Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Split Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables Mims rezoning after residents allege repeated unlawful lot splits; staff directed to investigate
Summary
The commission tabled two companion Mims items (H3/H4) involving a property where residents say a prior owner unlawfully split lots and a buyer built after county permits. The board set a date‑certain (Feb. 5) to allow the owner to pursue title remedies and asked staff and the county attorney to research enforcement and prevention options.
The Brevard County Commission voted unanimously to table two companion items from Mims — a small‑scale future‑land‑use amendment and a rezoning request tied to an alleged unlawful lot split — and asked county staff and the attorney to research enforcement options and preventive measures.
Jacob Fawn, the applicant, told the board he purchased the parcel, obtained permits, and completed several inspections before being notified by county staff that the lot had been split in a way that may violate a prior Binding Development Plan. Fawn said he relied on county permitting and that he had spent significant personal funds building a 1,600‑square‑foot home.
A long series of neighbors told the board the lot was split unlawfully by a predecessor in interest, that prior permits were issued in error, and that approving the requested land‑use changes would set a troubling precedent and exacerbate flooding in a district already experiencing repeated flood events. Speakers referenced county code section 62‑21‑02 and urged the commission to deny the request or pursue enforcement against the party who made the split.
Staff told the board that the correct remedy for an unlawfully split substandard lot is typically a rezoning (not a variance) if the board chooses to allow the house to remain; staff also recommended any approval be limited and memorialized a Binding Development Plan that prevents a broad precedent. The county attorney and staff explained that while code enforcement is generally reactive to complaints, the board could direct staff to be proactive in cases with a pattern of behavior.
The board unanimously tabled H3 and H4 to a date certain — Thursday, Feb. 5 at 5 p.m. — to give the applicant time to pursue administrative and legal remedies (including title insurer claims) and to allow staff to prepare options for enforcement against the party that may have improperly split the property. Commissioners also discussed exploring systemic fixes (for example, lot‑split ordinances or clerk‑office coordination) to avoid similar future problems.
The tabling preserves the applicant’s ability to continue pursuing administrative remedies and gives staff time to return with a recommended path for enforcement and for preventing comparable unlawful splits in the future.
