The June 18th, 2026 hearing for the Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission is now called to order. And if I could please have anyone silence any audible devices that you may have. And do we have the flag here? Oh, yeah. And if I could get you to join
me for the Pledge of Allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Good morning. I would like to
thank everyone for joining us this morning in this historical courtroom here. Been around for many years. It's a little bit of nostalgia here. Uh, Ms. Tucker, could I please have a roll call? >> Absolutely. Good morning, members. Member Harrison?
>> Present. >> Member Craig? >> Here. >> For the record, she's here. Member Shelley? >> Here. >> Member Costa? >> Here. >> Member Bush? And Chair Mills? >> Here. >> And for the record, uh, Member Sixsmith is absent. >> Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Tucker. Okay,
we do have minutes from the April 16th, 2026 and May Okay. Okay, we have, um, minutes from the April 16th, 2026 and May 21st, 2026. Do we have any discussion on those, uh,
minutes? Ms. Ms. Bush? >> Um, on the April 16th minutes, um, there's and again, this is terminology, but there was things that I that staff said that I mentioned. Um, I
just want the record to reflect that I don't mention things, I state them for a reason. So, just let the record reflect that I'm making these statements for a reason and not just mentioning them for the sake of using words. And then in May, and I I apologize, there's a I'm missing
the page number, but there was a portion of the May minutes in which Chair Mills you said um that I was not allowed to um that I was needing to speak with staff
prior if I had any questions to the items and I was told by Director Carroll herself that I did not need to ask prior to the hearing. So, I just wanted to make sure that that was exactly what you said and clarify that specifically. It's lines 32 through 34, but I apologize I did not write down
the page number when I reviewed these minutes. So, those are my comments. Thank you. >> All right. Do we need to make a change on those minutes in order for that to happen? Or just a clear you're making a
clarification on it. >> Are you asking me? >> Yeah. >> Um just I I don't think we need to amend them moving forward. It was just a clarification and a request that moving forward I don't mention things, I state them. Thank you. >> I'll entertain the motion for both sets
of minutes dated April 16th and May 21st for approval. >> Okay, I had one more um comment on the May minutes on page nine of nine. It says that I noted I had family vacation. That was Mr. Sixma that had
noted that, not myself. Okay. And if we can if we can have a motion with those amended comments um we'll move forward. >> Yeah, there's a motion on the floor. >> With the minute comments? >> Yeah. No corrections, that's
>> Yeah, the corrections >> Oh, the one correction from Mr. Sick. Yes, that is correct. I remember that. Yes. >> Okay. >> I'll second. >> Okay, I got a motion on the floor. Is it to approve both the April and the May 21st? >> Yes. >> You approve May? April 16th, 2026 minutes, and May 21st,
2026 minutes with the correction on page nine of Nine for Mr. Earson and second for Mr. Costa. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Motion approved unanimously.
Okay. >> [clears throat] >> If anyone would like to speak for or against any of the cases being heard today, if you could please fill out a form, and where are those forms at, Mr. Tucker? >> Uh the forms will be located on uh my left, your right side, front and center
from the dais. If you'll give them to Mr. Zuzak, he'll pass them along to me. Thank you. >> Okay. And you can turn those forms in, and we will be limiting you to a 3-minute time limit. And after the comments have been heard, I will give the applicant an opportunity
to address any concerns the speakers have and answer any questions the commissioners may have. And at this time, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Sauria for legal comments. >> All right. So, can anyone hear Everyone hear me? >> I can hear you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is for uh
the applicants and members of the public that decisions by this body on cases which rezone real property from one classification to another pursuant to the zoning ordinance are recommendations only to the County Council and do not constitute um a final hearing. So, new evidence may be introduced at the County
Council public hearing. Decisions on variances and special exceptions made by this body constitute final action subject to an appeal to the County Council. And what that means is that no new evidence may be presented at the time of the county council public hearing on the appeal. An aggrieved
party that appeals such a decision is confined to the record made before this body. Hearings by this body on re-zonings, special exceptions, and variances are quasi-judicial in nature, meaning that this body is acting more like a court and must take into account all oral, written, or demonstrative
evidence presented. Their decisions on these cases must be based on competent substantial evidence in the record, and competent substantial evidence has been defined as that evidence a reasonable mind would accept to support a conclusion. I'd like to continue on a little bit about the role of the PLDRC. So, when I
say they're acting more like a court in a quasi-judicial context, that also means they're acting like a jury and a judge. So, when they're acting like a jury, they are the ultimate finders of fact. And when they're acting like a judge, they render the >> [clears throat] >> they render the ultimate and final
decision. So, basically, they they have to sit there and then staff presents competent substantial evidence, and then you're the applicant can present competent substantial evidence, and the public can present competent substantial evidence. And they take all that evidence, and
they can ask questions, they can ask clarifications, they can kind of tease out, you know, what they're thinking because as a jury, they they will have to determine, you know, is there enough evidence to meet the criteria or is there not enough evidence to meet that criteria? So, after they get done with
all that questioning, they can deliberate as a body, and you know, staff provides their opinion, but ultimately, the PLDRC is the ultimate finder of fact. And they have to do it as a body and as a group.
And then after they make a decision, they you know, someone makes a motion and they vote, then that becomes binding on the entire body. What they are not doing is they are not themselves providing evidence. So, they can't submit comp substantial evidence.
They They act like a judge and a jury. So, in the criminal context, you have, you know, prosecutor and the defendant, and they are providing evidence on whether or not some criteria is met. So, that's the ultimate role of the PLDRC is they They sit there as the ultimate
finder of fact, and they sit there as the ultimate finder of law. Um But, all of the But, they have have to balance the evidence that is actually presented by staff, by the the public, and by the applicant. So, thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> Thank you, Mr. Soria. While you're on the legal comments, you might want to explain the appeal process. >> Yes. So, um when I say an aggrieved party, um so uh for the final decisions on variances and special exceptions, an aggrieved
party has 10 days from the rendition to um submit an appeal to Who would they submit it to? To Samantha West. So, it's So, that's 10 days from whenever uh Chair Mills signs that letter uh to appeal that to the County Council. So,
as Once the um Once that appeal is submitted, we will schedule it for the next available hearing. Um but, remember the uh evidence is all the evidence that was presented in this hearing. So, if you disagree with a decision, you're
confined to the record provided here. You can argue on what was said in this hearing, but you can't provide new evidence, and neither can um uh you know, any opposing party. Staff can't provide new evidence, an applicant can't provide new evidence, a member of
the public cannot provide new evidence. You are basically deciding, you know, at at this point in time, was there sufficient evidence presented for the PLDRC to make their decision? >> Thank you, Mr. Soria. And while we're on
legal comments, I would like to ask the commission to disclose for the record any ex parte communications that have occurred before or during the public hearing at which a vote is to be taken on any quasi-judicial matter. And I'll start with my immediate right with Mr. Ursin. >> None.
>> I have none. >> None. >> None. >> None. >> And I have none. >> Okay. Do we have any items to be continued or withdrawn? >> Yes, there's two items, case V26-052
and case V26-069. Both of these items did not meet public notice. >> Okay. That's good. >> continuing to the July 16th hearing. >> Would you repeat those cases again? >> Uh V26-052
and V26-069. >> Okay. 052 is not in my packet. And neither is 069, but we still need to take a vote on the continuance. All right. So, if you want to write those down. >> We'll continue to what date?
>> Uh July 16th. >> Mr. Chair, I'm ready to make a motion. >> Go ahead, Mr. Costa. >> Uh I'll make a motion that we continue case V26-052 and case V26-069 to the July 22nd. >> Second that. >> July 16th.
>> July 16th BLDRC meeting. >> Second. >> Okay, I've got a motion on the floor to continue various as V26-052 and V26-069 to our July 16th meeting from Mr. Costa
and a second from Ms. Bush. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Okay. And we do have one case of unfinished
old business. This V26039. So, Ms. Shelley, can I get you to read that into the record, please? >> Yes, sir. Case V-26 that's 039. Variances to the minimum yard requirements and maximum lot coverage on
urban single-family residential R4 zoned property. >> Thank you, Ms. Shelley. And this is Mr. Mr. Costa. Oh, Ms. Costa. I'm sorry. So, is
Talking to this guy beside me, I always call him Mr. Costa. I get it confused here. No relationship, right? >> [laughter] >> Still no relationship. >> Still no relationship. Okay. >> Good morning, board. >> How are you this morning? >> Good morning.
Um This is a case where our applicant is requesting two variances. One for lot coverage and one for the reduction of his rear yard setback for a covered screen room.
Uh little bit of background. The property consists of 7,500 square feet and is located within the Seabridge South subdivision. The property is a conforming interior zoned R4 lot and developed with a single-family residence, which was originally permitted in 1995.
Uh the property is subject to an 8-ft drainage and utility easement that surrounds the entire parcel. The home currently sits at the minimum required 20-ft rear yard setback. County records According to county records, the unpermitted screen
enclosure was added to the residence in 1998. During a recent review, it was determined that the residence had exceeded the maximum lot coverage. As a result, the applicants obtained an administrative variance for that lot coverage for the
single-family residence in April of this year uh increasing the existing lot coverage from 35% to 38%. At the 2021 um April 21 2026 PLDRC hearing, the applicants
requested a continuance which they uh gathered new information and they have uh obtained one letter of support from one of their neighbors. They are proposing to replace the existing unpermitted screen room with a larger screen structure consisting of a
228 sq ft covered screen room and 324 ft sq ft screen enclosure for a total footprint of 552 sq ft. Site conditions uh the single-family residence um is
surrounded by other single-family residences and is adjacent backs up to a retention pond. Uh staff, after reviewing the supporting materials, finds that it does not satisfy criteria 1 through 4 and is recommending uh a denial on this.
I I'm available for any questions that you have. >> Thank you, Ms. Costello. Any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is the applicant present? >> Yes. >> You would you like to come forward, sir? Can I get your name and address for the record, sir?
>> I beg your pardon, sir. >> Your name and address for the record. >> My name is James Uzello. My address is 7 Sanddollar Drive. >> Sir, if you could please speak a little closer to the microphone. I'm so sorry. Thank you. >> Um just my apologies. I I will tell you sitting in front, the acoustics in this
room are not the greatest. Uh my name is James Uzzell. I live at 7 Sand Dollar Drive in Ormond Beach. >> Okay. You've heard the staff report. Anything you'd like to add to that? >> Um
Okay. The back of our house faces due east. Right now there is um a screen enclosure that isn't covered. When the sun rises in the morning,
it renders that enclosure inoperable. There is a minimal amount of shade there now. So, we actually can't use the back area of our back of our house until the sun
sets behind the house in the afternoon. What we are requesting is just to create a portion a small covered portion that would enable us to go outside
in the morning and just have a cup of coffee without feeling like we are sitting in a tanning bed. You know, our we're retired. My wife Karen and I are retired. Our friends are retired. Our relatives are retired. So,
anyone that um comes over to see us um can't use the outside property. Um we moved from the northeast a couple of years ago and we love the Florida weather. And we really didn't move down here to
sit inside. So, we just want to create a little seating area for ourselves. That's it very simple. >> Okay. Any questions for the applicant? >> Ms. Bush?
>> Have you considered an awning? Um that's like retractable so that you can pull it out and that way you you don't have to do the variance request. >> Yeah, um I will yes, we have considered that. I will say this about an awning. There are two issues that I see with an awning.
Number one is it's durability. We're in salt air. Um when we bought the house, it actually had awnings on it. I took them down and even though it was very heavy canvas material, they were destroyed as as was the the mounting material for it. So,
part of the awning a retractable awning is durability. The other part is its ability to hold up in high wind. Which a covered um a basically a roof um would be much more stable. And since this is Florida and we do get
hurricanes, um we're concerned about that and even though there are awnings that are built um for the outdoors, we do live in a salt air environment. And I have seen outdoor structures around the house like
lanterns deteriorate in the salt air. Okay. The photographs we have from December of 2025, is that is that an a screen room there on the back of the house? >> Yes, there's a screen room there now. Yes.
>> Okay. And so you're wanting to extend that out is what you're trying to do. >> Right. We can only go out 2 ft from the back of the house because of the drainage easement. Right. So, what we want to do is go to the sides and just ex- extend that screen room and
then cover a portion of it. >> Okay. All right. Any other questions for the applicant? Do we have any public participation forms for this case? >> No, sir. >> All right, sir. We're going to close the floor for public participation and and
get you an answer here pretty shortly. >> Okay, thank you very much for your consideration. >> Thank you. Okay. >> I just I just want to make note that there is one letter of support in our package from the neighbor.
>> Yes, I saw that. And by the photograph, it doesn't look like there's another home behind it. Is it a retention pond? Okay. All right. >> Okay. >> All right. I'll entertain a motion if
someone like to make one. >> I'll make I'll make a motion that case V-26-039 that we approve variances one and two with the staff record through all three staff recommended conditions. >> Second. >> Okay, I got a motion on the floor from
Mr. Costa to approve variances one and two with the three staff conditions for variance V26039 and the second from Ms. Shelley. Any discussion on the motion? Ms. Ms. Bush. >> Yes, thank you, Chairman. Um first I I
want to say thank you to staff for putting the new lot coverage table on the staff reports. That was incredibly helpful, so thank you. Um really appreciate that. Um I'll be honest, I've always had this um
you know, mantra that I I just can't support when we are overbuilding structures because of the flooding conditions that we have in Volusia County. Um I understand that it's not the applicant's fault that the house is overbuilt, and I understand that, you know, you want to have a desired use for
your back of your property, but I do think that there are other remedies, so um I and I'm concerned that these unpermitted structures, if they continue, they do come into covered porches and then we're just continuing to exasperate the issue that we're facing. So, um that is my comments on
the case and I will be voting no for it. Thank you, Chairman. >> Thank you. Any other comments on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> I. >> I.
Is Ms. Craig was you did in the same also? Okay. Motion carries one to four to two. >> Three. Ms. Craig >> Three. Oh. >> Ms. Craig, can you please speak into the mic what your motion is for the record?
>> I voted to deny. I don't know whether that's a >> Mr. Ursini, you voted? >> Deny. >> Okay, it's three to three. Unfortunately, that does not constitute of an approval. Would you make any other
recommendations? Four bears. Okay. The motion fails to carry with a three to three vote. All right. >> Okay, for for the the applicant, so any variance
needs to be approved by at least four members of the PLDRC and in the event of a tie vote, the question presented fails and if no other motions are provided, essentially you cannot get a majority of the PLDRC.
