Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Site Plan Drainage topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Melbourne Beach board defers 206 Sixth Avenue site-plan review over drainage and valuation questions

5936049 · August 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Planning and Zoning Board deferred action on a site-plan review for 206 Sixth Avenue after applicants and staff could not present verified structure-only appraised values or a complete drainage submittal required by town code and state water rules.

The Melbourne Beach Planning and Zoning Board on Aug. 5 deferred consideration of a site-plan review for 206 Sixth Avenue after members said the packet lacked a soil survey, a drainage plan and a verified calculation showing whether the proposed work would exceed the town's 50% threshold for improvements to an existing residential structure.

Board members said local code and state water rules require either a permit or an exemption letter from the St. Johns River Water Management District before final development approval, and that stormwater facilities must retain the first 8 inches of runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Without a drainage plan or a verified structure-only appraisal, members said they could not determine whether the swales and other stormwater measures in the town's ordinance would apply.

Why it matters: Under Melbourne Beach's land-development rules discussed in the meeting, renovations or additions that increase a residential structure's appraised value by more than 50% typically trigger full stormwater remediation requirements. Determining whether a project crosses that threshold affects whether the applicant must provide swales and detention measures meant to keep stormwater off town streets.

At the meeting builder Chad (identifying himself as the project builder) told the board he could provide the construction contract and a homeowners-insurance printout showing a market value of $807,166 and said he believed the work fell below the 50% trigger. "We can give you guys a copy of the contract to see the amount of the construction valuation," Chad said in the public discussion. Resident John Deschak said appraisals and insurance market-value statements typically include land and building and that insurers insure only the dwelling, not the land. "When they talk about dwelling, they're talking about the value of the property [structure], not the land," Deschak said.

Town Manager Elizabeth Mascaro told the board the building official usually reviews swale/drainage materials before a permit is issued when those materials are not present at a board meeting. "It is reviewed by the building official before the permit is issued," Mascaro said.

Board members asked the applicant to return with documentation that isolates the structure value (or other verifiable evidence) and a drainage submittal. One member moved to defer the item to next month with presentation of appraised-value information; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The board also suggested the applicant provide explicit evidence of the structure-only value (for example, an assessor breakdown or a documented appraisal) so members can determine whether the project triggers the swale and stormwater requirements.

Looking ahead: The applicant will return with the requested valuation evidence and any missing drainage materials for the board to reconsider. The board noted that lots platted before Jan. 1, 1990, are exempt from some stormwater rules, but that the ordinance still requires compliance for certain new construction and substantial improvements.