Planning board approves rebuild at 3073rd Avenue after debate over disaster/nonconforming setback rule

The Melbourne Beach Planning & Zoning Board approved a site plan for a rebuilt home at 3073rd Avenue after a split among commissioners over whether a disaster/nonconforming provision in the code should apply to a purchaser who bought the lot after a fire.

At Tuesday’s meeting, commissioners debated whether ordinance 7A-33F2 — the town’s disaster/nonconforming provision — was intended for homeowners who were living in a dwelling at the time it was damaged, or whether it could be read to allow a later purchaser to expand a nonconforming footprint. Board members noted the east-side setback on the lot is about 9 feet rather than the standard 15 feet and that the applicant’s design would expand the existing footprint in that zone.

Members said the town planner and the town attorney reviewed the application and advised that the rebuild could proceed without remedying the setback under 7A-33F2. Several commissioners expressed discomfort with that interpretation and suggested the commission should consider tightening the code language, but they declined to overrule the attorney’s reading at this meeting.

Samuel Cox, who identified himself as a member of the family that owns the property, told the board the house burned and his family bought the lot about two months after the fire. He said the lot’s 70-foot width (the minimum lot width in Melbourne Beach is 90 feet) and an existing pool constrained where the house could be rebuilt and that they were not seeking a large two-story structure. “We are committed to being in this town. We’ve been in this town for 10 years and that is our forever home,” Cox said, describing multiple plan iterations and the time needed to assemble engineering and drainage information.

Applicants also discussed which walls would be removed versus retained, said the foundation had been inspected and deemed sound, and told the board they intend to transplant palms rather than remove them where possible. Board staff noted a formal tree survey had not been provided with the official survey and that a tree-removal permit would be required if trees must be taken out of the footprint.

The board moved to approve the site plan after hearing the applicants. The decision was recorded by voice vote; the transcript does not include a roll-call tally or a detailed, named vote record.

Next steps for the applicant include finalizing drainage calculations, coordinating with building staff on any required permits (including any tree‑removal permit if applicable), and complying with any conditions included in the site-plan approval.