Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brevard board approves lot‑depth variance but denies larger front‑setback request after neighbors protest
Summary
The Brevard County Board of Adjustment on Jan. 14 approved a 7‑inch lot‑depth variance for a BU‑1A parcel in Indialantic but denied the applicant’s larger front‑setback request after residents raised flooding, buffer and traffic concerns and argued the change was a design preference, not a legal hardship.
Steve Monroe, an engineer representing applicants Rasha Roth, Kumar Magluga and Sudipita Karnetti, asked the Brevard County Board of Adjustment on Jan. 14 to grant two variances for a BU‑1A‑zoned parcel in District 5. Monroe said the site — platted in 1961 and now constrained by newer buffer rules enacted in 2006 — needs (1) a front‑setback variance reducing the required 50‑foot setback by about 27.06 feet and (2) a 0.58‑foot (about 7‑inch) lot‑depth variance to meet the current code and allow development.
The board’s discussion focused on whether the requests met Florida and county standards for “undue hardship.” Monroe told the board the parcel is long and narrow, earlier variances existed, and modern buffer rules forced the development footprint eastward; he also said he had met with the Florida Department of Transportation and county staff and expected to design stormwater systems to county and St. Johns River requirements.
Neighbors contested that account. Susan Bond, who said her property backs the site, argued the parcel’s previous variances did not overturn the intent of later code changes and that “the request to encroach into both the A1A setback and the residential buffer is a design choice, not a hardship.” Margarita Pecoraro — who submitted photos to the record — urged the board to require an independent hydrological study, saying her block already “experiences stormwater drainage failures and flooding during heavy rain events” and that added impervious surfaces would worsen flood risk and insurance exposure. Licensed realtor and contractor Kurt Waterman told the board a variance should grant “only the minimum relief necessary to address a genuine hardship” and said the applicant had not shown why a smaller footprint would be insufficient.
Monroe replied that many concerns raised by residents are site‑plan matters addressed during permitting and said the project team had pre‑application conversations with FDOT and county departments; he also said he expects an on‑site stormwater design with no off‑site discharge.
After deliberation, the board separated the two requests. It voted to approve variance number 2, the 0.58‑foot lot‑depth (housekeeping) variance, finding it would regularize a nonconforming lot. The board denied variance number 1, the larger front‑setback reduction, with members saying it did not meet several of the undue‑hardship tests (including minimum relief and harm to the area).
What’s next: The approved lot‑depth variance allows the applicant to proceed toward site‑plan and permitting steps; the larger front‑setback reduction was denied, and any future change to the proposal would require a new application or redesign to fit existing setbacks.