Oh, I apologize. Okay, let let me let me start again. So, because we only have six members of the PLDRC and we cannot get a majority to vote either way, either to approve or deny, it acts like a technical denial. So,
the rendition order will say that the that the application is denied because there was the PLDRC could not find enough comp substantial evidence to support the request. So, it it it will This is in effect a denial of the
request for the variance. >> Okay. Before we actually close this, I'm looking at this. This is a 38% coverage. They have actually 41%. We're looking at 3% and if they were to reduce this in
size by 3% and staff, tell me what that would actually look like. Cuz it seems like that's the hold up on this variance. >> Okay, so the the home sits currently The home was approved at 38%. There was
an error at the original permitting back when the home was built. >> Okay. >> It met the setbacks, but it didn't meet the lot coverage and they missed that. So, this is why they had the administrative variance. They're requesting just to increase that lot coverage. If
you you're trying to get them back to 38, they're not going to be able to do that cuz that's just the home itself. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> That doesn't include the concrete of the screen room? >> Concrete doesn't count towards lot coverage. >> It does not. That's right. You're right.
Thank you. >> Any anything with a roof right now currently existing is a screen enclosure which is a non-roofed Okay. >> screen. >> at total lot coverage for the building or are we looking at total lot coverage period? >> Period.
>> is one entire lot. >> 41 would be the home and the enclosure. >> Okay. My question though is where does it exceed the lot coverage on the building because there's other structures on the property?
>> There are no other structures on this property. >> Okay. Mr. Soria, there was just an appeal based on the the building and the total lot coverage. And I know there's a distinguish between that. What would that be?
>> Sorry, can you repeat the question again? >> Recently there was appeal based upon the total lot coverage of everything compared to just the home. And I heard that conversation during the appeal. My question is is there a difference
between the total lot coverage and the lot coverage from this proposed building? >> No. No. Lot coverage is calculated for all of the roof structures that are on site. >> Okay. All right. Just trying to help the applicant out. Okay.
>> Okay. >> All right. Unfortunately, it does not pass because three to three vote and um we could uh well, all right. It's already been approved. So, okay. You can appeal this. That's all I can
tell you. All right. Miss Shelly, could I get the Now we're into new business. So, could I get the next case, please? >> Case number V-26-043. Variance to the accessory structure requirements on urban single family residential R-4 zoned property.
>> Thank you, Miss Shelly. And Miss Tucker, this one's yours. >> Good morning, members. For the record, Kelly Tucker, planner one. Today before you, the applicant is requesting two variances to develop a 350 square foot in ground pool and a wooden deck in the waterfront yard on
urban single family residential R-4 zoned property. Property is currently developed with a 2,203 sq. ft two-story single-family residence that was constructed in 1989. The property was purchased by the applicants in April of 2021. This parcel
is whole lot four, block one of the Silver Sands subdivision section C, which was determined vested and eligible for building permits on April 21st, 2022. The subject property fronts along a canal and is an atypical lot. The waterfront setback in R4 is 25 ft
and the proposed pool and deck will encroach into the waterfront yard by 15 ft. Variance one is to reduce the waterfront yard from 25 ft to 10 ft for the in-ground pool and variance two is to reduce the waterfront yard from 25 ft to 10 ft for the wooden deck that will
surround the pool on three sides. The subject property does fall within the Indian River Lagoon Surface Water Improvement and Management Overlay Zone, also known as class two. The requirement of this class two ordinance is to provide a volume of stormwater retention and at least 35% of the lot to be
planted or maintain natural native vegetation. A class two plan was submitted and reviewed by environmental permitting and they do not object to the variance on a conceptual level level. However, the applicant will be required to get a class two permit when they do apply for the building permits for the
pool and deck. Staff does recommend denial for variances one and two as they failed to meet criteria one through four for granting a variance. However, if the PLDRC does find that the applicant has presented competent substantial evidence for granting said variances, staff has provided three conditions for
consideration on page five of your staff report. I'm available for any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Any questions for staff? Ms. Bush. >> Thank you, Chairman. Um, and I apologize if I've asked this in the past, but can you remind me why um
it the purpose of adding in-ground pools um that change in 2021 with ordinance 21-14, um why in-ground pools was added to meet the front yard requirement. >> And just to clarify, you're asking why it went from 10 ft to 25 ft?
>> Um, no. I In that ordinance as well, the To me, it looks like the terms inground pools was added to the ordinance. So, I was just curious as to why inground pools was added. >> Uh, this is Scott Ashley, zoning manager. It was just a clarification from the previous code to just specified
swimming pool. Um, so we covered all the elements. >> Thank you. >> Okay, any other questions for staff? >> Could he repeat Would you Scott, would you please repeat that? >> The code, part of the amendment was to
make the uh, just clarify uh, and distinguish all the different types of pools, not just swimming pool general, it's indoor, inground, above ground, and also spas and things of that nature. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, any other questions for staff? Hearing none, is the applicant present? Good morning, sir. Could I get your name and address for the record? Your name and address for the record. >> Shane Miller, 2 Oak Tree Drive, New Smyrna Beach. >> Okay, and you, ma'am? Are you going to
>> I'm his wife, Barbara Michelle Miller. >> Okay. You've heard the staff report. Anything you'd like to add to it? >> Uh, yeah. I would like to, if you guys can look at the survey, you'll notice that we have a county drainage easement on the property line where the pool
could possibly go on the other side, but we also have a lot of mature oak trees on this property, and we're trying to work, you know, environmentally with what we have. It's a real special piece of property. Um we feel we have a right to a normal size pool and if you look in the rear, if we
get the reduced setback, we can do a functional size pool in between two large oak trees and meet the criteria of the setbacks when the house was actually built and developed. Um if we went anywhere else, we affect all sorts of things including being really close to
the uh county easement line where the storm drainage for the road of oak tree drains into the water waterway behind us. >> Okay. >> And then the reason we're going for the elevation survey is obviously due to things like when Ian and Nicole happen, our backyard is, you know, 2 ft
underwater and it's reasonable to say that we want our pool above that grade, so there that way the the lagoon is not washing into our pool. >> It's the echo. It's hard to hear. >> Did you guys hear that? Should I repeat that? Okay. So, we're going for the the rear setback change due to the mature
oak trees on our property and it's the only functional place to build a functional size pool. On the south side of our property, you'll see that we have an eve uh drainage easement and there's currently a stormwater drain that drains from oak tree into the lagoon back there. So, we don't want to be too close
to that. Plus, we have seven mature oak trees back there. It's the only place to put the pool. >> Okay. >> And we we've already improved the property with all the proper permits with the riprap wall and everything else, so you know, we're definitely controlling the storm drainage very
well. The elevation variance is strictly just to keep for when we do have the flooding events like Ian and Nicole and the waterways come up, we don't want it washing into our pool and compromising that. We're also doing a a deck to, you know,
show that we're serious about stormwater drainage. We're not doing a hardscape deck. We're going to do an e-pay deck with drainage underneath, so very very little impact to the environment with the way that I designed this pool. >> All right. Any questions for the >> Um one more thing the wife wanted me to
throw in there. The uh our access to our backyard from the second story the main living area is a set of stairs as you can see. >> It's hard to hear you. >> The the access to the backyard is from the second story. There's a set of stairs come around the back and with the location of those and that's the only
access point we can get in our backyard. There's a safety issue as far as the stairs being too close to a again an unconventional, you know, 8-ft wide pool or something like that. >> Okay. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Ms. Bush.
>> Yes, thank you, Chairman. Um I your um variance application suggested that um you were concerned about people jumping off the second story into the pool. Um do you do you have break-ins often? Are you I mean are these people unsupervised? I just Can you further
explain this fear that you have of people jumping off the second story into the pool? >> Can I address that? >> Yeah, go ahead. >> I'd like to address that. Um No, we don't have children unsupervised, but there are children in the neighborhood. We don't lock our gates,
although we do have a front gate. We have an 8-year-old grandson and another baby on the way. Um and then I also have a lot of men in my family that are adventurous and reckless. So um yeah, this the
it would be nice to it not be accessible that way. So >> Okay, thank you. [laughter] >> Mr. Costa. >> Yeah, and well in your defense uh >> [laughter] >> at the age of 12 I decided to jump off the second story of our house into our
swimming pool and um say the least, sprained ankle and uh both skinned up knees later was the last time I did that. But so yes, the temptation is there for sure. >> Okay, do we have any other questions for the um Do we have any public participation
forms for this case, Mr. Tucker? >> No, sir. >> All right. We're going to close the floor for public participation participate Go ahead, Mr. >> I have one more question real quick. So, just to recap the location of the pool actually also saves a couple of trees in the process. >> Yeah, we have we have seven, you know,
probably pushing 100-year-old oak trees. Yeah, oak trees you said. Large specimen trees, 36 inches or more. >> So, if you moved it if you put it within the setback, we'd we'd be removing several trees as well. >> There would be an issue where we'd have to reconsider and remove some of the trees. >> All right, thank you. >> Okay, we're going to close the floor for
public participation, open up for commission discussion, and give you an answer in a few moments. >> Okay. >> All right, guys. Any discussion on the the request? Or or allow me to entertain a motion. >> I guess I'll move with a motion.
>> Go ahead, Mr. Urshan. >> Okay, approve V26043 with the three staff recommendations seen on page five. >> Second. >> Okay, thank you, Mr. Urshan. We've got a
motion to approve variances one and two with the three staff conditions for variance V26043 from Mr. Urshan and second from Ms. Shelley. Any discussion on the motion? Ms. Bush. >> Thank you, Chairman. Um
first I want to compliment staff. Trying to do that more often. Um on the uh analysis of variances um or I'm sorry, of the analysis of uh criteria one through four. Um I disagree with the um uh um Um
I'm sorry. I will I will state However, um I'm of the intent that according to staff's GIS review, none of the pools are closer than 10 ft um and which is exactly what the applicant's seeking. Um from an aerial review, I didn't see those magnificent or just oak trees that
he's speaking of in between where he they were intending to put the pool and the back of the home. Um and I just don't think that people jumping off a second story is justification enough to record to request this variance. We obviously have intent based on ordinance
21 uh {dash} 14 that swimming pools should meet that 25-ft waterfront yard setback. And I feel that again, if we continue to approve these things, we're just telling everyone that it's okay to build in these places. We'll just deal with the consequences later and I'm I'm
not okay with that. So, I'm going to vote no for this for that reason. Thank you, Chairman. >> Thank you. Any other comments? Miss Craig. >> Um I also have a problem with the the rear uh yard being reduced so much. I think that
it sets a terrible precedent and looking at the neighborhood um the homes that are in the immediate area uh this somewhat sets a precedent that I think opens up a door to a lot of issues down the road.
So, I'm also against this. >> Okay. Um if I could, I might remind you that these cases decided individually on case-by-case. So, regardless of what the vote is here, shouldn't reflect on another request
down in the future. Okay. Any other comments? All those in favor signify by say Well, Mr. Costa. >> I'd like to um just make this comment. This is directed at the applicant that you still have an opportunity to
withdraw and have this continue to the next meeting if you feel that this may be denied at this particular time. I'll give you that 30 seconds to There you go. >> Based on that, it seems like we're voting on precedents and not the fact of
my particular property, I would like to withdraw it. >> No, based on the fact that there's uh six members here and there's usually a total of seven. >> I'm sorry, say that again. >> So, you're missing one member here and you have to have four votes for it to go through.
>> Correct, and there's one member of the board not here today. >> There's one member of the board not here. >> Okay, so then I'll withdraw and come back when he's here, I guess. >> a continuance as well. >> A continuance, yeah. Now, I'll request a continuance. >> July 16th.
>> July 16th, all right. Uh I'll make a separate motion then. >> You can It's got to be a separate motion. >> Oh, can we Is there one in August? We're going to be out of the country in July. >> There's an August 20th meeting. >> August again? >> 20th. >> 2 0. Thank you.
>> Yes, sir. >> Okay, go ahead. >> All right, I'll uh make a motion on case B-26-043 that we continue to the August 20th meeting of the PLDRC. >> I'll second that. >> Okay, Mr. Soriano, should I take the first motion or >> Uh Mr. Ursen
>> Um >> Technically, you should unless Mr. Ursen withdraws your initial motion, then we proceed with Mr. Costa's motion. >> to go with >> Yes. >> Uh no, I'll I'll withdraw my motion. >> Okay. So, the only motion we have is Mr.
Costa's motion to continue. >> that one. >> Okay. >> Mr. Ursen has withdrawn his motion, so we're going to and I got a motion from Mr. Costa, is that correct? Who seconded? >> Me. >> Oh, okay. I got a motion for Mr. Costa
to continue V26043 to our August What day is it? >> August 20th. >> August 20th meeting. Um And a second for Mr. Ursa. Any discussion on the motion?
All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Motion carries unanimously. >> Okay. Thank you, board. >> Okay, Ms. Shelley, could I get the next case, please? >> Yes, sir. Case number V-26-047. Variances to sign requirements on urban
multi-family residential R7 zoned property. >> Thank you, Ms. Shelley. Ms. Costa, this one's yours. >> Good morning again. Um Applicant is requesting two variances. One to the
sign square footage and one to the maximum height >> Laura, please speak into the mic. >> Yeah, we can't hear you. >> Can you hear me now? Better? Okay, sorry. >> Speak real close. >> [laughter] >> Let me get a little closer here. Okay. So, applicant is requesting two
variances. One to the maximum square footage of the sign and one to the maximum height of the sign. This is a residentially zoned property R7 uh which is permitted a sign of 16 sq
ft. They are requesting 21 and 1/2 sq ft in area. And the maximum height is 12 ft and they are requesting 32 ft for a wall-mounted sign. Uh background on the property, the property consists of 8.79 acres on West
Minnesota Avenue, approximately 800 ft from West Volusia North Volusia Avenue, sorry, on US Highway 17-92. Property is currently under development as a 68 unit multi-family complex consisting of three buildings. A fi-
final site plan development order was approved for the project on August 16th, 2024. The surrounding area consists primarily of residential development with single family residence located to the south and to the west. There is a commercial
auto dealership to the east and the north uh vacant commercial property. Uh staff recommends uh denial based on it did not meet five out of the five criteria for approval.
