Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Height topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planners say proposed Melbourne Beach house may exceed new height measure; staff cites Ordinance 2025-01
Summary
At the May 6, 2025 Melbourne Beach Planning Commission meeting, staff and commissioners discussed a proposed house whose finished-floor elevation and measured roof height may exceed limits in Ordinance 2025-01 (codified March 19). Commissioners asked staff to confirm whether a prior variance remains valid before taking action.
At its May 6, 2025 meeting, the Melbourne Beach Planning Commission discussed a proposed single-family house whose finished-floor elevation (FFE) and measured roof height may exceed limits established by Ordinance 2025-01, which staff say was codified March 19, 2025.
Commissioners and staff focused on how the town now measures height. Staff described the current measurement method as limiting the maximum roof height to 28 feet measured from the FFE and restricting the point from which an FFE may be measured to no more than 36 inches above the crown of the road — a combination that the town said produces a 31-foot cap above the road crown in most cases. Under the figures discussed at the meeting, the proposed house measured about 27.1 feet from the FFE to the roofline; the plans list a proposed FFE of 7.53 feet above the referenced survey datum and the road crown was recorded at about 5.95 feet. Using those numbers yields a calculated total of roughly 34.6 feet above the road crown, which exceeds the town's stated 31-foot cap.
Staff noted that federal flood-elevation requirements were not the limiting factor on this site. The commission heard that the minimum elevation under FEMA regulations for the property would be roughly 5 feet (staff's representation at the meeting), and that the proposed FFE of about 7 feet is above that minimum.
Commissioners pressed staff for clarity about how the new height rule was codified and requested the ordinance text. Staff identified the local ordinance as Ordinance 2025-01 and said it was codified on March 19, 2025. Commissioners also asked whether a prior variance that had been granted for the lot remains in effect; meeting discussion did not include a final confirmation of the variance's current status.
A commissioner proposed approving the application on the condition that staff confirm the variance is still valid. The transcript records the proposal (“approve it contingent on confirmation that the variance is still valid”) and a prompt for a motion, but no recorded final vote or formal decision appears in the meeting record.
Next steps reported at the meeting: staff will locate and provide the ordinance language and will check whether the earlier variance remains valid; further action on the application will depend on those confirmations.
