Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board discusses defining accessory structures, leaves code change for later
Summary
The Melbourne Beach Planning and Zoning Board reviewed proposed clarifications to accessory‑structure definitions — distinguishing enclosed accessory buildings from open cabanas, gazebos and outdoor kitchens — and agreed to retain the existing 400‑square‑foot threshold while asking staff to refine language; no code change was adopted.
At its April 8 meeting the Planning and Zoning Board of the Town of Melbourne Beach reviewed proposed changes to the town’s accessory‑structure definitions and discussed whether to exempt open cabanas, pool houses and outdoor kitchens from the 400‑square‑foot accessory‑structure limit.
Board members examined the language of existing code sections cited during the meeting (referred to in the discussion as sections 78‑57 and 78‑507) and noted that sheds are treated separately, with an example 60‑square‑foot limit for small sheds mentioned in the discussion. Members sought a clear distinction between enclosed accessory structures that should count toward the 400‑square‑foot limit and open structures — such as gazebos and cabanas — that the board suggested could be treated differently if they are open on multiple sides.
The conversation also covered impervious‑surface consequences for permanently built structures and whether multiple accessory structures on a lot should be permitted or limited; the board noted larger accessory features can affect drainage and lot‑coverage requirements.
Members proposed drafting a short, explicit paragraph to add to the existing code that would define a “self‑contained” or “housed” accessory structure, limit its size and require that it be located behind the principal residence. Several members favored keeping the 400‑square‑foot limit for enclosed accessory buildings while explicitly excluding smaller open structures from that cap. The board did not adopt a code amendment at the meeting and asked a member to review draft language and bring a redline for further consideration.
No formal vote to change the code was taken; the item remains active old business pending return of draft language for committee review.