Um we did have uh agency reviews as well from the city of Orange City. They said it did not um they provided no objections to that. Environmental Permitting provided no objections. Staff recommends denial based on it did
not meet five out of the five criteria. Are there any questions for me? >> Go ahead, Ms. Bush. >> Thank you. Um I don't want to assume, so is this an apartment project? >> It is. >> Okay, thank you. >> And the picture of that variance site plan is the front of the building facing
Minnesota Avenue. >> And also, Ms. Costa, I'm looking at the zoning classification across the street from this R-7 zoning is R-4 zoning, is it not? >> It is. >> Okay. >> And to the um >> [snorts]
>> north of it is a is agricultural zoning. But it is single family residences within that agricultural zone. >> Any other questions for staff? Okay, thank you, ma'am. >> Thank you. >> Um Mr. Chair >> Just just um so in the event that PLDRC
does approve this, staff has provided uh five conditions for approval. Oh, in the event that PLDRC does approve the requested variances, staff has provided five conditions for approval in your report. >> I'm Addie >> Ma'am, could I get your name and address for the record?
>> Good morning, Addie Mentry, 13266 uh Bird Bird Drive, Odessa, Florida, 33556. >> Close. >> Is it Can you hear me? >> You got to get close. >> Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. Uh Addie Mentry, uh 13266 Bird Drive, Odessa,
Florida. Um I am here on behalf of the applicant, the Land Housing Authority. Uh today we have a request in front of you for two sign variances. Um before we discuss the variance criteria, I do have a I have a presentation. I'd like to walk you
through um the site, the surrounding context of this, and why um the relief is necessary. Okay, so this is the vicinity map. Um so Volusia Flats is a um multi-family residential development along West
Minnesota Avenue. Um while this is a residential development, it is important to recognize that it doesn't exist within the typical residential neighborhood setting. Um as we'll see in the following slides, uh the site is located within a transitional corridor
where residential, um commercial, and you know, these automotive uses all converge. Um so this context is important when evaluating the visibility, identification, and wayfinding needs of the sign. Next slide.
Uh this is the parcel map. So it illustrates the physical boundaries of the subject property. It is just shy of 9 acres. The site functions as a community scale um multi-family development consisting of 68 residential
units with three buildings. Um unlike a single-family home or a small residential parcel, this parcel serves residents, visitors, uh delivery drivers, service providers, ride-share drivers, and emergency responders. As a result, the identification for this
property is fundamental um and it is different than a typical residential lot. Next slide. Uh so, this is a zoning map. Uh so, this slide highlights um what I believe is one of the most important aspects of the case. As acknowledged by staff, um this
is in the R7 uh zoned uh region and it is the only R7 um in the immediate area. The property is surrounded and is transitional from commercial um into residential. Um we are not necessarily suggesting that
those zoning contexts creates uh alone the hardship, rather it is in combination with the mixed-use surroundings, the scale of the multi-family development, and the visibility conditions that create a unique circumstances. Um in our opinion,
this site functions very differently than a smaller residential property and um uh that the R7 sign standards were originally intended to address. Next slide. So, our variance request, as Laura said,
um one is to increase the size from the allowable 16 square feet to 21.5 square feet. So, um an additional 5.5 square feet. And then to exceed the um maximum allowable height from 12 feet to 32 square feet. And that is because we are
proposing um a building sign that's architecturally integrated to the third story on the building that faces Minnesota. Um so, those are the two requests in front of you. Next slide. Uh, so this is a zoomed out of the entire site plan. It is a long, narrow,
skinny, uh, development. Uh, you can see here. Uh, next slide. This provides a little more context. So, this is building one. This is the building that will, um, house the sign. It is in red there. The building is set back 66 ft from the property line, and
then it is additionally set back 31 ft from the right of way where right of way where, um, vehicular traffic would be, um, actually viewing the sign. Um, so it was selected because this is the best opportunity for
visibility from both directions. You'll see a little later in the presentation. I have some exhibits that show the sign, um, on the building. Um, but it is in, uh, architecturally integrated into the building and serves as, um, a part of
the overall design of the building. Next slide. So, this is the proposed sign. So, it reads Volusia Flats. It is mounted on a raceway, um, and it is boxed at 21.5 sq ft. It is, um, face-lit channel letters. We'll
talk about the illumination, um, in a little bit, but really this is not to serve as a commercial, um, advertising or further messaging. It really is simply, um, identification of the residential community for
people, guests, visitors, ride share, emergency responders who will be identifying this property. Next slide. Uh, and this is in context with the building elevation rendering, um, that was submitted. This is what,
uh, it will look like. Next slide. Uh, so this is traveling west. It's a little blurry because I wanted a real-life photo traveling. Um, so I took this while I was driving, not the safest, I don't recommend. But, this is traveling west on
Minnesota. So, this is what the sign would look like. We are limited. There is foliage trees in the right-of-way and also along the main frontage that was required for the development. And so, a free-standing
sign, while that is preferred by the county and we respect that. We don't believe that that would be the best solution for visibility for the development, which is why the sign is proposed and why we have only asked for
5 and 1/2 square feet above what we're asking what is essentially allowed for square footage. Next slide. And then this is traveling east. So, as you can see the condition of um
the visibility still remains for like a ground sign. It illustrates when motorists are approaching from either direction that it is not favorable to have a ground sign here and that is why the building signage is proposed.
Next slide. Um So, before discussing the variance criteria, I wanted to quickly provide the commission with an industry reference regarding sign visibility and readability. The proposed Volusia letters are approximately 14.75 inches
in height. According to the US Sign Council visibility and letter height data. So, Minnesota is a 30 mph road. We know not everybody goes 30 mph, but if we're taking that data, a motorist then travels approximately 44 feet every
second. That means a driver approaching the property is continuously processing roadway conditions, driveways, traffic, pedestrians, and directional decisions while simultaneously attempting to identify the development. The purpose of
this requested sign is not to add more commercial messaging or advertising or branding. It is to provide appropriate letter sizing and spacing that allows the the site to be identified early enough for motorist to recognize the
development and safely determine where they need to turn. Um I think it's particularly important um because the staff report concludes that a 16 square foot sign would provide adequate identification. Um while the staff report did have photos
in there, there was no visit kind of visibility study or a letter height analysis um to support that claim. Uh the industry data demonstrates that letter height is directly related to readability and supports the need for the modest um additional sign increase
before you. Next slide. Uh so quickly, criteria one um it asked about special conditions. Um in the combination of the 68-unit multi-family development, the uh building setback of almost 100 ft from the right-of-way, 66 ft from the property line, the mixed-use
corridor, and the need for visibility from both directions of travel I think creates um not a typical R7 um environment. Next slide. Uh so the literal interpretation, so the issue is not whether a sign can be
installed. A sign absolutely can be installed. Um the issue is that whether that sign is functioning effectively for wayfinding and public safety. Um so a sign cannot be readily seen or read if it does not provide effective identification. And in our our opinion,
the 16 square foot does not provide identification specifically because the sign is not designed to be fancy. It just is supposed to It says Volusia Flats in a sans-serif font that is bold um to see. If we the the letter height is really
dictated by the length of the sign. So, if we proportionately scale that down, we're going to have less than 16 sq ft. Um and that would not serve anybody um I think well. Next slide. Uh so, this is um the minimum relief.
Only one sign is proposed. Um no additional sign opportunities are requested. We believe that this is a a modest increase for the readability. Um the height improves the visibility um and it is tailored to the unique site conditions that we have here.
Next slide. Uh the proposal remains consis- consistent with the intent of the county's regulations and their comprehensive plan. Uh the site improves in visi- uh visibility, identification, and wayfinding for the site.
Uh next slide. Uh and finally, the the proposed sign remains proportionate to the building. Uh the staff report reflects that. It does not create visual dominance um which we'll talk about a monument sign doing in a little bit. Um and the
request um improves site identification while remaining compatible with the the surrounding development as the transitional corridor. Next slide. Um so, at this point I would like to discuss um finally uh a few findings
contained within the staff report. Um first, I want to thank Laura for putting all of her time into this. Um while we understand the concerns identified in the report, we respectfully disagree and believe that the evidence does support a different conclusion than what is in the
staff report. Um staff acknowledges that the subject property is unique and um recognizes that there is a multi-use context surrounding the site. Um we respectfully disagree that the code-compliant 16 square foot sign would provide adequate identification. As I
have presented evidence to show the US sign council code and the two exhibits that show the sign on the building. In the staff report, there was not a letter height analysis or kind of sightline view. There were some photos that were provided.
We don't believe that that supports the conclusion that the 16 square foot sign is adequate. Staff agrees that the site is unique, but diminishes that uniqueness without providing text and technical analysis showing that.
Next slide. Staff concludes that the circumstances affecting the property are self-created because the building and the sign locations were selected by us. The building location, parking configuration, circulation patterns, and
overall site design they were approved in the site plan and approved during the development process and now exist as physical characteristics of this property. The sign responds to those conditions. I wish that developers would come to us
before they designed that stuff so that we could have some input, but now that that is physical characteristics of the property, that is what we are responding to and ensuring that there is proper wayfinding and identification for public safety here.
The question is whether the conditions creating the visibility challenge now exist and whether those conditions justify the requested relief. >> Ms. Mintrie, you >> Yes. >> you You give us a written petition or addition sheet in here. A lot of what
you're telling us now is already in the staff report. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, it's just if anything you'd like to add to the staff report is what we're looking for if >> Okay. >> if you know. But, what you're telling us right now is everything you've put in the proposed
application and it's in our staff report. >> Can you say that again? >> Everything you're explaining to us now is in our staff report. >> Okay. >> And your explanations are in here also. And so >> Well, I think I So I got the staff
report and I reviewed it and I'm addressing some of the concerns that I saw in the staff report. Yeah. >> you can hit specific points, but you already went over all this in the staff report is what I'm saying. Our staff report has everything that you're going over now. >> Yeah, so I'm I'm rebutting that right
now. Is that not allowed? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. Um So criterion two. Okay, um staff concludes that the circumstances affecting the property are self-created. Um we do not believe that. We believe that the sign responds to the physical
conditions. Um uh next slide. Uh staff notes that the sign can be installed without a variance. Um we agree that a sign can be, but that would be at the code requirement and the issue is not whether a sign can be
permitted permitted. The sign the issue is that the sign that is allowed per the R7 code, if that is effective or not um based on the hardship with everything that we've presented, we don't believe that the code compliant sign for an R7
district is effective for wayfinding, identification, and public safety. Next slide. Um staff also questions whether the uh requested relief is the minimum requested relief. We believe that that is so. Um there
it's one message. It's not fancy. It's Volusia Flats. There's no commercial advertising or promotional messaging in there. Um I do believe that, you know, we have we we did analyze other signs and the staff report repeatedly
references a monument sign that is a preferable alternative for the county to achieve the comparable visibility that we would have with the sign. Um we would have to have a larger sign structure, larger or maintain this copy,
potentially add additional height to achieve this comparable visibility, making it a more in intrusive solution to the site instead of allowing for the wall sign. Additionally, the trees and landscaping that are in both Laura's photos and mine
um continue to affect the visibility of a ground sign. So, we believe that the building sign that is proposed is the minimum uh relief that is sought. Uh next slide. Uh and finally, the staff uh staff
concludes that the sign area itself is generally compatible with the surrounding area, but expresses concern regarding the illumination. I completely understand. We do not want light pollution to other residential homes and appreciate staff raising that question.
Um no photometric study was requested during the review. If a photometric plan had been requested during the review, we would have submitted one. Um This is a face-lit channel letter sign. The LEDs in that um are only
illuminating the face. They are not floodlights or parking fixtures or wall packs. They don't act The LEDs don't act like that in a sign. Um if the commission shares staff's concern concerns about the illumination, we are happy to accept a condition of approval
with the submission of a photometric plan for permitting um to ensure that we are complying with the um lighting, but our uh standard sign lighting is in line with what is allowed per the county code.
Um and then next slide. In closing, um we believe this is a modest request uh for single a building mounted identification sign serving the multi-family residential community. The request is intended to improve visibility, readability, identification,
and wayfinding. The sign is architecturally integrated into the building. It remains proportionate to the structure, and it responds to the unique site conditions uh that exist today. While the staff report suggests that a monument sign may be preferable,
we believe that the proposed wall sign is actually a less intrusive solution. It utilizes the existing building architecture and avoids uh need for an additional freestanding structure. Uh we also believe that any illumination concerns can be effectively addressed through a permit process with the
photometric plan. For those reasons, we respectfully request your approval, and I'm here to answer any questions. >> Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Mr. Costa. >> That was a lot. >> I know.
I like to be very thorough. >> I just want to point out one thing to uh to you as well I'm assuming you are aware of it, but also to the commission here is that we have a email response from the city of Orange Orange City that says that at this time the city has no objections or comments regarding the
proposal since it complies with all applicable city code requirements. So, you have a I consider that a letter of recommendation or approval from there from them. >> Thank you. >> Other than that, um just this is a curiosity question. Is this a affordable housing complex? It
is? Okay. >> So, yeah, I think they would give them that that panache to having this I prefer personally as a builder I prefer to have signs on the building than on the street from a visibility standpoint. But that's it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, any other questions? Miss Bush.
>> Yes. Um did you the staff report mentioned that no photometric data was provided on the sign? Have you since provided that or done any of that? >> I I have not provided it. It is in it is currently in the works, but it is not done from the manufacturer yet, so I didn't have that to provide today. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. >> Um I noticed that the illuminated sign is right below a unit, I imagine. >> Mhm. >> Um is there any um architectural features that you're adding to ensure that that light pollution doesn't spill into that unit?
>> Yeah. So, uh the photometric plan will show that the lighting is calculated from the face, and when it is distributed outward, it is actually light is not distributed outward from this sign. There is actually no light
pollution. The photometric plan will support that. Uh so, there is no need if the commission would like a condition on that, I think that we are fine with that. There is no current solution for that, but we don't believe
that there will be light pollution for that uh uh resident. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Okay, any other questions for the applicant? Did you speak with any of the property owners across the street from the
>> I did not. No. >> All right. That's all I have. Do we have any public participation forms for this case? >> No, sir. >> Okay, we're going to close the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion. I would like to say my from my point of
view this you got an R4 R4 zoning across the street with established residents, and is this RS-7 is more of a a tran- transitional from out of the R4, and my concern is the visibility of a
illuminated sign 24 hours or, you know, especially there in the evenings. So, I'm inclined to to not re to approve this request. That's me personally unless someone can change my mind.
