Palm Bay Council Takes First Steps Towards New Land Use Code, But Questions Remain

Palm Bay Council's Land Use Code Proposal Sparks Community Debate

Palm Bay, FL - A special City Council meeting was called to order on Thursday evening, August 8th, with the primary focus on the first reading of a new Land Development Code. The proposed code, designed to bring Palm Bay’s regulations into alignment with its 2045 Comprehensive Plan, has sparked significant interest and concern among residents. The meeting also saw a surprise appointment to fill the vacant Seat 3 on the City Council.

A New Code and a New Council Member

The council meeting began with a brief agenda change, moving public hearing number two, the first reading of Ordinance 2024-33 establishing the new Land Development Code, to the top of the agenda. This move was made to allow for a comprehensive presentation of the proposed code changes before the council and public.

Immediately following the agenda change, a motion was made to appoint Philip Weinberg to fill the vacant City Council Seat 3. Weinberg, a well-known and respected figure in Palm Bay, has a long history of community involvement, serving on multiple boards and commissions. Councilman Johnson declared Weinberg "the most qualified" from day one, while Mayor Medina, who cast the lone dissenting vote, expressed his support for Weinberg’s dedication but insisted that vacancies should be filled through elections. After the vote Weinberg was sworn in to fulfill the remainder of the Seat 3 term vacated by Councilman Foster.

Despite the appointment, the council remains constrained by the ongoing vacancy for Seat 5. While this move may help expedite decisions on some items, any item requiring a supermajority vote will now necessitate a unanimous decision from all four sitting council members.

Public Comments: A Wave of Concerns

The meeting saw a wave of residents step forward to voice their concerns about the new code and its potential impact on the city. Their comments brought a variety of issues to light:

• “15-Minute Cities” and Affordable Housing: One resident expressed concern about the concept of “15-minute cities” and questioned the affordability of proposed housing developments, suggesting that many residents were already struggling to afford housing.

• Stormwater Management and Liability: Another resident brought up the issue of stormwater management, highlighting the damage caused by a flood last September and the lack of response from the City. They expressed frustration with the City's response, which they perceived as dismissive, and urged the council to address the issue of liability in cases where City-maintained infrastructure fails and causes property damage.

• Cluster Homes and Congestion: A resident raised concerns about the potential for cluster housing to exacerbate traffic congestion in neighborhoods, arguing that while it promotes open space, it could also lead to a higher density of homes in a smaller area.

• Tree Removal Penalties: The lack of penalties for tree removal sparked discussion. Some residents felt that current penalties were insufficient to deter developers from clearing trees, urging the council to implement stronger deterrents.

• Impact Fee Priorities: A resident challenged the current impact fee allocation, questioning why Parks and Recreation receives a higher impact fee than the police and fire departments. They argued that safety should be prioritized.

• Lack of Infrastructure and Growth: A resident questioned the wisdom of further growth when the city is already struggling to keep up with current infrastructure needs. They emphasized the need to address the city’s backlog of essential infrastructure projects before embarking on further development.

• Overdevelopment and Concerns over New Projects: One resident expressed concern about the impact of overdevelopment on the existing character of neighborhoods, particularly in areas zoned for single-family homes. They cited the Green View development on Ster Avenue as an example of development that was poorly planned and potentially detrimental to surrounding properties. This led to a discussion about a proposed development by St. Johns, a developer who has faced criticism for its projects in other areas of the county.

• Missing from the Code: Residents highlighted several issues that they felt were not adequately addressed in the new code, including the need for a dedicated section addressing the construction of a Convention Center, a more robust plan for the development of the school system, and a greater focus on evacuation routes and infrastructure in general.

The Tabling Debate: Balancing Deadlines and Community Input

The volume of concerns raised by residents, coupled with a desire to ensure a collaborative and transparent process, led to a discussion about delaying a vote on the new code.

Councilman Weinberg, newly appointed but already a thoughtful voice on the council, suggested waiting until after the November elections, allowing the newly-elected council to participate in the decision-making process. Deputy City Attorney Rodriguez, while acknowledging the lack of statutory penalties for missing deadlines, cautioned the council about potential legal ramifications. He highlighted a court case in Martin County where a multi-family development, approved in violation of the comprehensive plan, was ordered demolished. Rodriguez also pointed out that waiting until after October 1st would trigger a requirement for the city to prepare a detailed economic impact statement for any city-initiated changes to the code, a process that could significantly delay implementation.

Councilman Johnson, echoing Weinberg’s sentiments, strongly advocated for robust community engagement. He emphasized the need for stakeholder workshops, proposing a date of August 29th to allow for enough time to gather feedback and input from various stakeholders, including the development community, the Chamber of Commerce, and, most importantly, the residents.

After careful consideration of the legal deadlines and the value of community input, the council voted unanimously to table the new Land Development Code and related ordinances until August 22nd. The decision reflects a desire to ensure the new code is carefully crafted and addresses the concerns of the community. However, ordinances that merely relocate existing language to different sections of the code were approved and will be considered in their new sections upon adoption of the new Land Development Code.

A Chance for Collaboration

The decision to table these critical decisions provides a valuable opportunity for Palm Bay residents to engage with their elected officials and contribute to shaping the city's future. Stay tuned to The Palm Bayer for continued coverage of this important development and for updates on the upcoming stakeholder workshops. Your voice matters in this process, so mark your calendars for August 22nd and make sure your concerns are heard.

---

View the complete video of the meeting along with a detailed timestamped timeline of the discussions in the first comment (expand the 1st comment) for further insights: Watch here.