Page 1 of 39 DRAFT - Volusia County, Florida · 2020. 4. 16. · Page 1 of 39. DRAFT. 1 . LEGAL COMMENT . 2 . 3 . ... Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications 5 . 6 Members of the Volusia

PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION COMMISSION 1 PUBLIC HEARING HELD 2

APRIL 16, 2020 34

The Public Hearing of the Volusia County Planning and Land Development Regulation 5 Commission was called to order by Ronnie Mills, at 9:00 a.m., in the County Council 6 Meeting Room of the Thomas C. Kelly Administration Center, 123 West Indiana Avenue, 7 DeLand, Florida. On roll call, the following members answered present, to wit: 8

9COMMISSION PRESENT: 10 RONNIE MILLS, Chair – Physically 11 JEFFREY BENDER, Vice-Chair - Physically 12 WANDA VAN DAM, Secretary - Physically 13 JAY YOUNG - Virtually 14 STEVE COSTA - Virtually 15 FRANK COSTA - Virtually 16 EDITH SHELLEY - Virtually 17

STAFF PRESENT: 18 MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, Assistant County Attorney - Physically 19 SCOTT ASHLEY, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager - Physically 20 SUSAN JACKSON, AICP, Senior Planning Manager - Physically 21 PATRICIA SMITH, Planner III - Virtually 22 DARREN EBERSOLE, Planner II - Virtually 23 TREVOR BEDFORD, Planner II - Virtually 24 YOLANDA SOMERS, Staff Assistant II - Physically 25 DARLA ZAKALUZNY, Administrative Aide - Physically 26

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 27 28

Chair Ronnie Mills led the pledge of allegiance. 29 30

APPROVAL OF MINUTES 31 32

January 16, 2020 33

February 20, 2020 34

October 18, 2018 Revision 35

No discussion. 36 37

Member Jay Young MOVED to APPROVE all minutes as presented. Member Wanda 38 Van Dam SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (7:0) by roll call 39 vote. 40

41

Page 1 of 39

jrflowers

Typewritten Text

DRAFT

LEGAL COMMENT 1 2 Michael Rodriguez, Assistant County Attorney, provided legal comment. 3

Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications 4 5 Members of the Volusia County Planning & Land Development Regulation Commission 6 were asked to disclose, for the record, the substance of any ex parte communications 7 that had occurred before or during the public hearing at which a vote is to be taken on 8 any quasi-judicial matters. All members present disclosed any communication as listed 9 below. 10 11 None. 12 13 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATIONS 14 15 ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN 16 Items to be continued or withdrawn will not be discussed unless requested by a 17 commission member, the applicant, or any other affected party. If you wish to speak on 18 any of these items, please advise the commission clerk so that the chair can be advised. 19 It is requested that applicants attend the hearing to answer any questions, which may 20 arise. 21 22 V-20-041 – Application John O. and Donna DiFiore, owners, requesting a variance to the 23 minimum yard requirements on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-5) zoned property. 24 25 The applicant withdrew this item no action is required. 26 27 V-20-037 – Application of Harold S. and Suzanne P. Bentsen, Jr., owners, requesting 28 variances to the minimum yard requirements, and to allow more than one accessory 29 structure over 500 square feet on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-3) zoned property. 30 31 Member Edith Shelley MOVED to CONTINUE to the June 18, 2020. Member Jay 32 Young SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (7:0) by roll call 33 vote. 34 35 V-20-040 – Application of Mark Watts, attorney for James Frable and Mary Ames, owners, 36 requesting variances to minimum yard requirements on Transitional Agriculture (A-3) and 37 Resource Corridor (RC) zoned property. 38 39 Member Edith Shelley MOVED to CONTINUE to the June 18, 2020. Member Jay 40 Young SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (7:0) by roll call 41 vote. 42 43 Z-20-043 – Application of Heath M. Frank, owner, requesting a rezoning from the Rural 44 Agriculture (A-2) classification to the Rural Residential (RR) zoning classification. 45 46 Member Edith Shelley MOVED to CONTINUE to the May 21, 2020. Member Frank 47 Costa SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (7:0) by roll call vote. 48

Page 2 of 39

1 2 NEW BUSINESS 3 4 V-20-015 – Application of Diane L. Petcovic, owner, requesting variances to the minimum 5 yard requirements and the maximum lot coverage requirements on Urban Mobile Home 6 (MH-5) zoned property. 7 8 Ms. Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. 9 Jackson explained to the commission that the applicant was requesting six variances to 10 the minimum yard requirements and the maximum lot coverage for existing structures on 11 a legal nonconforming atypical lot. She explained that the applicant purchased the 12 property in 2003 and obtained permits to construct a mobile home, screen room, and 13 deck in 2006. In 2007, a seawall was permitted and since then several sheds, additional 14 decking, a carport, and an additional concrete pad were added without permits. She 15 explained that the total lot coverage with all the additional structures was 48 percent, 16 which exceeded the allowable lot coverage of 35 percent. Ms. Jackson stated that all the 17 new construction was subject to the stormwater and native vegetation requirements. In 18 April of 2019, code enforcement issued a Notice of Violation for building without permits. 19 The case was originally scheduled for the January 16, 2020 hearing, but was continued 20 due to additional code complaints. She stated that the survey did not appear to accurately 21 reflect the site conditions as it indicated a shed had been removed, but photographs were 22 provided that indicated it had not and the boat lift on the survey was smaller than what 23 could be seen with aerial photographs. Ms. Jackson concluded that staff recommended 24 denial of the variance requests for failure to meet all five criteria for granting said 25 variances. Conditions were provided for consideration should competent substantial 26 evidence be provided to support approval of the requests. 27 28 Member Jay Young asked for clarification on what was on the property in 2006. 29 30 Ms. Jackson stated a permit was issued for the mobile home, a screen room, and a deck 31 in 2006, and at that time they met all setbacks. In 2007, a permit was issued for a seawall 32 and that was the last permit that staff had a record of. 33 34 Member Jay Young inquired if the rest of the structures were unpermitted. 35 36 Ms. Jackson answered in the affirmative. 37 38 Member Wanda Van Dam inquired if there was an original permit for the boat lift. 39 40 Ms. Jackson stated that staff was unable to locate a permit for the original dock. There 41 were two miscellaneous permits in the records, but usually those were for things such as 42 electrical or plumbing. Ms. Jackson added that a dock was usually listed as an accessory 43 structure or it would be identified more clearly. She went on to say, staff did not believe 44 a permit was pulled for the dock and no permits had been pulled for any revisions or 45 renovations to that dock. 46 47 Being that there were no further questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 48 49

Page 3 of 39

Diane Petcovic, 124 Charles Street, Edgewater. Ms. Petcovic explained to the 1 commission that a lot of the information given did not line up with what she found during 2 her research. She asked for clarification on whether they were discussing the boat dock 3 or the boathouse. 4 5 Ms. Jackson indicated it was the boat lift or boathouse. She stated it was the structure 6 that went out into the water. 7 8 Ms. Petcovic stated she found a permit for the boathouse that was pulled by the original 9 owner in 1990. She did not own the property until 2003 and the boathouse was existing. 10 11 Ms. Jackson stated that the permit information could be incomplete given the time it was 12 built so the applicant could provide the permit that was found. 13 14 Ms. Petcovic stated she did not apply for the permit as she was not here in 1990, but she 15 would look into it further. She went on to explain that in regards to the size of her lot, in 16 map book 23, page 195, it clearly showed her lot being 50 feet by 131 feet, which equaled 17 6,550 square feet. The map book was dated 1957. There was discussion that the lot 18 was irregular, however in looking at the measured point on the survey, there were two 19 points; the measured point and the platted point. She stated her property was 50 feet by 20 131 feet. According to the Property Appraiser’s office in New Smyrna Beach, she was 21 paying taxes on 6,550 feet which was the size of her lot. Ms. Petcovic expressed 22 confusion on why it was cut short by a measured point. 23 24 Ms. Jackson indicated that staff considered that the lot was the size on the survey which 25 was 50 feet wide by 90 feet deep. 26 27 Ms. Petcovic stated that was the measured point, not the platted point. If she was only 28 allowed to utilize 50 feet by 90 feet, why was she paying taxes for the rest of it. 29 30 Michael Rodriguez, Assistant County Attorney, stated the survey did show a lot width of 31 50 feet and a length of 131 feet. There was a marking for 104.29, but the survey 32 accurately reflected the boundaries of the lot at 50 feet by 131 feet which corresponded 33 with the measurements and dimensions on the lot plat. 34 35 Ms. Jackson questioned if they owned into the middle of the canal. 36 37 Mr. Rodriguez stated that the canal was a separate 50-foot canal right-of-way as platted. 38 It appeared that the lot was 131 feet. It looked like there were certain other measurements 39 on the survey but the dimension was accurate at 131 feet. 40 41 Chair Ronnie Mills inquired if variance five was still needed if the lot dimensions were 42 correct. 43 44 Mr. Rodriguez replied that variance five would be based on the overall area. 45 46 Chair Ronnie Mills asked for it to be recalculated and asked if the applicant could provide 47 the permit for the boathouse, would variance six still be needed. 48 49

Page 4 of 39

Ms. Jackson stated the survey showed that the boat lift had been expanded and it needed 1 a variance as it encroached into the 15-foot setback from the property line. 2 3 Member Wanda Van Dam stated that her rough calculation for the property was 33 4 percent at 6,550 square feet which would need to be double-checked. 5 6 Chair Ronnie Mills inquired if that was the case, would variance five be needed. 7 8 Mr. Rodriguez stated that was how the numbers correspond. 9 10 Chair Ronnie Mills stated based on legal, it came out to 33 percent and variance five 11 would not be needed. 12 13 Ms. Jackson indicated that staff was calculating it to make sure that was the correct 14 percentage. 15 16 Ms. Petcovic submitted a presentation into evidence and referred to it while speaking. 17 She stated this was her written petition for the variance and all questions were answered 18 honestly and accurately to the best of her knowledge. She went on to explain that 19 question two was the reason why her neighbors filed complaints after she had requested 20 the variance. The answer to the question was that all of her other neighbors were 21 enjoying their noncompliant decks and sheds, and to her, that was a hardship. Ms. 22 Petcovic stated her neighbors feel she threw them under the bus and they were all about 23 to receive noncompliance notices in the mail. Ms. Petcovic went on to say she submitted 24 the application in November and they still have not received their notice. She asked if 25 that would be done after the variance meeting was over. 26 27 Chair Ronnie Mills replied that the commission was a variance board and they make 28 recommendations on zoning. The commission had nothing to do with code enforcement. 29 30 Ms. Petcovic stated that she had not been able to take care of the issue since 2018 when 31 she first got a Notice of Violation due to battling an autoimmune disease. She had not 32 been able to work which has been a hardship for her and that was why she was unable 33 to correct the issues. She stated that she was doing her best to work on the issues and 34 come into compliance with the county’s regulations. She went on to say that years ago 35 Volusia County’s Zoning Department changed the area from a fish camp to MH-5. The 36 residents in the area were older and had lived there over 40 years, but were not aware 37 that the zoning was changed to MH-5. After a count, it was learned out of 400, only 25 38 lots were in compliance and that left 375 non-compliant lots. Ms. Petcovic said her goal, 39 if she could not get her variance, would be to work with the neighborhood itself. She stated 40 the front setback was 20 feet so that was 20 feet by 50 feet, then there are two side 41 setbacks of five feet on either side. When you add all this up, it turns out that 47.48 42 percent, or almost half, of her lot was not usable. She stated she patterned her lot off of 43 everyone else’s with sheds on their property lines and carports out to the street. 375 44 property owners had what she had. Ms. Petcovic went on to say that she called the 45 county in 2003 and was given misinformation, so she just wanted to work with what she 46 had and move forward. Ms. Petcovic inquired if it was normal that only 50 percent of your 47 lot could be utilized. 48 49