Ms. Bush? >> Thank you, Chairman. Um while I I agree with uh member Costa that I am preferred to um wall-mounted signs versus monument signs just from an urban design standpoint. You don't see monument signs in an urban form, and
this is a transitional zoning, and I understand that this area is in transition. So, I would agree with mounting the sign on the building. However, I do not agree with illuminating it, and the fact that the applicant did not provide any illuminate any of the documents, the photo of it
take data, or lighting specifications on that sign. At this time, I don't feel like I have enough evidence to support a variance request, and I agree at this time with staff's determination. Um I do think that illuminating that sign is not in um uh
um is not appropriate for the area at the time. Maybe in the future, and it doesn't, you know, they can swap that sign out in the future. Um but I'm of the notion that it if we are to allow this that it should not be illuminated to keep in the character of the
community. Thank you. Mr. Costa? >> Well, what I to to your point, what would be the difference between a monument sign that's illuminated and the building-mounted sign that's illuminated? They're both would be illuminated in the evenings. >> Correct.
But is there again, this one is um 21 and 1/2 ft. >> I get that, but even if even if they went back to code with a 16-ft 16-sq ft as a monument sign that would be illuminated at night, I don't see the the differential there. >> Well, the only problem I have is the
illumination. I really don't really the way the code reads, I'm not in really in agreement with the code when it's consistent R4 zoning is right across the street. >> And And I would like to offer, um, you know, I I do think that they're the
ground-mounted sign can be covered by landscaping, it can be shaded by other things, it's not directly impacted. There There's going to be other physical barriers for that light to trespass. And that monument sign has to meet the lumens requirement of the county. So,
there's certain number of foot candles that can't pass the property line, and monument signs have to meet that requirement. That is usually done through the site plan review process. Um, but a wall-mounted sign that's illuminated has less physical blockage of the lighting that
is trespassing, if you will. Regardless of however the applicant is saying that it's projecting, it still will project. And so, that's where I think the difference is between the ground-mounted sign and the illuminated, um, wall-mounted sign. Thank you. >> There again, the illumination is what I have a problem with. I don't have a
problem with the sign on the building as much as it is the illumination and what the the people across the street are going to have in the evenings. >> Miss Craig or Miss Shelley? >> I I just had a May I go ahead and read the motion and
make a motion so that our discussion can be related to a >> Sure. >> All right. I'd like to make a motion uh, that case number people versus 26-0-47 variances to sign requirements on urban multi-family residential R7 zoned property be approved. Uh, I'm
making the motion in the positive because they usually request that it be in the positive. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, Miss Shelley, does that include the conditions? >> staff comments. >> With Okay. So, the five conditions. >> I'll second. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Miss Craig, you had a comment? >> I also have a problem with the idea of illumination. I think the sign would be fine if it were if it were not lighted. Um, whereas a monument sign the lighting would be going
away from the building. It would be going so that it was visible from the street. Um, and I'm trying to imagine back to the illumination of the sign the way it's currently designed. Living in that building, it would feel
to me it gives it more of a commercial feel rather than a residential feel. And um, so I do have a problem with the illumination of it. >> Anyone else? Okay.
Um Could I ask the applicant, would you be willing to eliminate the illumination of the sign? >> Yes. Yes, can you hear me? Yeah. Yes, um, we would accept a condition to have this as
a non-illuminated sign. To Commissioner Bush's points, we weren't asked to provide a photometric plan for this and if we would have before the staff report came out, we would have provided that information. We are working on it, which is why in my presentation I did say that
we also um, are what would accept a condition for approval um, on the permit if we submitted the photometric plan. So, we are in process of that. Um, we just didn't get we weren't asked by staff and we didn't get it until our staff report. But, we would accept a condition um, if
if the a condition if the commission feels strongly about the illumination, we would accept a condition to make it a non-illuminated sign. Um, I do have a question um, and Miss Bush brought this up to um, about the resident. Um, could
we talk about downlighting so that there is some visibility at night? I think our concern is that it wouldn't if it's not illuminated then that would cut night time visibility for the site.
>> Ms. Bush. >> Um, thank you. I I appreciate that you're addressing that but I'm I'm curious how do first responders find other residential properties that might be have an address sign on that isn't illuminated? >> So, I'm sure that emergency responders
have wonderful systems and they come to sites all the time. Um, we also get questions, you know, about GPS's and technology and things. That doesn't um, negate the the need for positive identification for the physical site.
Um, so while it's not we're not only thinking about first responders. This is also multi-family apartment complex. So, it's not um, ownership in perpetuity. Um, there's also ride share and guests and and things. So, that's my answer. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay, so your request what you're saying is you >> But we would we would accept a condition if if you feel strongly about the illumination. We would accept a condition that the sign has to be non-illuminated. >> Okay. That's my biggest concern is the
illumination of the sign. Mr. Costa, do you have something to say? >> Well, I'm just looking at the changes that we would make to the motion. Uh, if I can discuss those now that would be fine. >> Yeah, but uh, first of all we'd have to get Ms. Shelley to withdraw her motion so we could
>> I'll be glad to withdraw the motion. >> Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Costa. >> All right, in that case let me I'll I'll just enter do a new motion all together. So, I make a motion on V26047 variances one and two that we approve them with the following staff conditions and corrections. Uh,
condition number one is the strike face lit. Condition number two, strike face lit. Condition three is stricken completely. Condition four is also stricken completely. And condition five remains.
>> Second that. >> Do you want this one? >> Um no, I would just >> I would like to go with the condition >> Yes. >> At what? >> What's page is that? >> Uh It's on page seven. >> Page seven.
That's what I got. >> Okay, you want to strike condition three. Okay, that would be >> Yeah, cuz these are apply only to the lit sign. >> Okay. Okay. >> Right. Got it. >> Yep. >> Chairman, I would like to ask if we
could add a another condition. Um and that this sign will not allowed to be illuminated and that they do need to um I don't know if that they have to come back before here, but I don't want you all to just put this up and then later on go, "We're going to illuminate it and get a building permit to do so."
Um so, I guess I'm asking staff what kind of condition that we can place on the applicant to ensure that um they have that thoroughly reviewed to illuminate that sign if that decision does happen later on down the road. If the transition occurs to what we're discussing and that they do feel that
illumination is necessary at that point. >> So, I think that the discussion probably is about whether you want it to be a face lit sign or if you want it to be non-illuminated at all. As uh she had um requested if there was other type of down lighting on the the sign, if you
are completely against that as well, then you're probably want to add a condition that it is a non-illuminated sign um for the property. If not, then I would have a condition that it's not a face lit sign. I think that's what Mr. Costa's motion said. >> Non-illuminated sign.
>> Mhm. And condition six. Additional condition. >> So, you want to add a sixth condition? >> Yeah. >> Number six. So, it'll be a non-illuminated sign. >> What would be >> We're eliminating condition three, four. >> Right.
>> So, one, two, four. So, that'd be four. This is three now. >> Just because >> want to point out that if it's going to be any down lighting or whatever, it has to meet the current code requirements for illumination standards anyways. So, you do not have to have an additional condition on that.
>> I didn't hear what she said. >> Just a non-illuminated sign, I think, would be sufficient, would it not, Mr. Soria? >> So, I'm trying to understand what the motion is. So, the motion was to remove in in condition to approve it with the
size and the height, and we're discussing illumination. So, the motion is to the condition is to remove face lit from condition one, face lit from condition two, strike condition three, strike
condition four, keep condition five, and do we want to say anything about the types of down light illumination that is allowed or no illumination whatsoever? >> I think it's no illumination. >> I think I think the consensus was non-illuminated sign.
>> Okay, so no illumination whatsoever. Okay. >> Yep. >> Yeah, and we're we're very happy to install that, and then if we find visibility to come back and present the evidence that it needs illumination. Yeah.
>> I'd suggest that you might want to repeat this. Are we good? >> We'll go ahead and clarify it. >> All right. So, for the clarification on the conditions, so condition one strike face lit, condition two strike face lit, condition three,
condition four are stricken completely. Condition five stays as as it is and then we create a new condition six, which is a non-illuminated sign. >> And I seconded it. >> Okay. >> Okay. I've got a motion on the floor from Mr. Costa
uh for variances [clears throat] one and two >> Mhm. >> to approve them with the following conditions since there's nothing in variances that state about illumination. >> Correct. >> It's only in the conditions and with the following uh conditions that Mr. Costa stated
>> Mhm. >> eliminating condition three and four altogether and eliminating place lit on one >> Mhm. >> two >> Mhm. >> and uh adding six as a non-illuminated sign.
>> Yep. >> And a second from Mr. Ursa. >> Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> No. >> Motion carries [snorts] five to one.
>> Thank you so much. >> Mhm. >> You didn't like that. >> Can I get the next case, Ms. Shelley? >> Yes. Case number V-26-060, variance to the accessory structure requirements on rural mobile home MH
three zoned property. >> Thank you, Ms. Shelley, and I might add that Mr. Costa has recused himself on this case. So, we're going to have um >> five members. >> Okay. Ms. uh Ms. Tucker, this one's yours.
>> Good morning, members. Again, for the record, Kelly Tucker, planner one. Um I do want to note that there is going to be a correction to the staff report. Uh before you, you have a site plan that shows the corrected dimensions of the barn being 30 by 80.
Previously, the application stated 30 by 75. However, the barn is sold in increments of 10, so we upped it 250 square feet. So, the total square footage of the proposed building is going to be 2,400 square feet.
Uh with that in mind, uh the subject parcel is part of the Surrey Farms unrecorded subdivision 547 and was deemed vested and eligible for building permits on April 8th, 1982. Property was purchased in November 2006 by the current owner and was developed
with a residence that is close or it was previously developed with a residence that is close to the proposed location of the pole barn. However, a new 2020 square foot residence was constructed in 2021. Uh the subject parcel is mostly loaded
uh located within flood zone A, which if you look on the screen before you is the B uh blue zoned area. Um these small pockets of white are going to be flood zone X. Uh the applicant is per uh posing to develop the building within the flood zone X portion for avoidance
and minimization to the impacts of the flood plain. Variance to uh one and the only variance today is to reduce the west side yard from 25 feet to 18 feet for the proposed pole barn. While the owners have an active agricultural exemption on the property and the building is going to be used in
association to that agricultural use. The applicant stated that they still wish to continue forward with the variance request in case a property is sold in the future or the agricultural exemption use is no longer taking place. Due to this request, staff analyzed uh the report request as if there was no
agricultural exemption and would require full permitting in compliance with the zoning and land development code. Environmental Permitting has reviewed the variance request and did not have any objections. Staff recommends approval for the variance as it met three of the five criteria for granting said variance and staff has also
provided two conditions for consideration on page five. I'm available for any questions. >> Thank you, Ms. Tucker. Any questions for staff? Hearing none, is the applicant present? Good morning, sir. Could I get your name and address for the record? >> Good morning. I'm Michael Wozniak with
Engineered Permits Inc. at 311 South Woodland Boulevard. >> All right, sir. You've heard the staff report. Anything you'd like to add to it? >> Uh no, we're just trying to work within the actual flood zone X. Um there's also a a septic system that's just on the east
side of this, so we I just kind of shoehorned in what uh what would fit and I do thousands of pole barns also as my other side, so yes, it it makes more sense when you do an increments of 10, so it still fits within the flood zone
line, so we're going to stay out of that and it also line up nicely with the side of the house. >> Okay, so basically under the current conditions it with agriculture exemption you don't even need the variance except for the fact you'd just like not have a cloud on the title for a non-conforming
property if you sell it in the future. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Got it. >> And staff went ahead and informed us of that we could go through the agriculture exemption, which we already have, but it just was more prudent to go ahead and let's just get this in, you know, in place. >> future so it won't be a non-conforming.
>> Yes, sir. >> Got it. All right. Any questions for the applicant? All right. Do we have any public participation forms for this case? >> No, sir. >> All right, we're going to close the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion or a
motion. >> I'll make a motion. >> Go ahead. >> Approve variance request for case number V26-060 as the variance does meet the three out of the five with the two conditions. >> Second, page five.
>> How many conditions? Two? >> Two. >> Okay, Mr. I've got a motion on the floor to approve variance of V26060 with these two staff conditions for Mr. Urson and second for Ms. Shelley. Any
discussion on the motion? Ms. Bush. >> Thank you, Chairman. Um I do not agree with staff's assessment that a flood zone is a special condition or circumstance that exists which is particular to this land or peculiar to this land. Uh that is one
of the conditions, the first condition of every every single variance criteria. Uh and I do not agree that, like I said, a flood zone um applies. If the if you can if you can show the audience for me for a minute the zoning map where it
shows MH3 um if you have that. Okay. In the staff report, the zoning map shows that most of those properties around the applicant's property are zoned mobile home three. Uh and the applicant or the staff is basically saying that because that they
have consistent flooding and that they're mostly flood zone A that that's peculiar to this piece of land and therefore that this condition um should be met because it is a special condition. However, when I look at the flood zone map and I see that if all those properties are zoned mobile home
zoning around that and that every single one of these properties, if not more properties, have more flood zone A, then how is this a special condition for this particular parcel? And to me, the evidence just does not indicate that this is a special
condition. I understand that the applicant is putting it in the tiny piece of flood zone X. Thank you. Um but it still doesn't justify that this is a special condition for this particular property that warrants this variance. Um again, I uh applaud the
applicant for coming forward. He has a ag exemption. He doesn't have to comply to these setbacks. Um but I don't agree with the justification. I don't think the evidence there is to support that justification. Uh and I am concerned about um the uh the evidence that supports those
those uh criteria. So, I am not in support of this variance um for those reasons. Thank you. >> Okay, Ms. Bush. Uh so, it's just the one one criteria that you're don't agree with. Is that correct?
