Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Titusville board does not approve variance for oversized accessory building at Mockingbird Lane after vote-threshold clarification
Loading...
Summary
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals failed to grant variance 7-2026 for 1165 Mockingbird Lane, which sought to allow detached accessory buildings totaling 1,518 sq ft (176% of the 860 sq ft home). The motion initially appeared to pass 3–2 but required four concurring votes and therefore did not meet the ordinance threshold.
The Titusville Board of Adjustments and Appeals considered a variance on April 29, 2026, from a homeowner seeking to allow detached accessory buildings totaling 1,518 square feet at 1165 Mockingbird Lane, but the request did not receive the legally required number of affirmative votes.
Planning staff told the board the parcel’s principal structure totals about 860 square feet, which under the city’s land development code limits accessory buildings to 50% of the primary structure (approximately 430 square feet for this property). The applicant sought permission to increase that to roughly 176%, or a maximum of 1,518 square feet, to shelter an RV, a pickup and a newer car. Staff said the application “does not appear to demonstrate the presence of special conditions or circumstances” that would justify the variance and recommended denial.
The applicant, identifying himself as Glenn Keller, told the board that access to his property was reduced and that previous thefts from his lot left him seeking secure storage while he spends roughly half the year away. Keller said, “they took our access away and gave us a 12 foot driveway, which is semi illegal in Titusville City because you can't get 2 way traffic in and out,” and asked the board to allow a larger detached building to protect vehicles and tools.
Board members questioned whether attaching a carport to the existing home would be a viable alternative; staff replied that the house is nonconforming and cannot be enlarged under current code, leaving the variance process as the only path for a larger detached structure.
A motion to approve the variance (variance 7-2026) was made and seconded. Roll call recorded yes votes from Vice Chairwoman Van Diven, Member Green and Alternate member Rafael, and no votes from Member Beckles and Alternate member Wright (3–2). The chair initially announced that the variance had been approved, but staff and several board members then pointed to an ordinance provision requiring four concurring votes to grant a variance. After that clarification the board acknowledged the measure had not reached the required four affirmative votes and therefore failed.
The record shows planning staff recommended denial based on the LDR criteria, and the board did not reach the heightened four-vote threshold required by ordinance section 170 for variance grants. The applicant asked about building permits; staff advised him to follow up with planning staff for next steps.
Because the board did not approve the variance, no change to the accessory-structure limits was authorized; any future attempt to modify the property would require reapplication or an appeal consistent with city procedures.