Page 5 of 39

Ms. Jackson responded it was normal for all properties to have front, rear, and side 1 setbacks. They varied depending on the zoning classification you were in. Some may 2 be more and some may be less than that percentage, but it was a normal code 3 requirement. 4 5 Ms. Petcovic referred to a graph that showed how the docks were set up and everybody 6 seemed to have a problem getting their boats in or out. She measured between her 7 boathouse and the neighbors’ docks and there isn’t a lot of room for anyone to navigate. 8 9 Chair Ronnie Mills stated they were only looking at the issues with her property, not 10 anyone else’s. 11 12 Ms. Petcovic responded she misunderstood the hearing as she thought the planning 13 department would provide their report and then she would be allowed to show her 14 viewpoints. She went on to say it sounds like nothing else around her could be taken into 15 consideration; only within her property. 16 17 Mr. Rodriguez responded variances are granted based on the criteria in the ordinance 18 that are listed in the staff report. The arguments that are being raised by the applicant’s 19 request for variance should be how they meet the standards listed in the ordinance for 20 the granting of a variance. 21 22 Chair Ronnie Mills inquired if they needed to meet all five. 23 24 Mr. Rodriguez answered in the affirmative. 25 26 Chair Ronnie Mills stated he understood her concerns, but they had to look at the facts 27 of the case based upon her lot and the five criteria that had to be considered. 28 29 Ms. Petcovic referenced her presentation that showed her carport. She stated that 30 although it was out farther than it was supposed to be, the vehicles under the carport 31 were completely clear of anything and there was not a visibility issue. She pointed out 32 that there was an old grove cedar tree preventing the carport from being moved back any 33 further, they had it pushed back as far as it could go. Ms. Petcovic stated that the sheds 34 were on the deck to provide a clean area and to protect the tree in the middle. Ms. 35 Petcovic concluded that the remainder of the presentation would not matter as they were 36 photos of the rest of the neighborhood and she understood that it was based on her 37 property alone. 38 39 Chair Ronnie Mills inquired if the photos were from her direct neighbors. 40 41 Ms. Petcovic indicated that they were only from South Water Front Park. There were 42 four streets in the park that ran east and west and all four streets were set up the same. 43 44 Member Frank Costa referred to page 12 of 33 in the staff report and inquired when the 45 property was purchased by the applicant. 46 47 Ms. Petcovic stated in 2003. 48 49

Page 6 of 39

Member Frank Costa inquired if the structure in variance one was present when the 1 property was purchased by the applicant or did the applicant add it. 2 3 Ms. Petcovic stated that she added it. 4 5 Member Frank Costa asked if that was permitted. 6 7 Ms. Petcovic answered in the negative and stated she was given incorrect information as 8 she had mentioned earlier. She was told that carports and sheds did not require permits. 9 10 Member Frank Costa inquired if the structure in variance two was present when the 11 property was purchased. 12 13 Ms. Petcovic answered in the negative and stated that she put all of the metal sheds on 14 the property. 15 16 Member Frank Costa inquired if any permits had been pulled for any of those sheds. 17 18 Ms. Petcovic answered in the negative. 19 20 Member Frank Costa referenced variance six and inquired if the boatlift was present when 21 the applicant purchased the property. 22 23 Ms. Petcovic answered in the affirmative. 24 25 Member Frank Costa inquired if the applicant had expanded it. 26 27 Ms. Petcovic answered in the affirmative. 28 29 Member Frank Costa inquired from what size to what size. 30 31 Ms. Petcovic indicated she was unsure of the actual length of it but guessed it was around 32 15 feet and now it was 18 feet. 33 34 Member Frank Costa asked if it was permitted when that expansion occurred. 35 36 Ms. Petcovic answered in the negative. 37 38 Vice-Chair Jeffrey Bender inquired why permits were not pulled for any of those 39 structures. 40 41 Ms. Petcovic stated she had inquired about permits in 2003 and was told you did not need 42 permits for sheds, carports, and decks that were on the ground. Anything that was 3 feet 43 or higher needed a permit. So she modeled her property based on the surrounding area. 44 45 Member Jay Young inquired if the information given to the applicant was verified with the 46 county. 47 48 Ms. Petcovic answered in the affirmative when she called in 2003. 49

Page 7 of 39

1 Member Jay Young clarified if the county stated that a permit was not needed. 2 3 Ms. Petcovic answered in the affirmative and stated the neighbors had said the same 4 thing. There were no required permits for sheds, carports, and decks that were lower 5 than three feet high. 6 7 Member Jay Young asked if all of them were under three feet high. 8 9 Ms. Petcovic stated there was an additional deck that exceeded that now. 10 11 Member Jay Young inquired if the metal sheds were under three feet high. 12 13 Ms. Petcovic answered in the negative and stated that they did not say the sheds had to 14 be less than three feet, they said the sheds did not need to be permitted because they 15 were not considered permanent structures and neither were carports. 16 17 Member Frank Costa asked how long the metal sheds and carport had been on the 18 property. 19 20 Ms. Petcovic stated they had been there for 10 years or more. 21 22 Member Costa clarified the carport and the metal sheds had been there for 10 plus years. 23 24 Ms. Petcovic answered in the affirmative. 25 26 Member Frank Costa inquired as to what started the variance process and whether or not 27 it was a code violation. 28 29 Ms. Petcovic answered in the affirmative. 30 31 Member Frank Costa clarified that the applicant received a Notice of Violation. 32 33 Ms. Petcovic answered in the affirmative. 34 35 Member Frank Costa inquired if it was for one of them or all of them. 36 37 Ms. Petcovic responded it was two; one for the shed and one for the carport. They were 38 considered different. 39 40 Member Frank Costa stated he was trying to see what precipitated that event to occur as 41 it sounded like it was a neighbor complaint of some sort. 42 43 Ms. Petcovic replied it was going on all over the neighborhood. That was why she cared 44 so much about taking care of the problem for everyone, not just herself. 45 46 Chair Ronnie Mills asked when the designation of fish camp was changed to MH-5. 47 48 Ms. Jackson stated it had been zoned MH-5 since 1980. 49

Page 8 of 39

1 Chair Ronnie Mills inquired if the designation for fish camps were any different than MH-2 5 as far as setbacks. 3 4 Ms. Jackson stated staff did not know if this was a fish camp. She did not have the history 5 and it was unclear that there would have been any kind of setback difference at that time. 6 7 Public Participation. 8 9 Tom and Penny Hauser, 122 Charles Street, Edgewater. Ms. Hauser stated the code 10 violation started in 2017 according to her records and that Ms. Petcovic never asked or 11 said anything to them about any of these violations. She explained that there were sheds, 12 a deck, and a ramp all on the property line and expressed concern over Ms. Petcovic 13 being able to maintain them when they were right on the line. Ms. Petcovic used to have 14 them covered with bamboo and it seemed like she was trying to make a fence. 15 16 Mr. Hauser stated the sheds were a surprise to them as they rented their property and 17 when one of the renters moved out, they checked on the property to get it ready to rent 18 again and the sheds appeared. Mr. Hauser added that nothing was ever said to them 19 about it and all of a sudden it was a big wall of sheds. 20 21 Ms. Hauser stated if you add up all the square feet, 38 feet of stuff was on the property 22 line. Some of those may be to code but on the survey you could see the deck was 10 23 feet, the two sheds were 18 feet and the back deck was another 10 feet. Mrs. Hauser 24 stated they could not see when leaving their driveway. She concluded by reminding 25 everyone that they did not live there, but stay there on weekends. 26 27 Chair Ronnie Mills inquired if they agreed with the applicant’s statement that the sheds 28 had been on the property for approximately 10 years. 29 30 Ms. Hauser indicated it may have been 5 or 6 years. She added that they did not know, 31 they just appeared. 32 33 Janet Moody, 126 Charles Street, Edgewater. Ms. Moody indicated that that was their 34 vacation home. Mrs. Moody stated when they purchased the property next to 124 Charles 35 Street, it was easy enough for them to pull their pontoon out as there was not a structure 36 in front of it. A couple of years after they purchased the property the applicant started 37 building an addition to it so she could walk around, go fishing in the canal, and wash her 38 boat. She said they were there when she was building it and at the time they did not 39 know about the codes and property setbacks. Mrs. Moody went on to say she had made 40 a comment about being permitted and the applicant responded, “Shush, we don’t talk 41 about permits here”. Mrs. Moody stated they were ignorant of the facts and thought that 42 since it was her property she could build onto it if she wanted to. Since then, they have 43 realized that because she has built the walkway, they are not able to get their pontoon 44 out. 45 46 Mr. Moody stated that he found out about the issues because she had sent him a certified 47 letter and told him he did not have to open it. He did open it and looked up the case 48 online and found out she was supposed to be 16 feet away from his property line with her 49

Page 9 of 39

boathouse. He concluded that the neighbor on the other side also had a boat lift so, 1 between both of them, it was impossible to get his boat out. 2 3 Chair Ronnie Mills inquired if he knew how long ago the dock or the boathouse was 4 extended. 5 6 Mr. Moody responded approximately four years. 7 8 Eleanor Jones, 130 Charles Street, Edgewater. Mrs. Jones stated that her father-in-law, 9 Ken Jones, was the South Water Front Park Homeowners Association President for 10 approximately 20 years and all of the lots were set up the same and had the same 11 restraints on them. Mrs. Jones stated they have a chain-link fence around their property 12 and a concrete seawall with two boat lifts. She said Mr. Moody was able to get his boat 13 out prior to Ms. Petcovic expanding her boat lift, which was unpermitted. Also, Ms. 14 Petcovic said that she had a permit for the boat lift or the previous owner built it. Mrs. 15 Jones said they were permitted but as she understood, there was a 15-foot setback 16 because of this concern. If people built their structures too close to the property line, 17 other people would be inconvenienced and would not be able to get their boats out. She 18 went on to say that the applicant did not measure how many feet it was off the other side 19 on her presentation. Mrs. Jones concluded that they are inconvenienced because they 20 are trying to help the Moody’s get their boat out, which meant they could not get their own 21 out. 22 23 Ms. Petcovic rebutted that she had lived there 17 years and the other neighbors had been 24 there close to the same amount of time and this was the first time she was hearing those 25 comments. She said it would have been nice to have them brought to her attention at the 26 time so something could have been done about it then. Ms. Petcovic stated she did not 27 mind people complaining, and the complaints were valid, and she thinks that was how we 28 work through the system and move forward. 29 30 Commission Discussion. 31 32 Member Edith Shelley stated that people need to be aware that permits are needed. She 33 went on to say that she knows Ms. Petcovic said she checked with neighbors and perhaps 34 talked to someone at the county, but these issues would have been addressed at the 35 permitting process. She inquired if staff had any feedback on the question that was raised 36 regarding variance five and the lot size. 37 38 Ms. Jackson stated it appeared that based on scaling the survey, the lot was 6,550 square 39 feet and 35 percent of that would be 2,275 square feet of lot coverage. Based on plat 40 dimensions, the lot was a little bit bigger and that would allow 2,292 square feet of lot 41 coverage. She stated she did not know their actual lot coverage as that would be more 42 difficult to calculate because there were strange dimensions on the survey. 43 44 Member Edith Shelley inquired what that meant in regards to the request for variance 45 five, did they need to pull it or could they move forward and vote on it. 46 47