>> Yeah, well, there's two. Um I don't agree with staff's justification that a special condition or circumstance is not the result of the actions of the applicant. Um he's made the structure larger since we last reviewed this. Um and it doesn't need to be. He can bring
this structure into meeting the very the setback requirements and or not even having to go through this whole process because of ag exemption. That's the risk that that applicant takes. Um but I just those are my disagreements with staff's justification. The evidence just isn't
there to support it. >> You know, and Mr. Soria, correct me if I'm wrong, we only need three of the criteria. >> Yes, you only it's it's uh three of the five, so um but once again, as I stated, staff
provides their analysis, but the PLDRC as a whole is the ultimate finder of fact. >> Yeah. >> So. >> Okay, any other comment on the Did anybody make a motion? No. >> I did. >> Yes. Yes. >> Oh, you made a motion. Oh, you seconded it. >> Because of the three out of five.
>> comments on this? Cuz if I see it going south, there's only five of us. And we need four regardless. If we only four people here, you'd have to have four to approve it. So this should I I guess I guess I'm in the right to ask
this. Should I offer the applicant a opportunity to continue? >> Are you okay with that? >> He's here now. >> Are you okay with that? >> Let me Whatever he's I'm interested in what he has to say. >> Would you want to continue it?
>> Uh I I'd like to go ahead and continue this meeting till we can regroup and gather some more information till the July meeting. >> Okay. And one of the concerns that Ms. Bush had put out there was that you increased the size, but it's my understanding you increased the size because of the
construction. >> Yes, a typical pole barn construction operates better when they're on even increments of 10s and 12s. >> Okay. All right. >> And we're still within the flood zone acts, but I'd like to gather, you know, put together a little bit more information for you. >> Okay.
>> So I will therefore withdraw my motion and then make a motion to move to >> continue to our next meeting. >> Yes, the July meeting. >> In July >> 16th. >> What is that date? >> July 16th. >> 16th? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay.
Okay, I got a motion on the floor for Mr. Urshan to continue case V-26-060 to our next meeting in the July 16th and a second from Ms. Shelly. Any discussion on the motion? Ms. Bush. >> Thank you. Um you know, right now I'm
looking at a very zoomed in section of mobile home zoning in a flood zone. I would love if I could see if this is just pertinent to this specific area or is this really a special again, is this a special condition for this particular
area and that these parcels that are around the applicant's property are absolutely impacted by this. Or is there other mobile home zoning that has flood plain issues elsewhere in the county? What I'm trying to get is information to
prove that this is peculiar to this particular piece of land. That this zoning that your variance request is that you are essentially beholden to or cannot build within this criteria because it is a special condition. And
right now, based on the zoning maps, your MH-3 zoning and your flood zone A like your neighbors. So if you zoom out and show me that this is like a .1% of all the property that's zoned MH-3 in the Volusia County, then I might agree
that this is a special condition. Does that make sense? >> I'm not 100% understanding where you're going with your question. >> It wasn't a Okay. >> So the I mean the property if if you go back to the flood zone map or even the survey, you can zoom in on the survey,
either one, on that particular drawing, you're going to see the little triangle. And then it goes loops around where the home is. That's what we, you know, FEMA has determined as flood zone X. So it's outside of the 100-year flood. Everything else is in an undetermined flood zone. So we don't build within
that. So we stay in between that boundary, so it's outside of the flood. Which would be not just unique to MH-3, it would be any I've done it in R, every zoning district has potential flood zones. FEMA determined this one, hey,
here's the pocket that's buildable. We don't In Volusia County, you don't build more than 600 square feet in the flood, otherwise you have other problems. >> So to for the for the record, you just admitted that flooding conditions is not a unique condition in Volusia County.
>> I'm not understanding again your your context here. >> I'm just I'm asking you a question. You just mentioned that your flooding is an issue throughout multiple zoning districts. So, I'm reiterating your comment, is flooding a common issue in Volusia County? >> stating is there are known flood zones.
A, is this a boundary that FEMA came up with? We still have to do further analysis on it, but we don't move that line. So, we purposely located the structure in the X area, which would this every property is going to be unique where that line falls. >> Okay.
>> Okay, I've got a motion on the floor to continue. Any other discussion on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? >> I. >> Motion carries forward. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, Michelle, could I get the next
case, please? >> Yes, sir. Case number V-26-061. Variances to the accessory structure requirements on transitional agriculture A3 zoned property. >> Thank you, Michelle. Ms. Costa Dismuke.
>> Good morning. We have our applicants requesting two variances. One is to allow us accessory structure within the front front yard. And number two is to um re-
reduce the front yard setback from 40 ft to 21 ft. A little background on the property. Uh property consists of approximately 5 acres located on the east side of State Road 415, approximately 667 ft south of
KLMNO Place. The parcel is zoned A3 transitional agriculture and designated rural on the future land use map. The property was vested through Ward unrecorded number three and is eligible for building permits. The site is currently developed with a
single-family resident construction constructed in 1998. The applicants purchased the property in August 2025 and subsequently applied for a building permit for a proposed 2100 square foot storage building. The permit was approved and
issued in November 2025 based on the site plan showing the building in compliance with the setbacks. However, when the form board survey came back as required by the building permit in December 25, it revealed that the building foundation had been constructed
approximately 19 feet into the front yard setback. The applicants were notified by the building division that the structure was encroaching into the rear setback the required setback and that either a relocation of the structure or approval of a variance would be necessary.
Uh construction continued after that notification. It appears that when the form board survey came in that they had already poured the foundation for the building and did not get approval. Form boards normally are for when you set the boards to set the
foundation, they get the survey, they get it approved to be sure it's in the right location and continue. They had already poured the foundation by the time they had submitted the survey. Um also uh the site conditions, the property is subject to a very large
conservation easement. Uh they are outside of that easement and outside of the wetland buffer in that easement. Uh environmental permitting has no issues with the location of the building is since it is outside of that protected
wetland buffer. Uh Staff finds that the applicants did not meet four of the five conditions of the variance and recommending denial. Uh if you do approve it, we do have two conditions.
Do you have any questions? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bishop, go ahead. >> Thank you, Chairman. Um, I recognize that the first variance is to allow this structure in the front yard. Um, but your report indicated that this had a building permit issued, correct?
>> They had an issued building permit for the structure in >> in the front yard. >> Me me no. What it is, the front yard setback is 40 ft. They had the building permit issued with it at the 40-ft mark. >> I understand that, but we also have a but in so in the same location in the
front yard, correct? >> Not at the location it exists at the moment. >> Okay. So, the locate So, when they wanted to build this originally and were given a permit for it, where was the structure permitted to be located? >> 40 ft from the property line, which is
not in the front yard setback. >> But it is in the front yard. Correct. >> That that variance is needed because it's in the front yard setback. That's what that variance is for, is to allow the accessory structure in that front yard.
>> Per 72-70 >> Correct. >> 277, accessory structures are not allowed within front yard setback. >> In the setbacks. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. >> Within the front yard. So, that 40-ft accessory structures would not be allowed in that 40-ft
>> from in front of the house. So, >> Okay. >> when front yard is used, it's just the front yard setback. It can be in front of the house, it just can't be within that area. That's the distinction. >> So, okay. So, help me clarify then. If
I'm going to build in that front yard setback, I would always need two variances, right? >> Yes. >> One for the Okay. I just >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. It's It's basically the same thing, but just we have to clarify it because it's affecting two different >> Okay. >> Yeah, because the code explicitly
forbids it. >> Got it. >> That's why we have that there. >> Okay, and so that's why the language is written as front yard in transitional agriculture A3 and not front yard setback. >> Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Because the setbacks are different if it's a side yard or a front yard.
>> I I understand that. The it's that's unique, uh, the fact that we're now having to require another variance, which would already have a variance. >> No, we have been doing that variance on all of the accessory structures that are within the front yard setback. >> I'm saying I'm saying that's unique to
Volusia County. That's something that I have not experienced. Normally, it's a variance to a setback, not to allow the structure in the yard and then the setback, right? Or it is to allow the structure in the front yard, but it was it's before the principal structure. That's what designates the front yard. So, this is a little different
terminology that I'm accustomed to, which is why I'm asking. >> I reside in Lake County and they require the same thing, so. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any questions for staff? So, this is an existing structure, correct? >> Um, you should have pictures in your package that show that the structure was
completed. It's just awaiting the variance approval so that they can final the >> So, I noticed that this is agricultural zone. If it would had an agricultural exemption, it wouldn't need this variance, would it? >> No. >> Okay. >> Only if it's a non-residential farm
building. So, you have to you have to, you know, >> But it is a >> be a farm building if >> you build a not a uh, an accessory structure that is not a non-residential farm building, you are still subject to the building permit. >> If they're if they're using it to store their materials for their business or
something like that, it wouldn't it would still need a building permit at that point. >> All right, any other questions for staff? Go ahead, Ms. Bush. >> Thank you. Um, final question. It wasn't was a stop work order issued to the applicant? >> No. >> No, but they were verbally told to see
>> Well, they said your form board survey does not meet the correct. So, you would either, you know, please contact zoning. They either and we did find out that they had poured the foundation at the time, so. >> But, no stop work order was issued.
>> No, the building department is unrelated to it. >> it. Can you tell me how long that requirement has been in place for the form board? Cuz I know that's >> Since 2021. >> 2021? >> Mhm. >> So, >> Yeah, the
buildings keep popping like older permits that we have back from the '80s and '90s didn't require that and a lot of times when we go to do something else, we find that the home is within that >> recently that I was aware of they had to have a form board inspection cuz used to
you just turn in the survey with your proposed site plan. >> They don't inspect it. They they provide us a survey from the surveyor at >> time. I and we will check it to be sure that it does meet what was approved and obviously this did not meet what was
approved. >> So, the app- I'm not I know I'm not going to speak for the applicant, okay? >> Okay. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions for staff? Okay, is the applicant present? Good morning. Can I get your name and address for the record, please?
>> My name is Nicole Gordon. It's 1035 South State Road 415 in New Smyrna Beach, 32168. >> I'm sorry, do you mind speaking just a little bit closer like right up on the microphone? I'm sorry, thank you. >> me to repeat it? Nicole Gordon, 1035 South State Road 415 New Smyrna Beach,
32168. >> Okay, thank you. And I'm Wade Gordon. Okay. You've heard the staff report. Anything you'd like to add to it? >> I just want to preface it with something. Um we would never intentionally disregard any rules or regulations set by zoning. I did contact
zoning in August. Once we purchased the property, I am all of this is extremely foreign to me. I didn't even know what agricultural exempt meant, to be quite honest with you. I just knew that I wanted the farm life and all of the trees around me. We called them and she said we are ag
exempt. We did not need a building permit. I have said emails and the conversation with us. I notarized the form. I emailed her back and said, "Do you need a copy of this?" And she said, "No, ma'am. It just goes straight to your builders." We sent it to the builders. We did not find out that this was not
true until the electrician went to get his permit. They were told, "No, we are not ag exempt because the building is too big." When the inspector came out, the inspector changed that and said it wasn't it was because it was too big. He said it was because it was for our business, which it's not for our business. We don't even have a
garage on our and at our house. This is a This is a all-around supply holder, if you will, um for everything from our cars to anything that we're going to be able to store inside of this building. So, when I said that to him, he said, "Well, it's probably then because
um What was the other reason that he gave us? I forgot the other reason. I'm sorry, I'm drawing a blank right now. But anyway, we would have never have disregarded any of the rules. I did ask permission. It's just we found out The form board survey
was then added to the portal of things that I had to get. I even have emails stating the con- I from the get-go have told them that the concrete is poured. I have provided pictures and and everything. Your concrete is pretty much your biggest expense, and that's why we kept saying to them, "This is extremely
expensive. It's not like you could just chip away at the concrete and shift the building." I would have done that from the very beginning before this was even struck, built. >> Okay. Would you like to submit those emails for the record? >> Sure, I can.
>> And you can give them to Mr. Tucker. All right, Mr. Tucker, are you still back there? >> [laughter] >> I'm not used to being up here, sorry. >> Okay. Anything else you'd like to add? >> Is there anything you want to add? No. >> Okay. >> I think that's it.
>> got some questions from the panel here. >> Sure. >> Mr. Costa. >> Yeah, I got you lost me there at one point. So, you were perform you were going forward as if that you are an ag exempt property, correct? >> We were told we were ag exempt. >> Okay, and then the stop came at what point? When the electricians went in to
pull a permit for electrical? >> Yes. The electrician went to get electrical and apparently somebody in the department told them, "No, they need they didn't even get a building permit." And I called him back and I said, "We don't need a building permit." And then that's when we also know we're we own a
plumbing company, so we're we know a lot of the Volusia County inspectors. So, we spoke with one two of them and one of them said he was going to get with his boss, Nick, and speak with him about why we were told certain things that we were told. Um
we were just given a lot of information after that point. So, >> So, post email saying you were ag exempt and you went full full full full forward to the point that you stopped at that point. At that point you already had the building up, the slab poured. >> Yeah, I stopped Yep, once they >> and so here we are now. How long ago did
that occur? How long have you been stopped now? >> How long have we been stopped? Since I mean, nobody told us to stop. >> you started this process, which means you stopped doing what you were doing, so you didn't get your electrical permit, correct? >> Correct. Oh, well,
I don't know. There's inspections on there, they just froze everything when I went to apply for the variance. >> approximately? >> Maybe December. >> 6 months. >> Yeah. >> And so now you're here. So you've you've been on hold for 6 months to go through this process to get in front of us at this point. That's what I wanted to get
clarified. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Any other questions for for the applicant? >> No. Just a comment. Um it would have been really I mean I'm I'm just for future reference or whatever, it would have been really helpful to have those emails in front of us to see
your conversations. >> And I agree. >> I don't believe you. But if we'd had copies that had been submitted for our packets, that would have been very helpful. >> I agree. And I did make everybody aware of this. I was extremely upset that it said it's self-inflicted hardship because I we are plumbers, but we are not
wealthy by any means. This would be an extreme hardship on us to even move. I I would from the get-go would have moved it the amount of feet that it needed to be moved. I don't >> We're $70,000 in debt into this project already. So I mean for 70 grand, I would have rather them
said, "We're not ag exempt. Do this, this, and this." In which In which case we would have done that before we spent the money. >> I also do have an email to my builder sta- stating that saying that we were told that we're ag exempt, that if we need to get a permit, we can We're
Again, we're plumbers. We pull permits for everything. I just pulled a permit for my own water heater in my house. And technically, I mean, that is our house. Nobody would have even known. But we do things by the book here. So that is where where we're coming from is we would have never have intentionally disregarded any type of
rule. I might look like a rule breaker, but I promise I'm not. >> [laughter] >> I think the confusion may lie I'm looking at this non-residential farm building affidavit because it doesn't necessarily have to be ag exempt as long as it's bona fide
ag. And I'll let Mr. Ashley comment on that. And that's probably where the breakdown was. >> So the the the criteria for that to do a non-residential farm building, you either need to meet one of two criteria. You you have to have an agriculturally
classified property from the property appraiser, or the property where you are going to put it on needs to be like a necessary part of a bonafide farm operation. As in usually you are in a you are adjacent to an actual farm that
parcel that you do not uh that you want to put the non-residential farm building on does not have an ag classification yet, but is necessary for the farm operation. So those are the two statutory criteria of how you can you
know put a non-residential farm building on um on land without going through the building permit or code compliance process. >> I was just trying to justify probably where the communication breakdown occurred.
