Council approves first reading to rezone Hollywood–Eber parcels, excludes narrow edge strips

West Melbourne City Council on March 18 approved first reading of an ordinance to rezone most of three parcels at the northeast and southeast corners of Hollywood Boulevard and Eber Boulevard from RA (residential agricultural) to C1A (professional office and services), while excluding two narrow strips on the north and south edges that city staff advised be designated residential and rezoned within six months.

The decision ends a months‑long review that began after the city discovered a mapping discrepancy originating in a 1990 comprehensive plan ordinance. The rezoning aligns zoning with a commercial future land‑use designation that staff said was adopted when the property was annexed in 1990. Councilmember Frampus made the motion for the first reading (option B as presented by staff) and to require the two narrow strips be rezoned to residential within six months; Councilmember Soltz seconded. The vote was 7-0.

City planning staff explained that the three parcels total roughly 44 acres, and that a review of the 1990 ordinance (Ordinance 90‑28) and recent surveys found gaps along the northern and southern boundaries. Staff described the gaps as a little over 1 acre on the north side and about 2.3 acres on the south side; a surveyor working for the applicant measured the north strip at about 45–50 feet wide and the south strip at about 99–100 feet wide. Denise, a city planning staff member, told the council the applicants requested rezoning to C1A, "the least intense commercial zoning district," and that the Planning & Zoning Board had recommended approval before the mapping discrepancy was resolved.

Mark Watts, an attorney representing the landowner, told the council the property came into the city as part of a larger 1990 annexation and that the commercial future‑land‑use designation had long been intended for these corner parcels. Watts said his firm had the property surveyed and that "there's these small gaps" in the legal descriptions from the 1990 ordinance. Watts added, "We don't have any intended future use for the property at this point in time," and said the property owners were willing to work with the city on development agreements and infrastructure as specific plans come forward.

Residents who live near the site spoke in opposition to rezoning the entire 44 acres. Kristen Kavanaugh, who said she works for a local nonprofit that supports people with disabilities, urged the council to require a developer agreement with setbacks, traffic impact studies and infrastructure contributions, and buffers to preserve privacy for adjacent homes: "A well structured development agreement creates stability and predictability for all parties." Brandon Shannon, a nearby resident, said the Live Local Act (Florida statute enacted Feb. 2023) could allow developers to override local zoning if a project includes qualifying workforce housing and warned rezoning to commercial "could be used" to build high‑density apartments with little local control. Other residents raised traffic, flooding and property‑value concerns and urged the council to consider public uses such as parks or a fire station instead of full commercial rezoning.

Council members and staff repeatedly distinguished three separate steps: (1) the rezoning hearing to bring city zoning into consistency with the 1990 future land‑use map, (2) later project‑level development review that would trigger traffic, stormwater and concurrency review under the city’s land‑development regulations, and (3) any negotiated development agreement, which staff and the applicant said could address buffers, public uses or infrastructure. City staff and the applicant noted that many development details—setbacks, landscaping and stormwater design—are reviewed and enforced at the development‑plan stage.

Council discussion emphasized legal limits. The city attorney cautioned that state law creates a legal entitlement to request zoning consistent with an adopted future land‑use designation and that the Live Local Act raises unresolved legal questions about whether a local development agreement can bar the act’s application; the attorney said that issue has not been definitively litigated. Several council members said they were trying to preserve as much buffer as lawfully possible for neighbors while avoiding legal exposure to a successful challenge.

Action and next steps: Council approved first reading of Ordinance 2025‑01 (rezoning to C1A) as modified to exclude the two narrow strips and direct staff to rezone those strips to residential (R1/R2 as appropriate) within six months; the motion also directed staff to seek land rather than a dollar‑only impact fee for any residential impact mitigation if future development invokes the Live Local Act. The council set second reading and the final hearing for April 2, 2025. The applicant will return with any development plans, and the city will continue coordination with Brevard County on road rights‑of‑way and stormwater planning connected to future improvements on Hollywood Boulevard.

Votes at the meeting were recorded on the first reading only; the council voted 7‑0 to approve the first reading with the modifications described above. The Planning & Zoning Board and city staff recommended approval subject to the mapping adjustments and normal development review processes.