Page 10 of 39

Ms. Jackson responded that the commission could do a variance to either permit the lot 1 coverage that exists today or to not exceed 35 percent. She deferred to legal to provide 2 a comment. 3 4 Michael Rodriguez, Assistant County Attorney. Mr. Rodriguez stated that it was going to 5 depend on the true lot coverage and the structures on there. The denominator in the 6 formula was 6,500 which would be the square footage. Mr. Rodriguez stated he was not 7 clear if the additional decking and concrete placed on the property affected what the true 8 lot coverage was, as there were structures placed on it. The survey had a concrete floor 9 structure that is not added in the overall matrix that pushed the lot coverage to 10 approximately 36 percent. 11 12 Ms. Jackson responded according to the table in the staff report, there was approximately 13 2,174.9 square feet of lot coverage. It appeared everything was listed which would take 14 it under 35 percent; it appeared to be about 31 percent. 15 16 Yolanda Somers, Staff Assistant II, provided it was 33.46 percent. 17 18 Ms. Jackson stated it was under the 35 percent requirement so it did not require a 19 variance. Ms. Jackson deferred to Scott Ashley for comment on whether or not the 20 concrete needed to be included in the calculation. 21 22 Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager. Mr. Ashley stated that in looking at the 23 survey he did not know if it was elevated concrete but the wood decking was elevated. 24 The building department generally needs to permit a deck about 6 inches in height and 25 they consider that a structure. If you follow that, we would consider that it has to meet 26 setbacks and it would be considered part of the lot coverage calculation. That was not 27 looked at when he did because he did not have any information, but from the staff report, 28 the covered deck was included. 29 30 Ms. Jackson stated the covered deck was included but if the concrete was at ground level 31 did that count towards lot coverage. 32 33 Mr. Ashley answered in the negative. 34 35 Ms. Jackson clarified the 33.64 percent was accurate based on the drawing. 36 37 Mr. Ashley answered in the affirmative based on page four of the staff report. He 38 calculated out the same area that was shown except for the front covered concrete that 39 covered more area and showed it was under the lot coverage based on the 6500. 40 41 Ms. Jackson stated the wood deck did not appear to be in the table, the covered deck 42 was 180 square feet. She did not know if the full wood deck was and it appeared to be an 43 elevated wood deck, so we would have to add that into the calculation and that would 44 likely push her over 35 percent. 45 46 Mr. Ashley responded if it was at 34.6 percent, then yes it could do that. 47 48

Page 11 of 39

Chair Ronnie Mills inquired if variance five could be modified to be whatever we allowed 1 to remain. 2 3 Mr. Rodriguez stated they could and it would be that the lot coverage for this lot would 4 constitute that which is already deemed a structure that constitutes lot coverage. The 5 structure in question is the wood deck, which was not included. The area of that could be 6 calculated then we have a fixed percentage. We could say the variance would be that 7 the lot coverage was based on the actual and that no other structures can be added to 8 the property and establish that as the threshold. 9 10 Member Wanda Van Dam clarified that the purple shed was not being taken into 11 consideration for the setback because it was far enough off from the property line and if 12 the blue shed was removed the purple shed could remain and it would not need a 13 variance. 14 15 Ms. Jackson answered in the affirmative. It needed to be permitted but appeared to be 16 six feet from the property line. 17 18 Member Wanda Van Dam referred to the picture of the shed with the tree. She inquired 19 if the small shed to the right could be moved forward enough to get it off the lot line. Right 20 now it was at a zero lot line. It appeared that the smaller shed could be moved forward 21 and the small shed behind the large one could be removed in its entirety. 22 23 Ms. Jackson stated it appeared that it could be, but she did not know how many feet that 24 was to the tree or what was behind it. 25 26 Member Wanda Van Dam stated in regards to the boatlift, there was a question as to 27 whether it was permitted, and if it was permitted, it was unknown what distance from the 28 lot line it was permitted to be. She clarified that it appeared to be about 4.5 feet from the 29 lot line currently. 30 31 Ms. Jackson answered in the affirmative. 32 33 Chair Ronnie Mills stated the biggest concern was the boat dock where they could not 34 get their boats in and out. As far as the lot coverage, he did not think the wood deck 35 presented a problem. If the sheds were being put in there as a fencing apparatus, he 36 agreed with Member Van Dam and noted that he was not inclined to approve the variance 37 for zero lot lines. 38 39 Member Wanda Van Dam inquired if the variances would be acted on together or 40 separately. 41 42 Chair Ronnie Mills stated they should be done separately. 43 44 Member Edith Shelley MOVED to DENY case V-20-015, a variance to Section 72-45 277(1) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum yard requirement in the 46 front yard from 20 feet to 8.7 feet for a carport (variance 1). 47 48 Member Jay Young SECONDED the motion. 49

Page 12 of 39

1 Motion discussion. 2 3 Member Steve Costa stated he was aware that the applicant did not get a permit, 4 however, he did not hear a lot of residents concerned about the carport. He said he 5 understands the need to maybe deny it, but he may be opting to keep the carport. 6 7 Member Frank Costa referenced the neighborhood photos that were provided and 8 cautioned everyone before jumping in with denials, it looked like the photos showed quite 9 a few that were essentially zero lot line structures and what was going to be done for one 10 would be done for all. 11 12 Member Edith Shelley replied that it was not known if the adjoining properties did not 13 receive permits and variances. 14 15 The motion FAILED 3:4 by roll call vote (Members Frank Costa, Steve Costa, Jeffrey 16 Bender, and Ronnie Mills opposed). 17 18 Member Steve Costa MOVED to APPROVE case V-20-015, a variance to Section 72-19 277(1) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum yard requirement in the 20 front yard from 20 feet to 8.7 feet for a carport (variance 1), subject to the following 21 staff recommended conditions; 22 23

1. The applicant shall obtain and complete all required building permits and 24 inspections for the sheds, the carport, deck, and boat lift. 25

26 2. The variances are limited to those shown on the variance site plan attached 27

to this report. 28 29

3. If the structures are damaged more than 50 percent of their replacement 30 cost, they may be replaced provided that a building permit is obtained and 31 the location of the new structures complies with the applicable yard 32 requirements of Zoning Ordinance at the time of replacement. 33

34 4. The applicant shall apply for a wetland alteration permit for any structures 35

located within the 25-foot wetland buffer. 36 37

5. The applicant shall comply with Division 16 of the Land Development 38 Regulations which includes storm water requirements within the Indian 39 River Lagoon Surface Water Improvements and Management Overlay Zone, 40 otherwise known as the Class II overlay. 41

42 Member Frank Costa SECONDED the motion. 43 44 Mr. Rodriguez stated he wanted to clarify a staff question. He said there was a motion to 45 deny the variance which failed. Mr. Rodriguez stated it does not automatically grant the 46 variance because there has not been affirmative action by the commission on the 47

Page 13 of 39

variance one way or the other. He said if there is an alternate motion to grant the variance 1 then that is called to question. 2 3 The motion CARRIED 4:3 by roll call vote (Members Jay Young, Edith Shelley, and 4 Wanda Van Dam opposed). 5 6 Member Edith Shelley MOVED to DENY case V-20-015, a variance to Section 72-7 277(1) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum yard requirement in the 8 west side yard from five feet to zero feet for an 8.3-foot by 9.9-foot metal shed 9 (variance 2). The motion was SECONDED by Member Jay Young. Motion CARRIED 10 6:1 by roll call vote (Member Frank Costa opposed). 11 12 Member Edith Shelley MOVED to DENY case V-20-015, a variance to Section 72-13 277(1) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum yard requirement in the 14 west side yard from five feet to zero feet for a 10.2-foot by 6-foot metal shed 15 (variance 3). The motion was SECONDED by Member Jay Young. Motion CARRIED 16 6:1 by roll call vote (Member Frank Costa opposed). 17 18 Member Edith Shelley MOVED to DENY case V-20-015, a variance to Section 72-19 277(1) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum yard requirement in the 20 west side yard from five feet to zero feet for a deck (variance 4). The motion was 21 SECONDED by Member Jay Young. Motion FAILED 3:4 by roll call vote (Members 22 Frank Costa, Steve Costa, Jeffrey Bender, and Ronnie Mills opposed). 23 24 Member Frank Costa MOVED to APPROVE case V-20-015, a variance to Section 72-25 277(1) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum yard requirement in the 26 west side yard from five feet to zero feet for a deck (variance 4), subject to the 27 following staff recommended conditions; 28 29




3. If the structures are damaged more than 50 percent of their replacement 36 cost, they may be replaced provided that a building permit is obtained and 37 the location of the new structures complies with the applicable yard 38 requirements of the Zoning Ordinance at the time of replacement. 39




48

Page 14 of 39

The motion was SECONDED by Member Steve Costa. Motion CARRIED 4:3 by roll 1 call vote (Members Jay Young, Edith Shelley, and Wanda Van Dam opposed). 2 3 Chair Ronnie Mills referred to variance five and asked the members to keep in 4 consideration what Mr. Rodriguez stated about the existing structures that were left but 5 believed they were going to fall under the 35 percent. 6 7 Mr. Rodriguez stated the one structure that was in question, that was not calculated as 8 part of the overall calculations for lot coverage, was the deck. That deck in area, just by 9 looking at the survey, was greater than the area of concrete. If the concrete was added 10 to the overall matrix of lot coverage, it would push it to 36 percent. He advised that the 11 motion be made to approve and then let the votes fall where they may to avoid the double 12 vote. If you have a motion to approve and that failed, then the action was completed. He 13 concluded that the board wished when this was discussed that it be a motion to grant a 14 variance to increase the maximum allowable lot coverage from 35 percent to the current 15 existing lot coverage on the property, taking into account the area of the wood deck was 16 probably the easiest way to make the motion. 17 18 Member Wanda Van Dam inquired since some of the requests had been denied and the 19 structures were going to possibly be removed, if the lot coverage was approved and it 20 included those structures, did that give the applicant the right to replace them with another 21 structure that met setbacks. 22 23 Mr. Rodriguez answered in the affirmative if done pursuant to the setbacks. If they set 24 the number to the already existing, then the applicant would be able to add structures if 25 the dimensions are equal to the existing as long as they fell within the setbacks. If the 26 commission allowed a higher lot coverage but the applicant elected not to replace them, 27 that would be fine also. If the applicant replaced the structures or constructed onto the 28 property those things that fell within coverage, that was for the commission to take into 29 account when increasing the maximum allowable lot coverage on the property. 30 31 Ms. Jackson provided that the applicant may be able to put the sheds on top of the 32 existing deck but not create an additional lot coverage issue as long as she met setbacks. 33 34 Member Edith Shelley provided that they have already denied two of the items so she 35 would not be comfortable increasing the lot coverage to 36 percent; she is comfortable 36 with leaving it at the allowed 35 percent. 37 38 Chair Ronnie Mills stated that the only issue with that was they had approved the deck 39 and that was not calculated in previously. 40 41 Member Edith Shelley stated two items had been taken out so she believed it was 42 possible because Mr. Rodriguez stated possibly 36 percent. Since they denied two items, 43 she would keep it at 35 percent which would be doable since the two items were denied. 44 45 Ms. Jackson provided that they had to find out if the sheds were currently located on top 46 of the deck, as removing them was not going to change the lot coverage calculation. She 47 stated if they were on the ground, then it would change it. 48 49