And this is what I'm getting not to this particular case. If you got an agriculture zoning, I don't see why the yours would be different in the agriculture exemption or an bonafide agriculture. And I've been on this
bandwagon for a long time. Okay. So, any other questions for the applicant? >> Real quick. The So I I reviewed the communications. So do you have anything in writing that that the county said that you are ag exempt? Because I don't see that in the communications that you provided.
>> She's Holly, the lady that I'm communicating with is in zoning. >> Correct. But in I didn't see it specifically say that you have an ag exemption on your property. I didn't see that actually typed out. It was just here's the form, you need to sign the form. >> She just put on because I physically spoke after the inspector told me we
were probably ag exempt, which I did not understand what it meant, I called her and she confirmed I was ag exempt. That's why her email says per our conversation, whatever the email says. >> Okay. >> And then she told me what to do with the form and then I communicated back cuz I thought you guys needed a copy of it and >> So, that's where the form came from.
Okay. I just the the initial part of that was just not present in >> I called and then I actually came down here. When this was all said and we were put to a halt, we came down and spoke with Holly because I was upset that I was misled and she said, "Don't worry about it. We're going to get it figured out. I'm going to put you in connection
with Laura um and we'll work this all out and don't worry, everything is going to go in your favor." And then here I am standing in front of the most intimidating board I've ever seen in my life. >> [laughter] >> Let me hear I'm smiling. Look. Look, I'm smiling. >> We're not intimidating. I promise. >> Don't exaggerate us.
>> I just [laughter] now smiled though. >> I've seen worse. >> Me too. >> Thank you for that explanation. I appreciate that. >> Okay, [clears throat] do we have any public participation forms for this case? >> No, sir. >> All right, we're going to close the public participation. No further commission discussion or motion.
>> I'll make a motion, Mr. Chair. >> On case V-26-061, I make a motion that we approve variances one, two Yeah, variances one and two with the two staff recommended conditions. >> Second.
>> Okay, I've got a motion on the floor from Mr. Costa to approve variance V-26-061, variances one and two with the two staff conditions and a second from Miss Shelley. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify
by saying "Aye." Aye. Any oppose? Motion carries unanimously. Miss Shelley, can I get the next case, please? >> Yes, sir. >> You got your variances, yes. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Case number V-26-063,
variances to the minimum yard requirements on urban single-family residential R-9 zoned and >> Thank you, Miss Shelley. Ms. Tucker, this is for yours. >> Good morning. For the record, Kelly Tucker, planner one. The applicant is requesting two variances to build a
proposed two-story 2,440 sq ft single-family residence. The subject property is whole lot 13 of block F of the Van Velsen subdivision, which was deemed divested and eligible for building permits on April 29th, 2026.
Property was previously developed with a 996 sq ft single-family residence in 1958, according to the property appraiser's website. And additionally, according to the applicant's written petition, they're requesting to rebuild to the same footprint for the front and side yards
to match the characteristics of the neighborhood. Uh per section 72-277-A-10, in all residential classifications where a lot is situated between two lots having a principal building that projects beyond the minimum front yard,
but not uh less than 20 ft, this allows the applicant to build up to the 20-ft front yard property line setback without needing an additional variance. When the minimum yards are applied, the site has a buildable area of 3,422
sq ft subject to the 35% lot coverage maximum. Variance one is to reduce the west side yard from 7 ft to 5 ft for the proposed residence, and variance two is to reduce the eastern side yard setback from 7 ft to 5 ft. Staff does recommend denial for
the variances as uh they do not meet criteria 1 through 4 for granting said variance. At the PLDRC, staff find that the applicant has submitted competent and substantial evidence. Staff has provided three conditions for consideration. I'm available for any questions.
>> Uh any questions for staff? Go ahead. >> Thank you, chairman. Um vice chairman. Um were renderings or plans for the proposed house submitted with this variance? >> I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? >> Yeah, sorry. >> Um
were any renderings or plans submitted for the house structure? >> Uh aside from the site plan that shows the red line block output, the applicant didn't want to go through doing building renderings um unless the variance was
approved uh cuz they are very pricey. >> Okay. Um my second question um is and I just for clarification uh are all of the accessory structures included in the proposed lot coverage percentage?
>> No, ma'am. I spoke with the applicant. He stated that after the new residence was to be constructed that those accessory structures are going to be removed from the property. >> Okay. So, what So, Okay, thank you. >> Mhm.
>> Any other questions for staff? Ms. Craig? >> Um where do people park? I mean, it's a tiny lot. There's not enough room to for a driveway on the side. >> So, from the site plan where I have the
20-ft mark showing where that front yard setback's going to be, that is their parking area that is located out of the right-of-way, uh which does provide them space for parking their vehicles. >> Thank you. Any other questions for staff?
Okay. Um one question I have for you. This is an R9 zoning? >> Yes, sir. >> And if it was a residential zoning, the setback would be 5 ft. Is that correct? >> One more time for me, a little closer to the mic. So, I'm behind the speakers. I'm a little disadvantaged.
>> I said if it was R4 like a standard residential zoning, it'd only be a 5-ft setback. Is that correct? >> No, sir. If it was like um the R4 zoning, they'd have a minimum of 8 ft on one side. >> Okay. >> Um so, typically for this zoning
classification, it is supposed to be 7 ft. Uh the characteristic of the neighborhood, most of the homes were developed in the 1950s, um and then that was prior to the creation of the Volusia County zoning ordinances that were established in the 1960s.
Um so, the characteristics for the lots are a 20-ft front yard setback and 5 ft on their side yards for the neighborhood. >> Got it. Okay. Is the applicant present? Could I get your name and address for the record, please?
>> Michael Gagle, 105 Seaway Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida. >> Okay. Would you like to speak to the council, sir? >> I'm Dwayne Gagle. I'm his uh father. >> Move closer to the mic, please. >> Dwayne Gagle. I'm his father. I'm at 107 Seaway Avenue. >> All right. You've heard the staff
report. Anything you'd like to add to it? >> Um yeah, just just trying to keep the the 5 ft on each side um of the original structure and just to um mirror the rest of the structures on the street. I know all the other setbacks are 5 ft on each side and I'm just
trying to trying to keep it keep it the same and I would have liked to have kept the house that I bought and just remodeled it, but once we got into it, the foundation was settled, the electrical was shot, and just too much stuff. The piping was all rusted out, so then made
the the decision to tear it down and um just want to keep everything the same and try to keep the setbacks the same. >> Okay. Any questions for the applicant? >> Yes, sir. >> Miss Bull? >> Um
is this Are you planning on this being a single story or um well, two-story structure? >> Um we I think we're going to try to go to two-story just to allow we have two kids so we just wanted to make something a little smaller and go up to have a bigger backyard for the, you know, for that >> Okay.
>> reason. >> Thank you. >> Ms. Shelly? >> I just um I'm familiar with this neighborhood and um I'm Seaway and um we'll be supporting this um looking at the homes that are all in that area. It would fit right into the
neighborhood. >> Okay. Anyone else? Do we have any public participation forms for this case? >> No, sir. >> Okay. We're going to close the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion. >> Thank you.
>> Or a motion. >> I'll be glad to make a motion. >> Go ahead. >> I move that case number V-26-063 variance to minimum yard requirements on urban single-family residential R-9 zoned property be approved subject to
three staff conditions on page five. >> I'll second. >> Can you repeat that into the microphone, please? >> I'll second. >> Thank you. >> Okay, I got a motion uh to approve variances one and two for V-26-063
with the staff con- three staff conditions from Ms. Shelly and a second from Mr. Costa. Any discussion on the motion? Ms. Bush. >> Thank you, Chairman. Um so I'm I'm really struggling with the evidence
before me to um have a favorable recommendation or approval of this um without the um house plans of them themselves and the fact that now you've indicated that you are interested in a two-story. I don't know if the 5-ft setback is appropriate. Um
that's a very short distance and uh to me it doesn't seem like that is the um it is it is in keeping with the community just on the Google aerial that I did. I don't know the community as well as member Shelley does, but just because of the fact that I was not
provided the additional evidence of the site plan of the house where they're going to park, where the where the house might vary as far as where the entrance and the envelope might be. I just don't feel like there's enough information for me to vote yes for this.
Thank you, Chairman. >> Thank you, Ms. Bush. If I may comment on that comment. The that you know, unfortunately is like putting the cart in front of the horse. It's you because if the variance doesn't go through and he's went through the expenditures of getting the house plans
and all that developed so you can get in some kind of a rendering there. Um you know, he may have just be putting may have just be putting the um throwing out the window, you know. >> Well, wouldn't you say that every
variance request that comes before us is a is a risk that you're taking? >> We've had them to come before us before without a rendering. So. >> Well, I understand I was talking about just you know, any variance that comes before us when a resident puts that
request forward. Right, that was my argument. I I understand that you have approved these in the past, but based on the evidence that's in front of me today, I do not feel that there is enough evidence for me to support a 5-ft setback on either side of this property without seeing
what the house structure is going to look like, especially if it's going to be two-story. >> Okay. Ms. Craig. >> If I understand it correctly, had they been able to proceed with a remodel rather than tear down and start over again, then the variance would not have
been necessary. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Thank you. >> Well, it depending on the integrity and structure of the home, if the remodeling would be greater than 75% they would be
required to tear down and rebuild. >> Okay. Any other comments? Did I get a motion? I did get a motion. Any other comments on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying I.
>> I. >> Any opposed? >> I. >> Motion carries >> 5-1. >> 5-1. Michelle, could I get the next case, please? >> Got it. Okay. Case number V-26-065.
Variance to the minimum yard requirements on urban single family residential R4 zoned property. >> Thank you, Michelle. Miss Tucker, this one's yours. >> Back for a double feature. For the record again, Kelly Tucker, planner one. The applicant is requesting one variance
to develop a proposed 1,560 square foot single family residence. The subject parcel recently underwent a lot combination in November of 2025 that combined lots 43 through 46 of block 89 of the West Highlands plat.
This combination rendered the parcel eligible for building permits. Additionally, I would like to notate that there's a 100 foot Duke Energy power easement that covers a large portion of the property. Uh that easement is depicted in blue on the buildable area exhibit before you.
Uh and a utility easement like this does not allow the applicant to build within the easement and it does not change how staff measures the setbacks. Uh this leaves the applicant with a total of 1,538 sq ft of buildable area as depicted in
yellow. The easement does run the length of Bishop Avenue and all remaining parcels that are located within the utility easement are owned by Florida Power Corporation, also known as Duke Energy. Additionally, a tree clearing and removal easement was signed by the
property owner on March 20, 2025 uh in association to Florida Power Corporation. The subject parcel is zoned R4, which means that it has a minimum lot requirement of a minimum lot size of 7,500 sq ft and a minimum lot width of
75 ft. The subject parcel does meet these requirements as it has a total area of 10,024 sq ft and has a frontage of 10 uh 100 ft. Since the applicant cannot build within the utility easement, he is asking for a variance to the west side yard setback
from 8 ft to 6 ft to develop a 1,650 sq ft home. Building elevations have been provided to you on page nine of the staff report. The size of the home is consistent with adjacent developed parcels that range from 1,605 sq ft to 1,125
sq ft. Environmental permitting has reviewed the request and did not have any objections. Staff did what receive one letter of opposition prior to the report being published and did receive two additional letters from the same adjacent owners after publishing that have been provided
to you this morning. Staff does recommend approval for the variance as it meets three of the five criteria and two conditions have been provided for your consideration on page five of the staff report. I'm available for any questions. >> Thank you, Ms. Tucker. Any questions for staff? >> I
>> Ms. Bush? >> Thank you, Chairman. Okay, I'll do my best. Um Ms. Tucker, um regarding the letter of opposition or I guess the multiple letters, um there was a department in which um, the woman
mentioned several times of that is responsible for those distance separations for the um, septic system. Is she referring to the Department of Health? >> I believe that is correct. They would be the um, authorized agent about those. >> Okay.
Uh, and then um, I it was really hard for me to do kind of Google aerials in that community because of the um, wonderful tree canopy that exists up there. Um, but was um, any field measurements done or other setbacks of this community to see if there are any other 6-ft side yard setbacks?
>> Um, none that were done as field measurements. Um, I did go from a variety range of the parcels around and look through our system to see if we had permits for them. Um, some of the homes were developed prior to our online permitting system or I couldn't find the files in our on-base system, but they
generally seem to be meeting the R4 requirement. >> Okay. Thank you. Mhm. That's all. Thank you. >> Any other questions for staff? Go ahead, Ms. Burke. >> I missed one. Okay, one final question. I was really confused at the um,
language or the way that criteria five was written. It says the overall minimum side yard requirement of 20-ft combined will meet as the residence is providing the 14-ft south side yard. And I'm very so
so you're combining the side yards in order to meet the >> So with our R4 requirements, um, which we have the table located, I believe it's on page two or three of the staff report, that they're supposed to have a combined side yard setback of 20-ft. So
the applicant has offset what would have been uh, from the buildable area plan an 8 and 12 to depict the 20. So since he's requesting six, he's allocated for 14 on that south side yard in order to not require an additional variance.
So, if this variance were to be approved, he would be meeting the combined total of 20 ft for the sideyard setbacks. >> Okay, thank you for that clarification. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay, is the applicant present?
