Neighbors urge Planning and Advisory Board to keep Park Avenue property residential

The Satellite Beach Planning and Advisory Board considered a request to amend the comprehensive plan and rezone 1253 A1A — a small, long‑used commercial parcel near the Park Avenue beach access — from RM‑3 (residential mixed use) to commercial. Staff told the board the site has been used commercially for years but is nonconforming under the current plan, and the applicant seeks comp‑plan and zoning changes to allow expansion.

Residents who live near the site urged the board to leave the zoning unchanged. "I'm requesting on behalf of the residents that the property zoning is not altered," said Russell Green, who identified himself as a neighbor at 5 Park Avenue. Green cited safety concerns around the Park Avenue beach access and warned that commercial zoning could set a precedent for nearby lots.

Stephanie Hill, speaking for nearby homeowners, said there are available commercial parcels in the area and said adding business traffic would aggravate parking problems: "There are 9 open commercial‑zoned lots half a mile south of Park Avenue and 13 open commercial spots heading north," she said. Daniel Genovese said permitting records show the site had a commercial building permit in 1993: "If you go to the permitting website at Satellite Beach, in 1993 there's a permit that says type: building — commercial permit," he said, arguing the site's history was small‑scale commercial use rather than a justification for new intensive development.

Staff and board members discussed constraints that make large commercial redevelopment unlikely: the parcel is roughly 0.16 acres, staff said, and site‑plan requirements for parking, stormwater, setbacks and coastal construction setbacks mean an intensive use would face engineering and space limits. Board members nonetheless raised the question of precedent and whether a binding development plan (BDP) or other limit could be requested to narrow future uses.

After public comment and discussion, a board member moved "to keep the code the way it is" (a motion not to recommend rezoning) and another member seconded. The motion was on the table and recorded in the meeting transcript; the transcript does not include a formal recorded roll‑call tally for that specific motion. Chair and staff noted the board's role is advisory to city council and that remaining silent would also leave the zoning unchanged.

What happens next: the board's recommendation (or lack of one) will be forwarded to city council if the applicant pursues the change. Several board members suggested inviting the applicant to a future meeting to answer neighbors' questions before the board finalizes any recommendation.