Page 15 of 39

Mr. Rodriguez noted that the two sheds whose variances were denied covered 143.37 1 square feet. 2 3 Ms. Jackson asked to have the applicant brought back in the conversation so she could 4 provide clarification if the two sheds were on the ground or were they on top of the deck. 5 6 Ms. Petcovic provided that all of the sheds were on the ground and the deck was attached 7 to the sheds, therefore consuming a third of the amount of area covered. If they were to 8 be removed, there was no deck underneath. 9 10 Ms. Jackson stated that removing the sheds would reduce the lot coverage. 11 12 Member Shelley provided she would not be in favor of increasing beyond the 35 percent. 13 14 Member Steve Costa asked the applicant if she had given any thought to what she was 15 going to do with the sheds now that the variances had been denied. Would they be moved 16 to meet the setback requirements or would they be removed from the property. 17 18 Ms. Petcovic provided that she was unsure of what she was going to do. She said she 19 was trying to go through the process one step at a time. She did not have any money so 20 she would likely sell the property at a loss. 21 22 Member Steve Costa inquired how much square feet was equal to one percent of the 23 property. 24 25 Ms. Jackson provided it was a 6,500-square-foot lot. 26 27 Mr. Rodriguez provided that the overall was 6,550 square feet which equated to 65.5 28 square feet. The overall area of the two sheds that had variances denied was 130. 29 30 Member Steve Costa provided that he was prepared to make a motion to approve 31 variance five. 32 33 Member Frank Costa inquired if they were supposed to vote based on the information 34 that was presented by staff. 35 36 Mr. Rodriguez provided if it was believed that there was competent substantial evidence 37 to support either decision then the motion was made in those regards. 38 39 Member Frank Costa stated the variance that was asked for was to increase from 35 40 percent to 48 percent based on staff’s calculations that the lot was only 4,500 square feet, 41 when in fact it was 6,500 square feet. He went on to say that forgetting the deck as it was 42 never factored into their original calculations, they were well underneath the 35 percent, 43 so did they even need to vote. 44 45 Ms. Jackson provided that what was being calculated might be slightly more lot coverage 46 than 35 percent because they did not calculate in the wood deck. That is why she 47 believed the motion was going to be to accept the lot coverage as it was on the lot, not 48 the 48 percent as that was incorrect. 49

Page 16 of 39

1 Member Frank Costa provided that if Mr. Steve Costa made the motion and changed the 2 48 percent to the existing coverage, then he could support it. 3 4 Member Steve Costa MOVED to APPROVE Case V-20-015, an amended variance to 5 Section 72-241 of the Zoning Ordinance to increase the maximum allowable lot 6 coverage from 35 percent to the existing coverage of the approved structures 7 (variance 5), subject to the following conditions; 8 9




3. If the structures are damaged more than 50 percent of their replacement 16 cost, they may be replaced provided that a building permit is obtained and 17 the location of the new structures complies with the applicable yard 18 requirements of the Zoning Ordinance at the time of replacement. 19




28 The motion was SECONDED by Member Frank Costa. Motion CARRIED 5:2 by roll 29 call vote (Members Jay Young and Edith Shelley opposed). 30 31 Member Frank Costa referred to page 5 of 33 of the staff report. He stated that in looking 32 at the 2007 picture of the originally permitted boatlift and the 2020 picture, you could see 33 that they had added approximately 8 feet to the right of the structure. The property to the 34 right had also increased their footprint almost by double or triple. If there was an argument 35 that someone could not get their boat out, was the issue both or just one. He had an 36 issue with denying this particular variance when the neighbors did the same thing. 37 38 Ms. Jackson provided it was not known if the neighbor’s boatlift had been permitted or if 39 it had variances. That information was needed to be taken into consideration. 40 41 Chair Ronnie Mills pointed out that if variance six was to be denied, the applicant would 42 have to bring the boatlift back to 15 feet and if the boathouse was permitted previously, it 43 looked like it fell within that 15-foot setback. He inquired as to how that was to be 44 determined. 45 46

Page 17 of 39

Member Jay Young stated in looking at the pictures, he agreed to some extent about the 1 neighbor, as it seemed they extended it further out, not wider. He was unsure if he agreed 2 with the argument or not. 3 4 Member Van Dam provided that part of the question was whether or not the boatlift was 5 originally permitted, and if it was, how far to the property line it was permitted. She was 6 unsure of how to word a motion or if they could even deny something that previously 7 potentially had a permit. 8 9 Mr. Rodriguez provided that the applicant was seeking a variance to reduce the setback 10 to 4.5 feet. Denying the variance would leave it in its current state. If the boathouse in 11 its current state was not in violation because it was permitted, then they have the vested 12 right to have it there. 13 14 Member Van Dam stated the permit should say what the width was or what the distance 15 was. 16 17 Mr. Rodriguez said we would have to see what dimensions were on the permit. If the 18 commission felt that was competent substantial evidence to vote on it, they could. The 19 boatlift was not on the property, it was in a platted canal that was considered a right-of-20 way. Without having the permit to review, he could not determine what it was one way or 21 the other. 22 23 Member Wanda Van Dam inquired if the motion should be modified to amend the request 24 to the previously permitted distance from the lot line. 25 26 Mr. Rodriguez provided that they would be legitimizing the permit and if the structure were 27 damaged more than 50 percent, it could be rebuilt according to the permit. We could not 28 conclusively state that the structure was permitted, we were relying on the testimony of 29 the applicant. 30 31 Ms. Jackson provided that staff located the permit and it was permitted at 14-foot by 14-32 foot. There was no expansion permitted. She stated we could consider it a legal 33 nonconforming structure from the setback line according to the original permitted location. 34 35 Member Wanda Van Dam clarified that was only if it was built according to the site plan. 36 37 Ms. Jackson answered in the affirmative. 38 39 Chair Ronnie Mills stated they could not come back for a year to get the setback if it was 40 needed. 41 42 Member Wanda Van Dam stated if the dock was not built where it was permitted, then 43 they would have to wait a year. 44 45 Chair Ronnie Mills answered in the affirmative and stated that it had to have been finalized 46 at some point and if it wasn’t caught then that it was not built to the site plan and a variance 47 was needed, they could not come back for a year. 48 49

Page 18 of 39

Member Wanda Van Dam provided the applicant would not need to wait a year if they 1 could make the motion that the setback that was previously permitted be the acceptable 2 location of it. 3 4 Chair Ronnie Mills answered in the affirmative and stated that it may not be in the right 5 location from where they approved it. 6 7 Ms. Jackson concurred. 8 9 Member Jay Young clarified that if it was approved to the old permit, would they even 10 need a variance. If it was not in the right location and they had to cut it back to comply, 11 would they still even need a variance. 12 13 Mr. Rodriguez answered in the affirmative. 14 15 Member Jay Young stated the one year would only kick in if they did not want to comply 16 with the original permit. 17 18 Mr. Rodriguez stated that if they were seeking a variation from the originally permitted 19 location, and it was denied, then they could not come back for a year to be able to place 20 the structure elsewhere. 21 22 Member Jay Young clarified if they already were at the original location or if they moved 23 it back to the original location, they would not need the variance. 24 25 Mr. Rodriguez answered in the affirmative and stated they could also move it to meet 26 current setbacks and they would not need a variance. 27 28 Member Jay Young MOVED to DENY case V-20-015, a variance to Section 72-278(5) 29 of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce an east side yard setback from the required 15 30 feet to 4.5 feet for an existing boat lift (variance 6). The motion was SECONDED 31 by Member Edith Shelley. Motion CARRIED 4:3 by roll call vote (Members Frank 32 Costa, Steve Costa, and Jeffrey Bender opposed). 33 34 V-20-034 – Application of William E. Mesick, owner, requesting a variance to allow more 35 than one accessory structure over 500 square feet on Urban Single-Family Residential 36 (R-4) zoned property. 37 38 Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. Jackson 39 explained to the commission that the requested variance was to allow for more than one 40 accessory structure greater than 500 square feet in size on R-4 zoned property. The 41 applicants were proposing to construct an 832-square-foot detached garage on a 2.74 42 acre lot that already had a single-family residence and a 1,568-square-foot pole barn. 43 She stated that R-4 only allows for one accessory structure over 500 square feet in size, 44 but given the lot size, it could be subdivided into four separate lots and developed with 45 four single-family homes and accessory structures over 500 square feet. Ms. Jackson 46 concluded that staff recommended denial of the request as it failed to meet all five criteria 47 for granting a variance, but provided a condition for consideration should competent, 48 substantial evidence be provided to support approval of the request. 49

Page 19 of 39

1 Chair Ronnie Mills stated if it was attached to the home, they wouldn’t need the variance. 2 3 Ms. Jackson answered in the affirmative and stated if it were attached to the home, it 4 would be a part of the principle structure and would just increase the square footage of it. 5 6 Being that there were no further questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 7 8 William Mesick, 1749 Popwell Trail, Holly Hill. Mr. Mesick stated that the pole barn was 9 very old and was separated into stalls so it was unusable for a garage. He wanted a 10 garage to be able to work in. The home had vinyl siding that was over 20 years old and 11 felt it would be too difficult to match if he attached it to the home. 12 13 Public Participation. None. 14 15 Commission Discussion. 16 17 Member Jay Young indicated that he was familiar with the property and did not have an 18 issue with the request as it was a very rural area. 19 20 Member Wanda Van Dam MOVED to approve case number V-20-034, a variance to 21 Section 72-277(1)e of the Zoning Ordinance to allow more than one accessory 22 structure over 500 square feet in area on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-4) 23 zoned property, subject to the following conditions: 24 25

1. The variance is limited to two accessory structures over 500 square feet, 26 pursuant to the survey/site plan prepared by Efird Surveying Group dated 27 07/20/20. Any future expansion of the structures, beyond the approved 28 footprint shall require approval of a separate variance, building permits and 29 inspections. 30