>> Yes. Yes, what happened there, right? >> Applicant, yes. >> Good morning, board. My name is Rafael Gurion. I'm here for property 1520 23 Orange City. >> Okay, you've heard what was said before. Anything you'd like to add to it? >> Um no, basically is the um easement that
Duke has is 100 ft, but it's 50 ft into the property that I own and 50 ft the opposite side. Uh when I first acquired this property, Duke stated that they own 100% easement on the entire which was not
accurate. It was only 50 ft and they had me demonstrate that over a period of more than 1 year going back and forth with an attorney that I hired and their attorney. They wanted us to do a 125
uh lien search on the property to see if there was other any other uh recorded uh documentation stating that uh of the easement and there was not. After they agreed to reduce that to a 100 year, we did a 100 year search on
the on the property and it was only the recorded easement. They then told us that they would recognize the easement if we were only agreeable to sign an additional uh document agreeing to for
them to tree to trim any other tree remaining on the property regardless of their location and then we accepted that. Uh since then, we discussed with our architect firm what kind of property will be a building will be appropriate for that lot.
And it's a minimum. I mean, it's a very small house. Uh this point is only 26 ft wide, and that may even have to be reduced to 25 ft because of the of the over the overhang on on on on the
on the on the roof being about 6 in inches, we might even have to reduce that to 12 in inches, very tiny, and reduce the house further to 25. That is the only reason why we asking to reduce the side easement from 8 to 6.
Other than that, then we'll have to probably come up with a different plan that we'll only do like a two-bedroom even very small houses. I may want to point out the fact that there are two existing development taking place on the same
uh direction, one on 17th St and one on 18th St that currently being built. I did not verify if there's any variance uh allocated for those projects. >> Okay. And do you have any neighbors adjoining this property?
>> Uh no. Not on the rear, not on the side. >> side of this property? >> No. >> You've got the um >> The one across the street. >> The one across the street. Okay. All right. Any other questions for the applicant?
It looks like It looks like we do have some public participation forms, so what I'll do is I'll let you come back for rebuttal after they have spoken, okay? >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh can I get Mr. David Flowers, please? And you, Ms. Laura Flowers? Okay. Can I
get your name and addresses for the record, please? >> Uh David Flowers, 1515 20th Street. >> All right. And you, Ms. And >> Laura Flowers. >> Okay. All right, you've heard the applicant and you had some comments that you'd like to make.
>> Uh for one thing, I can't believe I'm here for a 25-ft lot. Uh I own his his west boundary, which he is asking for this to be granted, is right up against my east boundary of the lot that I own across from my home.
It's buildable, 75-ft. There's no questions on that. This 25-ft lot I own I I have the home across the street on 15 at 1515. I have two lots to the east of me, which are each 75-ft. They're buildable.
I don't I can't I It's hard to fathom a 25-ft lot cuz I have actually looked at that lot in the past. I've been there 32 years or 30 33. And we were told at the time it would never be
buildable. Um I I don't understand why I'm even here, to be honest with you, sir. But but >> Yes, just speaking into the >> Sir? >> Can you speak into the mic? >> The two houses that got variances, they're on
50-ft lots, not 25. >> Yeah, the 50-ft lots are totally ridiculous >> But they're on 50. >> you need to speak into the mic so you can >> Speaking here. I'm sorry, sir. I'm not used to mics. Uh there's there is some 50-ft lots that are jumping up out there and the residents out there are not happy with
it. Uh we worried about the septics that are on them because they have to be maintained by the owner, of course, and there's a certain time limit they have to be maintained and I can tell you now I'm sure it's not happening. Uh we care about it out there. We care
about the aquifer underneath us, which affects Blue Springs. They're trying to figure out why the temperature is dropping in Blue Springs. Well, and the flow's going down. But, uh no, I'm I'm concerned gravely, mainly for the value of my property. I can see
someone wanting to make money, but I can't see anyone taking out of my pocket, which is going to hurt the value of my lot. And I I just wanted to come and present it to you. I like I said, I can't believe I'm up here for a 25-ft lot. You have anything?
>> Thank you. >> That's it. Thank you, sir. >> All right. Questions for the speakers. All right. Thank you, sir. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. >> Okay, do we have any other public participation forms for this case? >> No, sir. >> All right. Could I get the applicant to
come back forward? >> Yes. >> All right, sir. You've heard the the concerns your neighbors have there. Would you like to respond to that, or just let it go? >> Um basically, the lot The only reason I'm
here is for the variance of the site. The lot is buildable uh according to the Volusia County Building Department. >> Mr. Gruling, can you speak a little closer to the microphone? Yeah, thank you. >> The lot, when I decided to purchase the lot on on
an auction tax deed auction, before I proceeded with that, I met with the county, and they told me that the lot was buildable. Uh uh the only thing that was needed was a combination of the lot. Not even the easement came up at that point. I found out the easement during the process.
Uh so, the lot, even without the variance, would still be buildable. The only difference would it would be that the house would have have be reduced further. That's That's the only thing, but the the lot is buildable
according to Volusia County. >> Okay. Is this your personal home? >> No, it's not. >> Okay. >> It's not. >> All right, sir. All right. Any other questions for the applicant? All right, we're going to close the floor for public participation
and open up for commission discussion or motion. >> Chair, could you repeat that, please? >> Do what? >> Could you repeat that? We didn't capture that. >> Okay. All right, we're going to close the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion or a motion.
>> I'll prepare to make a motion, Mr. Chair. >> Go ahead, Mr. Costa. >> Case V-26-065, uh recommend approval with the I don't believe there's any staff conditions, are there? Yes, two conditions,
conditions one and two. >> Okay. Do I have a second? I think it would be a second. >> I'll second it. >> Miss Bush, is that your second? >> Mhm. >> Okay, could I All right, I got a motion on the floor to approve
the variance for V26065 with the two staff conditions from Mr. Costa and a second from Miss Bush. Any discussion on the motion? Normally, if it This is where I look at it. We're
talking 2 ft. Not only are we only talking 2 ft, it is buildable. The county has conferred with that. So, I understand the concerns of Mr. and Mrs. Flowers,
but it is buildable anyway. They would just have to reduce the size of the home. You'd still have a well and you still have a septic. I said you would still have a well and you'd still have a septic. It's it's it is buildable.
Okay, under county code. And unfortunately, that's the you know, that's what I'm looking at. If it wasn't buildable unless I got the variance, I might be looking at this totally different from my point of view. I just want to explain myself where I'm
going with this. Okay? But anyway, I wanted you to understand where I'm coming from with this. Okay, any other comments on the motion? >> I have >> Miss Craig? >> I guess I'm unclear. He He the um
applicant stated that he was told there were no um setbacks that he would have to meet and I would like to know where he got that information. >> I'm sorry Miss Craig, can you repeat the
question one more time? >> I would like to know where the where the information came from that there was no limitation to the placement of a house when the property was bought. If that came from the county, if that came from the auction house, if that came from
title company. I I'm unclear about that. >> Okay. Is it okay with the commission to open the floor back up to the applicant so she can answer everything good Okay, could I get the applicant to come back forward, please?
The question on the floor is where did you get the information that >> What I What I Can I verify what Can I clarify what I stated? What I stated was that when I first approached the county,
the easement issue would Duke did not come up. And all I was told was the lot was buildable. During the process then the easement came up and then I approached Duke. And that's when they said that they had a 100% easement on the property when in fact it was only 50 ft. That's
what I stated. I I never spoke about any setback being issue. >> Okay. So this 50 ft setback, I mean >> It's not a setback, it's an easement. >> 50 ft easement we're looking at the 50 ft uh >> from the center power line.
>> 8 ft from the 50 ft. Not this the 100 ft. >> No. The their easement calls for 50 ft from the center from the center power line. >> Mhm. >> That goes all the way to the 33 ft property line.
>> Got it. >> That's where it leaves me with 25 ft construction plus eight setback on the side. >> Got it. >> That's why I requesting to reduce that from eight to six. >> the this additional is going towards the power line easement. Is that correct?
>> Say that again, sir. >> The additional setback, the two feet. >> No, it's not. No, it's the other side. It's the other side. It's it's opposite. Has has nothing to do with the with the easement. I'm not touching the easement. >> Chair, if I may clarify, the power
easement is located on the east side of his property. According to his site plan, he's proposed right now to be 1 ft off of that easement line to the east. We're here today for the west side yard setback, which would abut to the Flowers
property. >> Got it. Go ahead, Mr. Crosta. >> Yeah, cuz I'm looking at this. This property has two front yards. Correct? >> That is correct. >> And the and the power line easement is on the Bishop Avenue front yard. >> That is correct. >> And the variance is for what you're
calling side yard setback, which is technically a backyard, which is the 8 ft on the upper end of this uh survey, correct? >> Correct, to the west. >> Okay. Okay. >> Yeah, because this lot has the two front yards uh defined as the north and the
east because they front two right-of-ways, uh these side yards would be considered the west and the south. >> Okay. Does that clarify it, Ms. Craig? All right, thank you, sir. Okay, we do have a motion on the floor.
Uh so, we'll take a vote on it now. Ms. Bush? >> Um I have one clarifying question of staff, if I can. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. Um is there a minimum living area for this zoning district? And if so, what is it? >> For R4, the minimum um
lot or excuse me, the um minimum floor area is 750 sq ft. For R4. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Would you like to make a comment on that, Ms. Bush?
>> Yeah, >> [sighs] >> um I'm on the even though I um you know, wanted to move the motion forward, I'm um you know, I think that the applicant um you know, could reduce the variance request and build within the um
buildable lot area uh without having to come before us and ask for this variance request. So, um you know, I I realize that there are significant constraints on this property and a variance would is really the appropriate action to take in
order to to maximize some of that space. However, you still are can build a home within the allow allowable um uh requirements for the um living area and it's just 2 ft. So, I know that the home is already as
big as you, you know, or small, I guess, as you can make it, but um, I just I feel like the conditions and the way that this is presented, I just I feel like there could be um, it could be reduced. You could really try to work with the constraints that you have in order to build this
property and and it is as you indicated buildable. Um, and I I really don't see the justification for the variance for 2 ft at this point considering that um, it's not a big square footage difference in what you were allowed by code and what you were asking for today.
So, I'm going to be voting no for this. Thank you. >> Okay. Anyone else make a like make a comment? Okay. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? >> I. >> No. Okay.
Motion failed to cover by four to two. How about two to four? >> Yep. So, uh, my understanding is that the question presented, which is approval has failed uh, by two to four vote. Um,
so, if there are any other motions, any type of um, uh, that the chair could ask for, uh, the the the application is still alive and then if no one makes a motion, it's
to deny or um, no one makes motion would be a technical denial. >> Well, the motion was made in the positive, so we I know you prefer to have it in >> Someone can make an a uh, motion to deny. Is >> You will accept a motion to deny.
>> If if if a member of the PLDRC wants to to kind of formalize the findings. >> No. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Is there another motion on the floor? It'd be a motion to deny if you want to get a positive
uh, vote on it. Cuz right now it's it's a failure with two to four. So, someone like to make a just the opposite, make a motion to deny. >> I'll make that motion. >> I'll second it. >> Okay, I got a motion on the floor from
Ms. Craig for V-26065 to deny the variance and with a second from Ms. Shelley. Any discussion on the motion? >> Yeah, I just want to we're setting a precedence here, so here we are. We have a um staff recommendation for approval and we
have a majority of disapproval and I think that if that's the case, then we may want to consider just doing away with staff altogether. So, obviously, we are judge and jury, so that's just my comment and ready to vote.
>> Okay, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> I. >> I. >> Motion carries 4 to 2. Okay. Ms. Shelley, could I get the next case,
please? >> Yes, sir. Case number V-26-066, a variance to separate non-conforming lots on Oakhaven Cluster Residential OCR zoned property. >> Thank you, Ms. Shelley. Mr. Jekuska Jiskula?
>> Jiskula. Yes, sir. All right, thank you. The applicant is requesting a variance to separate two non-conforming lots within Oakhaven Cluster Residential OCR zoning classification. The subject property is located on the south side of a Kee Hall Road, approximately 1,200
ft east of the intersection between Kee Hall Road and Acorn Lake Road in Oakhaven. This variance request is for two adjoining parcels totaling approximately 54 acres. Parcel 0070 contains approximately
27 acres and 0170 contains approximately 26 acres. The parcels are located within the Acorn Lake Ranch unrecorded subdivision which has been recognized exempt on
January 19th, 1983. The subdivision was created with lots exceeding 20 acres and the surrounding lots in Acorn Lake remain in the original configuration as developed and are intended for one single family
residence. The parcel was under has been under common ownership since 1986 and contiguous non-conforming lots under common ownership are considered for
to be combined which prompts this variance request. The parcel The parcels are were originally zoned A1 in 1980 when the minimum lot requirement was 5
acres. In 1984, the minimum lot area increased to 10 acres. In 1990, the adoption of the comp plan comp plan portions of the property were designated as resource corridor and forestry resource which split up the zoning of the
property of the properties. In 2012, the area was rezoned for the Ousting cluster residential implemented by the Ousting local plan. The Ousting local plan was adopted to preserve the rural character
while directing high density development towards State Road 415 corridor. As a result, the subject parcel contains a mixture of OCR1, OCR2, and OCR5 density classifications which are which are the following. OCR-1 has a max
density of uh a max one dwelling unit per 25 acres. OCR-2 is a max one um dwelling unit per 20 acres, and OCR-5 is a max of one dwelling unit per one acre. Um With this, uh
uh parcel 0170 contains 11 acres of OCR-1, um 15 acres OCR-2, and then um um 9,500 sq ft OCR-5. And then uh 0070 uh contains 6 acres
OCR-1, 13 acres OCR-2, 7 acres OCR-5. The combined the the split-zoned properties do not independently satisfy all the applicable density requirements, but the intent is to have one single-family residence per uh parcel
out here. So, um the intent is to allow the variance to remain uh the the intent of the variance is to allow the parcels to remain in the original configuration as the unrecorded, and be developed with the one single-family residence uh consistent with the development pattern
of the subdivision and the low-density rural character of those same uh local plan area here. Uh the parcel is uh located within the FEMA flood zone A and X. Environmental Permitting has reviewed it and has no objection. Uh staff staff recommends approval for the variance
request um as they meet all five of the uh criteria for approval. Should PLDRC find the applicant has provided competent substantial evidence for the approval, the variance may be approved as requested. Sorry for the long-winded.
