Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impervious Surfaces topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates impervious ratios, votes to require $50,000+ improvements to appear before Planning and Zoning
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed Environmental Advisory Board data on pervious/impervious coverage, discussed potential code changes and voted to require any improvements or additions costing more than $50,000 to come before the board for review.
The Melbourne Beach Planning and Zoning Board spent substantial time on Aug. 5 discussing impervious-surface ratios and whether the town should tighten limits on nonpervious coverage of lots. After reviewing tabulated data and a comparative assessment, the board voted to require that improvements or additions costing more than $50,000 be presented to the board for review.
Why it matters: Impervious-surface limits affect stormwater runoff, lot character and how large homes and outdoor features can be. The board's new $50,000 threshold would expand the number of projects that must come before planners, potentially increasing local review of driveways, patios, pools and accessory structures.
Planning and Zoning Member Dan Harper presented a review of five recently approved houses and other tabulations the board used to measure pervious versus impervious coverage. Harper said his summary showed an average pervious share of about 45% versus impervious of 55% for the sample, and told members that the town's current codes are "on the conservative side" compared with neighboring municipalities. "We could easily move the impervious to 35% and meet them halfway," Harper said during the discussion.
Board members and one building official raised concerns that raising or changing thresholds could create nonconforming conditions for existing structures and that remodels and accessory constructions often are handled administratively by the building official rather than through the board. The board discussed possible approaches including a monetary threshold tied to building cost or a lower percentage threshold for additions and accessory features.
A motion was made and adopted by voice vote requiring that "any improvements or additions exceeding $50,000 in cost come in front of this board." The motion was seconded and approved; members voted by voice to adopt the practice. The board asked staff to define the process (what documentation would be required) and to consider how the threshold would interact with the town's land-development code and any recent state law referenced during the meeting.
Next steps: Staff was asked to prepare details for implementation, including a clear definition of what counts toward the $50,000 threshold, how permits and reviews will be scheduled, and whether any administrative exceptions would apply.