31 Member Frank Costa SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (7:0) 32 by roll call vote. 33

34 V-20-035 – Application of Phillip R. Moore and Debra L. Douglas, owners, requesting a 35 variance to separate nonconforming lots on Rural Residential (RR) zoned property. 36 37 Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. Jackson 38 explained to the commission that the requested variance was to separate nonconforming 39 lots so the applicants could construct a single family residence. She referred to a graphic 40 in the staff report and indicated that there were two parcels the subject property had to 41 be separated from. Parcel A was .98 acres and was just shy of the required 1-acre 42 minimum for the RR zoning classification. The other two lots met the requirement. They 43 were subdivided in 1988 through the Pates unrecorded subdivision and they were zoned 44 R-1 and met the minimum requirements of that classification of that time. The parcels 45 were under common ownership between 1999 and 2015. Parcel A and C were under 46 common ownership up until 2018. Ms. Jackson concluded that staff recommended 47 approval of the request. 48 49

Page 20 of 39

Being that there were no questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 1 2 Phillip Moore, 433 Berwick Circle, DeLand. Mr. Moore had nothing to add to the staff 3 report. 4 5 Public Participation. None. 6 7 Commission Discussion. None. 8 9 Member Jeffrey Bender MOVED to approve case number V-20-035, a variance to 10 Section 72-206(1) of the Zoning Ordinance to separate parcel 6031-00-00-0544 from 11 parcels 6031-00-00-0540 and 6031-00-00-0545 in the Rural Residential (RR) zoning 12 classification. 13 14 Member Jay Young SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (7:0) by 15 roll call vote. 16

17 V-20-036 – Application of Sean L. and Sabrina A. Abernethy, owner, requesting variances 18 to the minimum yard and the maximum fence height requirements on Urban Single-19 Family Residential (R-4) zoned property. 20 21 Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. Jackson 22 explained to the commission that the requested variances were to allow an addition to a 23 single-family residence and legitimize an existing fence. The lot was a corner lot that had 24 three front yards. The addition was permitted at 16.43 feet from the west front yard, but 25 the requirement was 25 feet, so they needed a variance for the addition. There was a 26 six-foot fence permitted, but since it was in what was considered front yards due to 27 surrounding non-vehicular access easements, the requirement was four feet. Ms. 28 Jackson concluded that staff recommended approval of the requests. 29 30 Being that there were no questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 31 32 Sean Abernethy, 1195 13th Street, Orange City. Mr. Abernethy had no objections to the 33 proposed condition from staff. He had nothing to add to the staff report. 34 35 Public Participation. None. 36 37 Commission Discussion. None. 38 39 Member Frank Costa MOVED to approve case number V-20-036, 40 41 Variance 1: A variance to reduce the west front yard from 25 feet to 16.43 feet for 42 an addition to a single-family dwelling; 43 44 Variance 2: A variance to Section 72-282(2) of the Zoning Ordinance to increase 45 the maximum allowed fence height in the west front yard from four feet to six feet; 46 and, 47 48 Variance 3: A variance to Section 72-282(2) of the Zoning Ordinance to increase 49

Page 21 of 39

the maximum allowed fence height in the north front yard from four feet to six feet 1 on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-4) zoned property, subject to the following 2 condition: 3 4

1. Variance 1 is limited to the existing footprint of the single-family dwelling 5 addition, with a west front yard of 16.43 feet measured at the closest point 6 as depicted on the variance site plan/survey dated October 12, 2015 attached 7 as part of the application. The single-family family dwelling footprint subject 8 to this variance application shall not be enlarged, increased, or extended 9 further to occupy any greater area or other part of the west front yard, or 10 other required yards of the property, as described by the Zoning Ordinance 11 of the Volusia County, Florida, without approval of a separate variance 12 and/or building permits and inspections. Any proposed addition to the 13 single-family dwelling, including a garage or carport, open or enclosed 14 porch, deck or other similar appurtenances, shall comply with the all 15 minimum yard requirements of the R-4 zoning classification. 16

17 Member Edith Shelley SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (7:0) 18 by roll call vote. 19 20 V-20-039 – Application of Arturo Sanchez Lopez, owner, requesting variances to separate 21 nonconforming lots and to the minimum yard requirements on Transitional Agriculture (A-22 3) zoned property. 23 24 Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. Jackson 25 explained to the commission that the requested variances were to separate 26 nonconforming lots and obtain permits for two existing accessory structures that 27 encroached into the rear yard. She stated that the property had a single-family residence, 28 a pole barn, and a partially constructed accessory structure. Both accessory structures 29 were constructed by the applicant without benefit of permit reviews and a Notice of 30 Violation was issued by code enforcement. The property did not have an agricultural 31 exemption, so variances were needed to obtain building permits for where they were 32 located. The parcel was held in common ownership with the property to the south, though 33 in 1993, they were subdivided and assigned separate parcel numbers. Both parcels have 34 single-family residences. Ms. Jackson concluded that staff recommended denial of 35 variances one and two for failure to meet all five criteria for granting a variance and 36 conditions were provided for consideration if competent substantial evidence was 37 presented to support approval of the requests. Staff recommended approval of variance 38 three. 39 40 Member Wanda Van Dam inquired if work had continued on the partially constructed 41 structure. 42 43 Ms. Jackson indicated to staff’s knowledge it had not. 44 45 Chair Ronnie Mills wanted to know if it were used for agricultural purposes, would they 46 still need a permit for the accessory structures. 47 48

Page 22 of 39

Ms. Jackson stated if it was a bonafide agricultural use, as recognized by the property 1 appraiser, and had an agricultural zoning, it did not require a permit. When they do not 2 have either, they must meet setbacks and must be permitted. 3 4 Chair Ronnie Mills wanted to know if in the past it was allowed on agricultural zoned 5 property and had an agricultural use, that they not need a permit. 6 7 Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager indicated that in the mid-2000’s, the state 8 made changes to the legislature that exempted non-residential farm buildings. 9 10 Chair Ronnie Mills inquired if it was the policy of the county to make the determination by 11 agricultural exemption. 12 13 Mr. Ashley indicated it was the guidelines the property appraiser used. 14 15 Being that there were no further questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 16 17 The applicant was indicated to be on the webinar, but did not speak to the case. 18 19 Public Participation. None. 20 21 Commission Discussion. 22 23 Member Wanda Van Dam did not have an issue with variances one or three, but as the 24 partially constructed building was not complete, she felt it should meet setbacks. 25 26 Chair Ronnie Mills concurred. He inquired if it was a side yard setback. 27 28 Ms. Jackson answered in the affirmative. 29 30 Chair Ronnie Mills stated it would only be a five-foot setback in a residential zoning 31 classification. 32 33 Ms. Jackson stated that as it was over 500 square feet, it would have to meet the principle 34 structure setbacks if it were a residential zoning. 35 36 Michael Rodriguez, Assistant County Attorney, indicated it was a rear yard setback. 37 38 Chair Ronnie Mills inquired what the setback would be in a residential classification for 39 an accessory structure. 40 41 Ms. Jackson indicated it would have to meet the principle structure setbacks of 25 feet 42 due to the size. 43 44 Chair Ronnie Mills felt that 25 feet was sufficient since it was in the middle of no-where. 45 46 Member Jay Young stated it looked like there was a well and pump which would make it 47 an issue to move the building forward a little bit so he was inclined to support the request. 48 49

Page 23 of 39

Member Steve Costa mentioned that while it was in the middle of no-where, the area was 1 rapidly developing. The property adjacent to it was zoned multi-family residential units in 2 DeLand which could have three and four story buildings next to it. He indicated that he 3 had spoken to the applicant previously and he had tried to purchase more property from 4 the neighbors to help fix his issues. 5 6 Member Frank Costa MOVED to approve case number V-20-039, 7 8 Variance 1: A variance to the rear yard from the required 40 feet to 3.81 feet for an 9 existing frame pole barn; 10 11 Variance 2: A variance to the rear yard from the required 40 feet to 25.3 feet for a 12 partially-constructed accessory structure; and, 13 14 Variance 3: A variance to Section 72-206(1) of the Zoning Ordinance to separate 15 parcel 7024-00-00-0250 from parcel 7024-00-00-0260 on Transitional Agriculture (A-16 3) zoned property, subject to the following conditions: 17 18

1. The applicant shall obtain the required building permits and inspections for 19 the pole barn and the partially-constructed accessory structure within 90 20 days of the PLDRC rendition letter. 21 22

2. The variances are limited to those shown on the variance site plan attached 23 to this report. 24

25 Member Jay Young SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (7:0) by 26 roll call vote. 27 28 V-20-042 – Application of Michael J. DeSantis and Dawn M. Kalisky, owners, requesting 29 a variance to the maximum lot coverage on Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoned 30 property. 31 32 Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. Jackson 33 explained to the commission that the applicants were requesting a variance to increase 34 the maximum lot coverage from 30 percent to 34.6 percent for a proposed single-family 35 residence and hangar within the Spruce Creek Planned Unit Development. The 36 development agreement for Spruce Creek was limited to the 30 percent lot coverage, but 37 did not have a methodology for calculating it so the county’s ordinance applied. The 38 definition of lot coverage is that area of a lot from the ground up which is occupied by 39 principle and accessory structures. She explained that the Spruce Creek Architectural 40 Review Board already approved the proposed plans and calculated the coverage to be 41 29.9 percent, but they do not consider covered patios or front door entries. Therefore, 42 the county Zoning Ordinance calculated it to be 35.8 percent. The applicant provided that 43 they would remove the roof from the proposed outdoor kitchen to bring the coverage down 44 to 34.6 percent. She pointed out that standard zoning allowed for 35 percent lot coverage. 45 Ms. Jackson concluded that staff recommended denial of the request for failure to meet 46 all of the criteria for granting a variance. Conditions were provided for consideration if 47 competent substantial evidence was presented to support approval of the request. 48 49

Page 24 of 39

Being that there were no questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 1 2 Dawn and Michael DeSantis, 1871 Seclusion Drive, Port Orange. Ms. DeSantis stated 3 that in 1995, the developers’ agreement was modified to increase the maximum lot 4 coverage to 35 percent for all future development, but they did not include Units I and II 5 of the original subdivision. The majority of Spruce Creek had a 35 percent maximum. 6 7 Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, provided that that was correct. He stated 8 that Units I and II had a 30 percent lot coverage based on the Historic Spruce Creek 9 Document titled The Existing Development under the 1995 amendment. The area of 10 development that came after that date titled Future Development, which based on the 11 deed restriction, had a 35 percent lot coverage. 12 13 Ms. DeSantis provided that they had no issues with the conditions provided by staff. They 14 worked with zoning and discussed the removal of the roof area over the outdoor kitchen. 15 She stated that when they purchased the lot back in 2018, they worked with the architect 16 and then met with the Architectural Review Board before they completed their plans. 17 They met all of the requirements under their guidance, but did not realize the lot coverage 18 did not meet. She explained that if they have to go back to the drawing board, it would 19 cost a lot of time and money, and for age restrictions, they did not wish to go to a second 20 story. 21 22 Public Participation. None. 23 24 Commission Discussion. None. 25 26 Member Jay Young MOVED to approve case number V-20-042, a variance to 27 Section 2.A.3. of the Spruce Creek PUD Development Agreement, to increase the 28 maximum lot coverage from 30 percent to 34.6 percent on Planned Unit 29 Development (PUD) zoned property, subject to the following conditions: 30 31

