Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Accessory-structure size amendment discussed in Satellite Beach; motion dies for lack of second
Summary
City staff outlined a proposal to increase allowable accessory-structure size and height, including a 400-square-foot cap and aggregate limits tied to house size; a motion to adopt the code change died for lack of a second.
A proposed change to Satellite Beach development code to allow larger backyard accessory structures failed to advance after a motion received no second.
Planning staff told the board the change (TAB 25-01) was prompted by a steady increase in requests for larger backyard buildings such as pool houses, cabanas and pavilions. The draft language would set a 400-square-foot maximum for a single accessory structure, allow a combined total of enclosed plus open structures up to an aggregate that cannot exceed 50% of the primary residence’s square footage, and raise allowable wall height above the current 7-foot limit to better accommodate habitable spaces.
“People are not after just a small little tool shed anymore,” planning staff said, describing the trend toward structures used for a wider range of purposes.
Staff said larger accessory structures would still be reviewed under permit for impervious-area limits, setbacks and Florida Building Code requirements. Site-built structures would need to meet the 150-mile-an-hour wind-zone standard; staff said most larger structures would not be prebuilt packages and would therefore trigger a more detailed review. Driveway and driveway-aggregate limits were discussed in the meeting; a code number was cited as 36 feet for aggregate driveway width counting all residential driveways.
Board members asked about impacts on corner lots, visibility from the street, whether structures must be behind fences and whether a concrete pad would be required. Staff said fences are not required, there is no subsurface pad mandate in the proposed language and roof style would not be regulated — only roof height.
A motion to approve the amendment as written was made but received no second and therefore died, leaving the code unchanged.
The board opened the item to public comment and noted one written letter had been submitted but no speakers offered additional testimony.
