Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Udo Nonconformity Rewrite topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff proposes overhaul to Non‑Conformity rules in Brevard's Unified Development Ordinance
Summary
Brevard planning staff presented a comprehensive revision to the UDO non‑conformity rules that would raise the redevelopment trigger to 75% and adopt a hybrid compliance approach tying certain required upgrades to the specific impact of the work. The planning board recommended approval and the item will return for a council vote after staff clarifications.
Planning staff presented a multilayered rewrite of the Unified Development Ordinance sections that govern non‑conforming uses, structures, lots and site features.
Why it matters Non‑conformities arise when development that was legal when built no longer meets current code (setbacks, use types, parking, signs). Existing language in Brevard’s UDO, staff said, is vague and administratively difficult: it conflates uses and structures, relies on investment thresholds tied to building value, and forces one all‑or‑nothing trigger that can discourage reinvestment—especially for low‑value properties.
What staff proposed Emily Brewer, senior planner, walked council through a hybrid compliance model the planning board unanimously recommended: - Raise the redevelopment/full‑compliance trigger from 66% to 75% of replacement value to avoid forcing full compliance for modest repairs. - Require incremental, impact‑based upgrades when property owners make specific improvements (for example, expanding a parking area would require compliance with parking lot design and buffers; substantial facade changes would trigger applicable architectural standards). - Clarify expansion rules for non‑conforming structures so owners can enlarge structures without increasing the "degree of non‑conformity," and provide explicit examples and a chart to guide administrators. - Preserve protections for historic structures and include clear rules for manufactured homes and non‑conforming lots (development allowed when access easements exist; subdivisions permitted only when they improve the non‑conformity).
Council response and next steps Council members asked staff to tighten plain‑language definitions (for example, what constitutes "improvement" or "increase in degree of non‑conformity") and to show how the new triggers would interact with other ordinance sections like architectural standards and parking minimums. Staff said it would add illustrative examples and return the edited text for a formal vote at a subsequent meeting.
Implication for property owners and developers The hybrid approach aims to reduce regulatory uncertainty that has discouraged incremental reinvestment while preserving the city's ability to require full compliance for major redevelopments. Developers and building owners are likely to see clearer expectations about when site upgrades trigger code compliance.
Status: recommended by planning board; pending council adoption after staff revisions.