1. The variance request shall be limited to a maximum lot coverage of 34.6 32 percent, as depicted on the variance site plan, and to include the removal of 33 the roof above the outdoor kitchen. 34

35 2. The property owner or authorized agent(s) shall obtain and complete all 36

required building permits and inspections. 37 38

3. The variance shall not apply to any future structures. In addition, the single-39 family dwelling and aircraft hangar shall not be enlarged, increased, or 40 extended further to encroach or to occupy any greater area of the property 41 without approval of a separate variance. 42

43 Member Wanda Van Dam SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously 44 (7:0) by roll call vote. 45 46 V-20-044 – Application of Dustin and Cheyenne Voss, owner, requesting a variance to 47 the minimum side yard requirement on Transitional Agriculture (A-4) zoned property. 48 49

Page 25 of 39

Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. Jackson 1 stated the variance is to reduce the north side yard from the required 25 feet to 16.5 feet 2 for an existing 750-square-foot accessory structure. The property is located on the east 3 side of New Jersey Avenue approximately 1390 feet south of its intersection with Spring 4 Garden Ranch Road. The property is zoned A-4 which requires 2.5 acres and a 150-foot 5 lot width. The property is three acres in size and 198-foot lot width. It is a conforming lot. 6 Ms. Jackson explained that in September 2019, a notice of violation was issued for 7 construction without a permit. The owner was building a dog kennel at the rear of the 8 property. She showed the map detailing the location of the kennel and the setbacks, which 9 encroaches approximately 8.5 feet into the north side yard. The location was chosen by 10 the owners because it is shielded by trees to the nearest neighbor on the north. Ms. 11 Jackson continued to explain that the property is agricultural but is not a bonafide 12 agriculture use, which requires the structure to meet principal structure setbacks of 25 13 feet. Ms. Jackson concluded that after staff review the variance failed to meet three of the 14 criteria, there are no special circumstances associated with the lot or the structure, the 15 applicant is responsible for the need for the variance because they did not attempt to get 16 permits in advance which would have alerted them to what the setback was, and literal 17 interpretation does not deprive the applicant of common rights. Staff does find that criteria 18 4 and 5 are met which would be the minimum variance to allow the existing structure to 19 remain where it is and that it would not be injurious to the area as it is in a wooded area 20 that shields from view the most effected neighbor to the north. It is also 90 feet from the 21 rear property line and over 150 feet from the nearest house. 22 23 Should the commission find that the applicants have provided competent and substantial 24 evidence to support approval of the variance request, conditions are provided for your 25 consideration. Ms. Jackson also commented that lots greater than one-acre but less than 26 five acres can have up to eight dogs. 27 28 Being that there were no questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 29 30 Dustin Voss, 5487 New Jersey Avenue, DeLeon Springs. Mr. Voss stated that he is a 31 first-time property and homeowner and that he was unaware of what was needed. He 32 added that he has done everything that has been asked including providing engineer 33 plans and surveys. He explained that the dogs are his personal dogs and he is not a 34 breeder. He discussed that he is having difficulties with obtaining a permit for the removal 35 of the metal shed as required in the staff recommendations. He will have the shed 36 removed within the next 90 days. 37 38 Public Participation. 39 40 Nika Hosseini, Cobb Cole, 231 North Woodland Blvd., DeLand. She stated that the 41 adjacent property owner, Mr. and Mrs. Fleshman, recently submitted a letter with some 42 concerns. She asked the commission review the letter as they have concerns about 43 possible injury to their property and themselves due to medical conditions they have. They 44 feel the kennels could impact their medical conditions. She asked the letter be reference 45 when the commission makes their decision. 46 47 Chair Ronnie Mills asked if the impact on their condition would make a difference if the 48 distance was an additional 8 feet. 49

Page 26 of 39

1 Michael Rodriguez, Assistant County Attorney stated that this property owner is the 2 eastern neighbor and not the ones to the north. 3 4 Ms. Hosseini replied that they are to the east and their clients are concerned because it 5 is located so far back and close to their home. 6 7 Ms. Jackson interjected that the location of the kennel is 90 feet to the rear property line 8 and the setback is a 40-foot setback. 9 10 Member Frank Costa asked if there were any conditions that would be accepting of what 11 is in front of us today. 12 13 Ms. Hosseini replied in the affirmative. 14 15 Brenda Fleshman, 1167 Ohio Street, DeLeon Springs. Ms. Fleshman explained that they 16 are to the north of Mr. Voss’ property and are heavily impacted by the dog kennel. The 17 kennel is only 250 feet to her house which is going to impact them by the smell and noise. 18 She is also concerned with the water level from the excess water affecting her well due 19 to the kennel and wellbeing on the same elevation. She stated that the value of her 20 property will go down and will not be able to enjoy living where they do if the dogs are 21 barking all the time. 22 23 Chair Ronnie Mills asked if 8 ½ feet would make any difference. 24 25 Ms. Fleshman replied that it would not. She would prefer it if he would move the location 26 of the dog kennel. 27 28 Chair Ronnie Mills replied that he is allowed to put the kennel 8 ½ feet from where it is 29 now. 30 31 Yolanda Somers, Staff Assistant II, clarified for the record the Ms. Fleshman’s property 32 was to the east of the subject property and the variance was from the north property line. 33 34 Member Frank Costa asked the applicant if he currently owned dogs and how many. 35 36 Mr. Voss replied in the affirmative and stated he has 7 dogs. 37 38 Member Frank Costa inquired if they are currently outside. 39 40 Mr. Voss replied they are not. 41 42 Member Frank Costa asked if the dogs are on the property at this time. 43 44 Mr. Voss replied they are not. 45 46 Member Frank Costa inquired if the dogs are on the property or have resided on the 47 property at any time. 48 49

Page 27 of 39

Mr. Voss replied they have not been there. 1 2 Chair Ronnie Mills closed public participation and gave the applicant time for rebuttal of 3 public participation. 4 5 Mr. Voss stated that Ms. Fleshman stated she lives to the north which is incorrect, she 6 lives to the east. He stated that he doesn’t know why she feels like it will smell and that 7 there are sprinklers that will mist the dog if they start barking so she shouldn’t worry about 8 that. He also said he thinks her house is at least 10 to 15 feet higher in elevation than 9 where the dog pen is located. 10 11 Commission Discussion. 12 13 Member Van Dam commented that she wants to be sure the public speaker understands 14 her concerns are being taken into consideration but the issue is not whether or not he is 15 allowed to have the dogs or the kennel, the issue is whether or not he can go into a 16 setback. Given the size of the property, the tree coverage, and the fact that he has a letter 17 of support from the neighbor to the north, she recommends a motion to approve case V-18 20-044, with staff recommendations. 19 20 Member Wanda Van Dam MOVED to APPROVE case V-20-044, a variance to reduce 21 the north side yard from the required 25 feet to 16.5 feet for an existing 750-square-22 foot accessory structure on Transitional Agriculture (A-4) zoned property, subject 23 to the following conditions: 24 25

1. The applicant shall obtain and complete the required building permit and 26 inspections for the proposed 750-square-foot accessory structure. 27

28 2. The variance is limited to the size of the structure shown on the variance site 29

plan attached to this report. 30

31 3. The applicant shall demolish or obtain after-the-fact permits and approvals 32

for the existing metal shed identified on the variance site plan within 90 days 33 of variance approval. 34

35 Member Jay Young SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously by roll 36 call vote. 37 38 V-20-045 – Application of Joseph Hopkins, agent for Ormond Beach Station, LLC, 39 owners, requesting a variance to off-street parking requirements on Shopping Center (B-40 3) zoned property. 41 42 Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. Jackson 43 stated the variance is to allow the maximum allowable off-street parking requirement to 44 increase to 156 percent of the minimum required spaces. The property is a commercial 45 property located on the west side of Ocean Shore Boulevard, at its intersection with 46 Longwood Drive, in the Ormond Beach area. It is zoned B-3 which requires a 10-acre lot 47

Page 28 of 39

area and 300-foot lot width. The property is 10.6 acres and exceeds the lot width on three 1 frontages (Ocean Shore Blvd., Longwood Dr., and Lynnhurst Dr.). Ms. Jackson explained 2 that the property is the Ormond Mall which is currently renovating an outparcel from a 3 bank to an 84 seat restaurant, which has larger parking needs than the bank did. Our 4 code allows for a high turnover restaurant to have five spaces per 1,000 squarer feet of 5 gross floor area, whereas a bank would be two per 1,000. She further explained that the 6 applicant wants to add 11 additional spaces as shown on the map. Our current code 7 allows a maximum of 125% of the minimum requirement, however the site is currently 8 approved at 154% of the minimum requirement. This occurred in 2009 when the shopping 9 center was undergoing a renovation for the anchor tenant which was not approved 10 through a variance process but was approved through the final site plan process. 11 Currently, the variance is to increase the total number of parking spaces by 11 which 12 equates to 2% greater than it is currently approved for through the final site plan approval 13 process. Additionally, the parking lot also serves the community by being used as 14 overflow parking for patrons using the beach. Ms. Jackson concluded the variance meets 15 all five criteria, therefore staff recommended approval, subject to the three conditions 16 provided. 17 18 Being that there were no questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 19 20 Joe Hopkins, Engineer, The Performance Group, 100 Marina Pointe Drive, Daytona 21 Beach, Fl. Mr. Hopkins acknowledges the conditions set forth and is in agreement. Mr. 22 Hopkins addressed the numbers in regard to the parking and stated that when the Council 23 adopted the revised parking standards in 2012, this restaurant was 84 seats and 10 24 employees with only 15 stalls being required. When staff looked at the recommendations 25 from ITE, which is 33 spaces, it helped justify their position. The need for additional 26 spaces is propagated by the anchor tenant Publix. Mr. Hopkins asked for the 27 commission's support. 28 29 Public Participation. 30 31 None. 32 33 Commission Discussion. 34 35 None. 36 37 Member Jeffrey Bender MOVED to APPROVE case V-20-045, A variance to Section 38 72-286(6) to exceed the maximum allowable off-street parking requirements with 39 an increase to 156 percent of the minimum required spaces on Shopping Center 40 (B-3) zoned property, subject to the following conditions: 41 42

1. This variance will revise the total allowable parking spaces in the Ormond 43 Mall complex from 436 spaces to 458 spaces. Any future increases in 44 parking requirements or reconfigurations to the overall site plan shall be 45 addressed in accordance with Article III of the Land Development 46 Regulations. 47

48 2. Existing trees and shrubs that will be impacted by the additional parking 49

Page 29 of 39

spaces shall be re-located/replaced within the front landscape buffer of the 1 Ormond Mall Complex. 2 3

3. The property owner or authorized agent shall obtain and complete all 4 required building permits and inspections for the proposed parking and 5 landscape improvements. 6

7 Member Wanda Van Dam SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously 8 by roll call vote. 9 10 V-20-046 – Application of Jessica Gow, attorney for Michael J. and Lisa M. Cahill, owners, 11 requesting variances to the minimum yard requirements and maximum fence height on 12 Urban Single-Family Residential (R-4) zoned property. 13

Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. Jackson 14 explained there are three variances to this case. Variance one is to reduce the south front 15 yard from the required 25 feet to 22 feet for an existing single-family dwelling, variance 16 two is to reduce the west side yard from five feet to 3.56 feet for an existing accessory 17 structure, and variance three is to increase the maximum allowed fence height in a front 18 yard from four feet to six feet. The location of the property is on the Northwest corner of 19 the intersection of Chestnut Avenue and Blue Springs Avenue, in the Orange City area. 20 The property is zoned R-4 which requires 7,500 square feet lot area and 75 feet lot width. 21 This lot is conforming with 12,090 square feet in lot area and 92 feet in lot width. This is 22 a corner lot which requires two fronts and adjacent to the rights-of-ways, and two sides. 23 She further explained the required setbacks adjacent to the fronts are 25 feet and the 24 sides are 20 feet combined with the minimum of eight feet on any one side. Ms. Jackson 25 discussed the variance for the existing single-family home stating the home was built in 26 1987 and encroaches three feet into the front yard which was not noted at that time nor 27 were any variances obtained for it. Ms. Jackson detailed that the variance is being 28 requested in order to legitimize the existing dwelling in its current location. Variance two 29 is with regard to a shed that is in the rear yard that is within the five-foot setback, however 30 it encroaches 1.44 feet into the side yard setback. Variance three is regarding a fence 31 that was constructed in 2010, which is located along Chestnut Avenue. In 1995, a fence 32 permit was issued for a 6-foot fence at the twenty-five-foot setback which is where the 33 house is located. The fence was removed in 2010 and replaced at 11.3 feet from the front 34 property line. Ms. Jackson concluded that in order to maintain the shed and the fence in 35 their current location, these variances are being requested. 36

Staff recommends approval for variance one as it meets all 5 of the criteria; for variances 37 2 and 3 staff recommends denial as the variances fail to meet 3 of the 5 criteria (1-3); no 38 special circumstances are associated with the lot or structures, the applicant is 39 responsible the need for variances, and literal interpretation does not deprive the 40 applicant of common rights. However, staff finds it does meet criteria 4 and 5; minimum 41 variance to allow these structures to be able to obtain permits for their current location 42 and will not be injurious to the area. They have been in this location for the last ten years, 43 hidden by trees and vegetation which the shed is buffered by, the fence does not impair 44 site distance, and is located on the inside of established cypress trees. Should the 45

Page 30 of 39

commission find that the applicants have provided competent and substantial evidence 1 to support approval of the variance requests, conditions are provided for your 2 consideration. 3

4 Member Frank Costa inquired if the fence is located inside the front yard setbacks. 5 6 Ms. Jackson answered in the affirmative. 7 8 Member Frank Costa asked if it was a side yard would it still meet the setback. 9 10 Ms. Jackson said that if it was a side yard it could go within 8 feet, so it would meet the 11 setback. 12 13 Member Frank Costa asked if it was a side yard could they have a 6-foot fence as 14 opposed to a 4-foot fence. 15 16 Ms. Jackson answered in the affirmative. 17 18 Being that there were no further questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 19 20 Nika Hosseini, Cobb Cole, 231 North Woodland Blvd., DeLand, on behalf of the property 21 owners. Ms. Hosseini gave a brief history review in regards to the fence, the shed and 22 permitting. She stated that the shed is anchored into the ground and would be difficult for 23 the landowners to move. She asked the commission to consider leaving the shed and 24 fence in their existing locations. 25 26 Public Participation. 27 28 Elena Calderone, 1635 West Blue Springs Avenue, DeLand, Ms. Calderone stated they 29 are the adjoining owners on the west side and asked if they made their fence 6 feet did 30 they have to. 31 32 Yolanda Somers, Staff Assistant II, offered clarification that Ms. Calderone was asking if 33 they are allowed to have a 6-foot fence does her fence have to be 6-foot tall as well, is 34 that correct. 35 36 Ms. Calderone answered in the affirmative. 37 38 Ms. Jackson answered that she does not have to make any fence 6 feet high. 39 40 Member Mills asked the applicant if they have looked at the staff recommended 41 conditions, in the event the variances are passed, if they have any comments. 42 43 Ms. Hosseini answered that they find them all to be acceptable. 44 45 Commission Discussion. 46 47 None. 48

Page 31 of 39

1 Member Frank Costa MOVED to approve case V-20-046, 2 3 Variance 1: A variance to reduce the south front yard from the required 25 feet to 4

22 feet for an existing single-family dwelling, and 5

Variance 2: A variance to Section 72-277(1) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the 6 west side yard from five feet to 3.56 feet for an existing accessory 7 structure, and 8

Variance 3: A variance to Section 72-282(2) of the Zoning Ordinance to increase 9 the maximum allowed fence height in a front yard from four feet to six 10 feet on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-4) zoned property, subject 11 to the following conditions: 12

1. The variance is limited to the existing footprint of the 123 square-foot shed, 13 with a west side yard of 3.56 feet measured at the closest point as depicted 14 on the variance site plan/survey dated 8/8/19, attached as part of the 15 application. The shed footprint shall not be enlarged, increased, or extended 16 further to occupy any greater area or other part of the west side yard, or other 17 required yards of the property, as described by the Zoning Ordinance of the 18 Volusia County, Florida, without approval of a separate variance and/or 19 building permits and inspections. Any proposed addition to the shed shall 20 comply with the all minimum yard requirements of the R-4 zoning 21 classification. 22

2. If the existing shed encroachment or fence are removed or damaged by any 23 cause or means exceeding 50 percent of their assessed value as determined 24 by the Property Appraiser of Volusia County, Florida, immediately prior to 25 the damage, any reconstruction of the shed or wood fence shall thereafter 26 comply with the applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, or obtain 27 approval for a new variance. 28

3. The applicant shall apply for a permit for all unpermitted structures and the 29 wood fence associated with the property within 90 days of rendition of this 30 variance request. 31

Member Jay Young SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously by roll 32 call vote. 33 V-20-049 – Application of Paul C. and Kimberly A. Waterloo, owners, requesting 34 variances to substandard lot, minimum yard requirements and maximum lot coverage on 35 Urban Single-Family Residential (R-9) zoned property. 36

37 Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. Jackson 38 stated there are 4 variances associated with this case; variance one is to allow 39 construction on a substandard lot; variance two is to increase the maximum allowable lot 40 coverage from 35% to 35.5 %; variance three is to reduce the minimum front setback 41 from 25 feet to 15.79 feet for a front porch and stairway, and variance four is to reduce 42 the minimum rear setback from 20 feet to 10.52 feet for a covered porch. The property is 43

Page 32 of 39

located on the west side of Oriole Avenue, approximately 233 feet north of its intersection 1 with Toronita Avenue, in the Wilbur-by-the-Sea (WBTS) community. The property is 2 zoned R-9 which requires 7,500 square foot lot area and 75-foot lot width. The property 3 is only 4,400 square feet with a 55-foot lot width. It is nonconforming and is a substandard 4 lot because it is less than 5,000 square feet. Ms. Jackson continued to explain that the 5 lot is considered a legal nonconforming lot that is eligible for building permits, subject to 6 the variance to allow construction on a substandard lot. The required setbacks are front 7 25 feet, rear 20 feet, and side 7 feet. Ms. Jackson provided the background on this 8 property, describing the lot is currently developed with a house and a detached garage 9 that was built in the 1930s. The combined square feet of the combined structures are 10 1,881 square feet with the house encroaching into the front, and rear yard with the garage 11 encroaching into the side yard. The applicants were going to renovate the existing house 12 but have decided that the house is not in good enough condition to do so, therefore they 13 are wanting to demolish the existing structures and rebuild with a design to size and scale 14 of the original house in keeping with the historic residential pattern of the Wilbur-by-the-15 Sea community. Ms. Jackson states the new house will be less square footage at 1,561 16 square feet which includes an attached garage. If the existing structure was renovated, 17 the current yard encroachments could be maintained, however once demolished and 18 replaced the legal nonconforming status is extinguished and any new structures would 19 have to meet the current setbacks. The side yard setback, as proposed, will not have 20 encroachment while the rear of the property has approximately 3 feet of encroachment 21 above the current footprint. 22 23 Ms. Jackson further explained that the substandard lot in variance one was platted in 24 1913 as Lot 41 of the Wilbur-by-the-Sea Plat 1m, with lots ranging from 40 to 65 feet in 25 width. Some of the lots have been combined into larger parcels, but remain as originally 26 platted and also has a good nonconforming lot letter. In regard to variance two, the current 27 lot coverage is 42% for the existing structure, however if the variances are approved for 28 the new house to be constructed on the property it will reduce the existing lot coverage 29 by 6.5%. The proposed lot coverage is 35.5% which our code allows 35%. Variance three 30 is a 9-foot encroachment into the front yard by the existing porch and stairway. The owner 31 wants to mimic the existing character of the house in keeping with the character of the 32 neighborhood. The rear yard setback, variance four, is for the 10 foot deep back porch. 33 34 Staff recommends approval for variances 1, 2, and 3, as they meet all 5 criteria; variance 35 4 fails to meet 2 of the 5 criteria; literal interpretation does not deprive the applicants of a 36 common right because they could redesign the rear porch to minimize the encroachment 37 and it is not the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the land. 38 However, staff finds that it does meet criteria 1, 2, and 5; special circumstances related 39 to the size of the parcel and the existing house, the applicant is not responsible for the lot 40 size or current house footprint, and it is not injurious to the area. The applicant’s intent is 41 to meet the goals of the WBTS Local Plan and blend in with the community as the house 42 design encompasses new urbanism concepts and features that provide historic 43 characteristics in keeping with the neighborhood. Ms. Jackson concluded that the scale 44 and design of the proposed house are in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood 45 and do not encroach any further into any front yards than the adjacent properties. 46 47 Should the Commission find that the applicant has provided competent substantial 48 evidence to support the variances; conditions are provided for your consideration. 49

Page 33 of 39

Member Van Dam, referencing page 25 of 47 of the staff report, inquired if the applicant 1 has changed what was originally proposed as a 12-foot deep deck and made it 10 feet. 2 3 Ms. Jackson answered in the affirmative. 4 5 Member Van Dam asked if they were to make it wider and not quite as deep would they 6 need to eliminate the window. 7 8 Ms. Jackson stated that she does not believe that discussion was had but does 9 acknowledge that. 10 11 Member Frank Costa asked about variance four, how much further does the proposed 12 construction to what is existing now. 13 14 Ms. Jackson replied that the existing house is at 14.1 feet from the property line and the 15 garage is at 13.5 feet bringing it to an additional 3.5 feet into the setback from where the 16 garage currently sits. 17 18 Being that there were no further questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 19 20 Paul Waterloo, 4114 Oriole Avenue, Port Orange, Fl. Mr. Waterloo has no comments, 21 however, he showed several slides depicting the rear porch and what the new 22 construction will look like. Mr. Waterloo stated that the owner of the house behind them 23 did send in a letter to the County stating he does not have any objections to the proposed 24 setback. 25 26 Public Participation. 27 28 None. 29 30 Commission Discussion. 31 32 Member Shelley asked for clarification on the first slide of Mr. Waterloo’s presentation 33 stating that he lived at 4114 but the item number we are discussing shows 4144. She 34 asked for the correct address. 35 36 Mr. Waterloo replied that the correct address is 4114. 37 38 Ms. Shelley clarified that the application address is correct and the error is on the staff 39 report. 40 41 Ms. Jackson explained that it is a typographical error that was not caught during the 42 review process. Ms. Jackson re-iterated that the address is 4114. 43 44 Member Shelley MOVED to approve case V-20-049, 45 46 Variance 1: A variance to Section 72-206(1) to allow construction on a substandard 47 lot, and 48 49

