where parcels had a house but were never approved as a developable lot, and to provide a clearer path for modest, low-impact renovations that keep neighborhood character. Council member Davis moved to adopt the ordinance with an amendment adding an adoption date to a subparagraph; the motion was seconded by Council member Jackson and passed 4-1.

The ordinance text instructs staff to prepare the revised code language for codification and for the mayor to sign the ordinance. City staff said they will follow through on the administrative steps needed to implement the change; an effective date was included in the adopted language but the council did not schedule an additional workshop on the item. Residents who asked the council for more information were told staff would follow up with specifics on how the change would apply to individual parcels.