Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board declines to recommend rezoning of 1253 A1A after resident safety and precedent concerns
Summary
The Satellite Beach Planning and Advisory Board voted to leave the zoning for 1253 A1A unchanged after residents raised safety, precedent and neighborhood-character concerns and the applicant did not attend; board members noted the parcel's small size and parking limits would constrain intense commercial uses.
The Planning and Advisory Board declined to recommend changing the comprehensive-plan designation and zoning for 1253 A1A from RM-3 (residential mixed use) to commercial, after multiple residents urged the board to leave the lot's zoning as-is.
Resident Russell Green, who said he lives at 5 Park Avenue, told the board he was speaking on behalf of neighbors and urged them "the property zoning is not altered," citing safety (two recent pedestrian deaths nearby), the unique Park Avenue beach-access character and a lack of community support for commercial zoning. "A commercial zoning may perpetuate safety issues," he said.
Another neighbor, Stephanie Hill of 30 Park Avenue, told the board she had identified nine open commercially zoned lots within a half-mile and urged the city to encourage reuse of vacant commercial parcels rather than change residential parcels near a busy beach access. Daniel Genovese, a long-time resident, said he found a 1993 commercial building permit for the site and warned the board that rezoning could allow demolition and a future taller structure that would materially change the block.
City staff explained the property has operated as a nonconforming commercial use for years and that rezoning would permit any use allowed by the commercial code subject to site-plan, parking and stormwater rules. Staff also said the lot's limited size and the lack of available parking would likely constrain the intensity of future uses. Board members discussed whether a binding development plan (BDP) could limit future uses but noted that a BDP would require the applicant's consent.
With the applicant absent, several board members said they were reluctant to recommend rezoning without more detail. A board motion to "leave it as is" (not recommend conversion to commercial) was made and seconded; the board recorded multiple "Aye" votes and closed the matter without recommending approval.
What happens next: the board's recommendation (to not recommend rezoning) will be forwarded to City Council for consideration; because the board did not recommend approval, the property's zoning remains RM-3 unless or until council acts. The board also noted the option to table and request the applicant attend a future meeting if members or residents want more information.