Page 34 of 39

Variance 2: A variance to Section 72-241 of the Zoning Ordinance to increase the 1 maximum allowable lot coverage from 35 percent to 35.5 percent, and 2 3 Variance 3: A variance to Section 72-277(1) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the 4 minimum yard requirement in the front yard from 25 feet to 15.79 feet for a covered 5 front porch and an open stairway, and 6 7 Variance 4: A variance to Section 72-277(1) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the 8 minimum yard requirement in the rear yard from 20 feet to 10.52 feet for a covered 9 porch on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-9) zoned property, subject to the 10 following conditions: 11 12

1. The applicant shall obtain the required permits and inspections for the 13 demolition of the existing house and garage and for the construction of the 14 new residence. 15 16

2. The variances are limited to those shown on the variance site plan attached 17 to this report. 18 19

3. No further increases in lot coverage or yard encroachments shall be 20 considered without an additional variance application. 21

22 Member Jay Young SECONDED the motion. Motion CAARIED unanimously (7:0) 23 by roll call vote. 24 25 V-20-050 – Application of Tina M. Kenney, owner, requesting variances to the minimum 26 yard requirements for an accessory structure on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-5) 27 zoned property. 28

Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. She 29 explained the two variances associated with this case; variance one is to reduce the west 30 side yard from five feet to 1.2 feet for an attached carport and variance two is to reduce 31 the front yard from 25 feet to 23.5 feet for an attached carport. The location of the property 32 is on the north side of Essex Drive, approximately 225 feet east of its intersection with 33 John Anderson Drive, in the Ormond Beach area. The property is zoned R-5 which 34 requires a 5,000 square foot lot area and 50-foot width. The property is 7,260 square feet 35 with 51.73 feet lot width. This is a conforming lot. The property is an odd-shaped lot being 36 narrow along the road frontage and wider along the rear. The house sits at an angle upon 37 the west side of the lot. It does meet all of the required setbacks which are front 25 feet, 38 rear 20 feet, and side 5 feet. Ms. Jackson explained the house was originally built in the 39 1950s and in the 1980s a carport was attached to the west side of the house which there 40 is no permit history for. In 2017, the carport was damaged by Hurricane Irma and the 41 owner applied for a building permit to replace the carport but was told that the setbacks 42 were not in compliance. The owners removed the carport in 2019 and want to replace it 43 at this time. In order to have a meaningful area for the carport, it will encroach 3.8 feet 44 into the west side yard and 1.5 feet into the front yard if it is put in alignment with the 45 house. The house is on an angle that is causing the encroachment. If they maintain a 46 five-foot setback on the side yard, the carport would only be 7.5 feet wide which is not 47

Page 35 of 39

wide enough for a standard-sized car. The applicant has stated the carport is needed to 1 assist with a handicapped family member so they can access the house without having 2 to contend with adverse weather conditions. Ms. Jackson concluded that staff 3 recommends denial for both variances, as the variances fail to meet three of the five 4 criteria; no special circumstances are associated with the lot or structure. There is not a 5 permit for a previous carport therefore is not a legal conforming structure. The applicant 6 is responsible for the need for the variance, and literal interpretation does not deprive the 7 applicant of common rights. It is not considered a common right to have a carport. 8 However, staff finds it does meet criteria four and five; it is the minimum variance 9 necessary to allow a standard-sized carport that would achieve the applicant’s objective 10 and it would not be injurious to the area. There are several other examples of carports 11 that encroach into the side yard in the neighborhood and it would not appear to be out of 12 character with the area. 13 14 Should the commission find that the applicants have provided competent and substantial 15 evidence to support approval of the variance requests, conditions are provided for your 16 consideration. 17 18 Being that there were no further questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 19 20 John Zemball, 150 South Palmetto Avenue, Unit 201, representing the owner, Ms. Tina 21 Kenney. Mr. Zemball stated he has no objections to the conditions. He stated that Ms. 22 Kenney has been accustomed to having a carport and has been working diligently to get 23 everything in order to move forward. 24 25 Public Participation. 26 27 None. 28 29 Commission Discussion. 30 31 Member Jay Young MOVED to APPROVE case V-20-050, 32 33 Variance 1: A variance to reduce the west side yard from the required five feet to 34

1.2 feet for an attached carport, and 35 36 Variance 2: A variance to reduce the front yard from the required 25 feet to 23.5 37

feet for an attached carport on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-5) 38 zoned property, subject to the following conditions: 39

40 1. The variances are limited to the variance site plan attached to this report. 41

Any change to the depicted location of the carport, except to comply more 42 closely with the Zoning Ordinance, shall require additional variances. 43 44

45

Page 36 of 39

2. The property owner or authorized agent(s) shall obtain and complete all 1 required building permits and inspections for the 266-square-foot carport, 2 within 90 days from the date of rendition. 3 4

3. The 266-square-foot carport shall not be enlarged, increased, or extended 5 further to encroach or to occupy any greater area of the property without 6 approval of separate variances. 7

8 Member Wanda Van Dam SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously 9 (7:0) by roll call vote. 10 11 V-20-051 – Application of Timothy and Heather L. Beagling, owners, requesting a 12 variance to allow an accessory structure to exceed fifty percent of the principal structure 13 on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-5) zoned property. 14

Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. The variance 15 is to allow an accessory structure to exceed fifty percent of the square feet area of the 16 principal structure. The property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of 17 Old Kings Road and Linda Lane, in the Daytona Beach/Holly Hill area. The property is 18 zoned R-5 which requires 5,000 square feet lot area and 50-foot lot width. The property 19 is 2,400 square feet and 160-foot lot width; it is conforming. It is a corner lot with two front 20 yards adjacent to Linda Lane and Old Kings Road and the two side yards are adjacent to 21 the west and south property lines. The required setbacks are 25 feet from the front yards 22 and the side yards are five feet. It is also located at the end of a dead-end road. The 23 property is 4.8 times the lot area requirement for the R-5 zoning district and based on lot 24 width it could be split into three separate parcels. Ms. Jackson provided that in October 25 2019, the owner applied for a building permit for a 30 foot by 40 foot detached garage 26 that equals a 1,200 square foot accessory structure. She further explained that in the R-27 5 zone, accessory structures are limited to fifty percent of the square foot area of the 28 principal structure. The house on the property is 1,391 square feet, which based on the 29 size, would limit the accessory structure to 695 square feet. Therefore, for the applicant 30 to achieve the 30 foot by 40 foot detached garage, he is requesting a variance to allow 31 the maximum allowable size of the accessory structure to increase from 695 square feet 32 to 1,200 square feet. Ms. Jackson stated that all setback requirements would be met as 33 the structure is proposed. The structure would be located on the south side of the house 34 meeting the front yard setback to Kings Road and far exceeds the setback to the side 35 property line. It is also buffered by a large number of trees and adjacent to a retention 36 area. Staff recommends denial as the variance fails to meet 1 of the 5 criteria, criteria 4; 37 it is not the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the land. However, 38 staff finds it does meet criteria 1, 2, 3 and 5; we do find special circumstances with the 39 lot. The lot is over four times larger than the standard R-5 lot, the property is located at 40 the end of a dead-end street, and the modest house size severely limits the size of an 41 accessory structure allowed on the property; the applicant is not responsible for the size 42 of the house or the lot; literal interpretation of the code requirement would limit the 43 property to eight percent lot coverage based on the size of the house and the 50% rule, 44 whereas under normal circumstances we allow up to 35% lot coverage; and would not be 45 injurious to the area. It is also visibly buffered from adjacent properties. Ms. Jackson 46 added that staff has three letters of support that are included in the staff report. 47 48

Page 37 of 39

Should the commission find that the applicants have provided competent and substantial 1 evidence to support approval of the variance requests, conditions are provided for your 2 consideration. 3 4 Being that there were no further questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 5 6 Timothy Beagling, 950 Old Kings Road, Daytona Beach, Florida. Mr. Beagling stated that 7 his only concern is getting this building to protect his property. He is concerned about 8 trailers that he has on the property, as there has been an increase in theft of trailers. He 9 is also concerned about his tools and equipment. He explained that he has a portion of 10 his belongings in his garage and storage and would like to be able to have the building 11 so he can keep his belongings together. 12 13 Public Participation. 14 15 None. 16 17 Commission Discussion. 18 19 Member Young stated that he is familiar with this area as it is close to his residence and 20 is in favor. 21 22 Member Jay Young MOVED to APPROVE case V-20-051, A variance to Section 72-23 277(1)d of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an accessory structure which exceeds 50 24 percent of the square-foot area of the principal structure on Urban Single-Family 25 Residential (R-5) zoned property, subject to the following condition: 26 27

1. The variance is limited to the proposed footprint of the 30-foot by 40-foot 28 accessory detached garage. The garage shall not be enlarged, increased, or 29 extended to occupy any greater area without approval of a separate variance 30 and/or building permits and inspections. Any proposed addition to this 31 accessory structure shall comply with the all requirements of the R-5 zoning 32 classification. 33

34 Member Frank Costa SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (7:0) 35 by roll call vote. 36 37 38 OLD BUSINESS 39 40 None. 41 42 OTHER PUBLIC ITEMS 43 44 None. 45 46

Page 38 of 39

STAFF ITEMS 1 2 None. 3 4 STAFF COMMENTS 5 6 None. 7 8 COMMISSION COMMENTS 9 10 The commission expressed their appreciation of staff’s efforts and thought the meeting 11 was successful under the circumstances. Member Frank Costa would like to be able to 12 see all the commission members. 13 14 Member Wanda Van Dam asked about the case today regarding the pole barn three feet 15 from the property, the condition was not included about if it was destroyed it would need 16 to meet setbacks. Mr. Rodriguez commented that the variance did change the setback 17 so if was to be destroyed it could be rebuilt at the three feet since the condition was 18 included. Ms. Jackson provided that the variance was only for the pole barn and that staff 19 would standardize the condition in the future. 20 21 PRESS AN CITIZEN COMMENTS 22 23 None. 24

ADJOURNMENT 25 26 Having no further comments from the public, staff, or commissioners, Chair Ronnie Mills 27 thanked everyone and adjourned the meeting at 1:53 p.m. 28

Page 39 of 39

Documents

Page 1 of 39 DRAFT - Volusia County, Florida · 2020. 4. 16. · Page 1 of 39. DRAFT. 1 . LEGAL COMMENT . 2 . 3 . ... Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications 5 . 6 Members of the Volusia