>> Thank you, Mr. Scruggs. Any questions for staff? Hearing none, is the applicant present? >> Good morning. Could I get your name and address for the record, please? >> Yes, sir. Can you hear me? >> You got to get right up on the mic. >> Can you hear me now?
>> Yes. >> Uh for the record, Kelsey Hanson with Cobb Cole 231 Northwood and um Boulevard, DeLand. Um speaking on behalf of the applicant and I'll be brief um as the staff report was very thorough. And for that I want to thank staff for their guidance and um
I've heard it's a rarity to have five out of five variance criteria approved, so thank you again. Um and thank you for the thorough summary. Um just as staff recommends approval, we request the board's approval of this variance. Um and if you have any questions, we're
happy to answer them. Thank you. >> Okay. Do we have any questions for the applicant? >> Nope. >> Okay. Do we have any public participation forms? >> No, sir. >> All right. We're going to close the poll for public participation and give you an
answer. >> I'll be glad to make a motion. >> Go ahead. >> I move that we approve variance request case number V-260s 66 as the variance meets all five criteria for granting said variance. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. I've got a motion on the floor
from Ms. Shelley to approve variance V26066 and a second from Mr. Ursin. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed?
Motion carries unanimously. Okay. Going to get the next case, please. Ms. Shelley. >> Yes, sir. Case number S-26-053. Special exception for a temporary campground on rural agriculture A2 zoned property.
>> Ms. Ray, this isn't yours. >> Good morning. So, the applicant is requesting to renew a previously approved special exception for 400 temporary campsites on approximately 70 72 acres located on the east side of Tomoka Farms Road, south of
the Daytona Flea and Farmers Market. The temporary campsite operation has existed for approximately 30 years, originally approved in 1996 with five sub- subsequent renewals. There are no proposed changes for what
has been previously approved. Area Area A, C, and D, as shown on the site plan, are designated RV sites, and Area B is designated for tents. The campsite will be accessed from the existing flea market entrance along
Tomoka Farms Road. Each event must obtain an outdoor entertainment permit to ensure compliance with sanitation, sewage disposal, security, traffic control, etc. The special exception is not proposed to have an expiration date because ongoing
compliance will be monitored through the outdoor entertainment permit process. The surrounding uses include commercial development to the north, I-95 to the east, I-4 and undeveloped lands to the south, and single-family residences, a mobile
home park, and undeveloped lands to the west. The special exception is consistent with the Halifax Activity Center Local Plan and Comprehensive Plan by promoting tourism and recreational opportunities. As previously stated, the operation has
been in place for approximately 30 years, and there's no proposed changes with the renewal. There have been no code violations for temporary campsite operation to date, and staff does not believe that it would adversely affect the public interest or be a public nuisance. Traffic engineering stated that a trip
generation report wasn't required for this year, but will be will be reevaluated on a yearly basis with the outdoor entertainment permit. Staff recommends approval of the special exception subject to 14 conditions. I'm available for questions. >> Thank you, Ms. Ray. Any questions for
staff? Okay. Is the applicant present? Good morning, sir. Could I get your name and address for the record? >> Yes, sir. For the record, my name is Darren Elkind. My professional address is 142 East New York Avenue in DeLand.
And I'm >> I think you hit the button. >> I'll start over. There we go. >> [laughter] >> Good morning. >> I can hear you well. >> For the record, my name is Darren Elkind. My professional address is 142
East New York Avenue, DeLand. Um for the record as well, my client agrees with all nine of the conditions. They are all appropriate. Um I'm here to answer any questions, and I did comment that the the review process was was very efficient, so I
felt like commenting on that. >> Okay, Mr. Elkind, you said nine, there's 14. >> 14. Are you 14? >> 14. Well, whatever they were. >> [laughter] >> Okay, any questions for the applicant? >> I do. >> Ms. Bush. >> All right. Um
it looks like from your first application in 1998 to now, you've been able to grow size-wise, right? Like the land amount has grown. I believe it was from 30 some acres to now I don't I apologize I don't have it in front of me.
>> 71.9 >> Thank you. But you've only grown 50 campsites. So is there a reason why you're not adding more campsites to accommodate the additional land that you could accommodate? >> Let me um I don't have a I don't really have an
answer to your question, but I need to tell you this so it my my lack of an answer makes sense. Um in 1998 I spent most of my day I didn't know what land use law meant and I spent most of my days in this very room trying cases. Um some of you know Jim Morris in
Daytona Beach, but when he retired from private practice he sent asked me to handle a couple of things and this is one of them. Um and while I really don't handle land use cases for private parties anymore, these folks, you know, I wanted to do this one last one for them. Um
They um I'm not sure about the expansion because the last one that I handled for them um we hadn't expanded from there. It's the exact same footprint. I think they're I having been out there and looked at the site last time, not
for this application. Um it fits pretty well. They can manage the number of sites that they have and I just don't think they have a desire to cram more in. You know, it's it's it's in a good location. It's well done. They have another operation that goes on, you
know, on this not the same property, but the adjoining property. So I think I I'm speculating a little bit, but I think that's really the reason. They this is what they can manage and manage well. >> Absolutely. I appreciate that response. Thank you. >> You got it. >> Any other questions for the applicant?
Okay, do we have any public participation? >> No, sir. >> Okay, we're on closed floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion. >> I'd be happy to make a motion. >> Go ahead Mr. Usher. >> Okay, a motion to approve S26-053
to meet all 14 criteria for the grant. >> Second. >> said Oh, and there's a second. Great. Cuz the the recommendation page does say nine. Yeah, it does say nine. >> Yeah. >> But it's But it is 14.
>> Mhm. 14. So, I'll second that. >> Okay, I got a motion on the floor to approve S26-053 from Mr. Erson with the 14 staff conditions and a second from Ms. Bush. Any discussion on the motion?
All those in favor, signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oh, that's okay. >> Nope, Ms. Bush. >> That's okay. Um I would I was just going to add my my personal I've boondocked and RV'd all over the country and it's really hard to find really great RV camp like temporary campsites and campsites where you want
those activities to take place. So, that I'm coming from that perspective as a user knowing how limited we have of those types of facilities for people that do want to go and explore America and I think we should support that more. So, I'm very much in favor and that's where my questioning came from was
um but I appreciate the response you had. So, thank you, Chairman. I apologize. I messed up the vote. >> Okay, let's try this again. All those in favor, signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. You didn't have to say it. >> [laughter] >> By the way, guys, that was our first
special exception case that we does not go to the county council. It don't go to them anymore. All right. Ms. Shelley, can I get the next case, please? >> Yes, sir. Case number CPA-26-003.
Small-scale comprehensive plan amendment from the Osteen Commercial Village CV future land use designation. >> Um I'm I'm sorry, Ms. Shelly. We have um KZ26051 is next on the agenda. >> Okay.
I'm sorry. I should have called that. >> The Waselena rezoning? >> Yeah, I see it, but now I'm like, where is it? I've got it. >> You got it? >> Yep, I've got it. Okay. Just trying to scoot it along. >> [laughter] >> Case number Z-26-Z-51.
Rezoning from the light industrial I-1 zoning classification to the urban single-family residential R-5 zoning classification. >> Okay, Ms. Costa, this one is yours. >> Good morning again. Uh
Our applicant is asking to be rezoned from light industrial to single-family urban residential, the R-5. In conjunction, he does have a variance case, which will be heard next month. The reason why he's requesting this
rezoning is he is a veteran, he has a veteran tenant in this home, and he is trying to sell the home to the veteran. However, the Veteran's Affairs Office will not approve a mortgage on a single-family home, which is not within a
appropriate zoning classification. The reason why we are asking for R-5, if you see our proposed and current zoning, all the yellow is R-5, which is within the Highland Fitch
Highland Park Fitch Grant subdivision, which was vested in April of 1979. That block is also part of that subdivision, but it was zoned I-1 due to its proximity with, I believe, Nova Road.
There are surrounding parcels that do have businesses, but the parcels to the north and south are also single-family residences that were built in the late 50s. The property also has a mixed use zone future land use.
While the R-5 is not typically associated with mixed use, it is determined that it it is conditionally compatible with that. The site is an existing residential part parcel and we have found that
it staff agrees that it we should approve this request. And move it on to the County Council for final recommendation. And I am available for any questions. >> Thank you, Ms. Costa.
Ms. Bush, any questions? >> Thank you, Chairman. Um has staff considered administratively rezoning some of these parcels cuz it doesn't seem like they're going to be redeveloped with the intent of industrial real use, especially how narrow and small those lots are. Um so I was just curious if that was
something that you all would maybe entertain, especially since like I said it's not going to be developed in an industrial use. >> Not at this time. >> Okay. >> Yeah, it's definitely something that looking at this case that it would make
sense for this area. So it is on a list of things for us to look into. >> I love lists. Thank you. >> Okay. I'm noticing here that this light industrial it it actually it doesn't isn't abutting
any other industrial property, is that correct? >> No. >> Cuz my concern is to put a a uh I guess it's a classification of residential zoning up against the R-5 up against the
L1 and that's not the case here. This is This is in and of itself just stand-alone zoning right in that area. >> I I can't hear you very well. >> What I'm saying is is that this L1
>> I1? >> I mean I1 is not adjacent to any other I1 properties, correct? >> It is adjacent to the city of Holly Hill. >> And what's the zoning there? >> If I can jump in real quick. So, it's I1
north and south of this property and to the east of it is in the city of Holly Hill and it's their general commercial zoning. >> Okay. >> But that's facing Nova Road, whereas this property is facing >> Granada >> Granada Avenue.
So, it's not interacting with the commercial side. >> Okay. I just don't want to hinder any future use of an industrial property if it was adjacent to this one. You follow what I'm getting at when you start putting residential zoning up
against industrial zoning then you have you create problems. And that's not the case here, is that right? >> Mr. Chair, if you look on I think page 18 um you can kind of see the area of like
what's there on the ground now um and north and south of the subject property um technically zoned I1, but those look like single-family houses. >> Those are as well. Yes. There are three homes
along Granada that are in that block there. And that block was part of that uh Highland Park Fitch Grant subdivision. It just that one block got zoned I1. The entire block.
>> Okay. Okay, I'm sorry. >> like a sweeping brush when they did this. >> is that? Okay, is the applicant present? >> Good morning. My name is Philip Wassilena. I am the veteran property
owner. I live at 16 Sandal Drive, Ormond Beach. And I want to thank Emily Bush for pointing out the obvious. This is an obs- Am I Am I allowed to speak at this point? >> Yes. >> This is an obsolete um
a industrial line has been put in place since about 1959 when these residents were built. So, I have a home that's been in place for 67 years and to my left and to my right are administratively zoned industrial
light properties where if you look at tax records, it clearly shows that residential taxpayers have paid residential property lines for over 67 years. I have six occupant residents that have
been in that home for those 67 years. I am the seventh owner and to your point as I asked from the first start, this to me is just a grandfathering wave of the brush. Or, another option is to send these
occupants a opt-out. We're about to change you to residential. Do you not want to do that? If so, opt-out. But, that's a great way to save taxpayer money. So, I'm here before you and I'll tell you a little story when I
started this process. Um the occupant moved here, a veteran occupant moved here to get a job in Florida starting the 2nd of February. A sales contract was let in place on the
6th of January 2026. It was then realized that because this was considered by Volusia County a non-conforming property, that the VA underwriters would not accept this home until the zoning was
changed to R5 from light industrial. And so, I'm here before you today, 6 months later. I still have to appear before you one more time because my porch has been in place for 67 years and it does not meet
the changed zones. It has gone from 35, I believe, to 20 ft. I then have to come before you on the 16th of July and request a variance once again. I request for favorable consideration in advance.
Uh ladies and gentlemen, I know you you got more important things to do, but bottom line here is I'm not asking for anything new. I'm not asking to change the environment, the property, the structure. All staff have approved all five out of
the six criteria and the sixth criteria, very simply, is that it's not a subdivision, so it doesn't apply. Uh if there are no further questions of me, I look forward to any questions that you may offer me. Thank you very much for your consideration. >> Thank you. Any questions for the
applicant? Ms. Bush. >> Not really a question, just a thank you for holding out to sell this property to a veteran because I personally have tried to go through the VA loan process and it was very challenging. And so for you to stick through it for
this tenant to allow him to have a home in our community and for us to support a veteran, I'm 100% in support of that. So thank you. >> And you're welcome very much and it's harder for me financially because assuming a veteran and taking half of
its value in rental, meaning if I were to rent this out, I would get twice the amount and to hold that out for 6 months also supports our veteran community cuz I've been one for 34 years. That's how long I served. >> Thank you for your service.
>> Thank you, ma'am, for supporting us at home. Pending your questions, that's all I have. >> Did you have a comment, Ms. Shelley? >> Okay. >> All right, thank you, sir. Do we have any public participation for this case? >> No, sir. >> All right, we're going to close the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion or a
motion. >> I'll make a motion to forward Z 26051 rezoning application to the county for final action and recommendation of approval. >> Second. >> Okay. I've got a motion on the floor for Mr.
Urson to forward the rezoning application case number Z 26051 to the county council for final action with recommenda- recommendation of approval and a second for Ms. Shelley. Any discussion on the motion?
Hearing none, I'm normally not favorable of changing a residential zoning up against an industrial zoning, but due to the circumstances, I understand the the change. So that I'll call a vote now. All those in favor signify by saying I.
>> I. >> If any opposed, motion carries unanimously. All right. Miss Shelley, can I get the next case, please? >> Yes, sir. Case number CPA-26-003, small scale comprehensive plan amendment from the Ousley commercial village
future land use designation to the Ousley transitional residential TR FLU designation. >> Okay, Miss Ray, this one's yours. >> Do you want to read the second one in? Cuz it's the It's the residential as well.
>> Yes, there is a companion residential. Thank you. >> Yes. Okay, go ahead, Miss Shelley. >> Case number Z-26-055, rezoning from the Ousley commercial village OCV zoning classification to the Ousley transitional residential OTR-1 zoning
classification. >> Okay, we'll be hearing both of these cases even though we'll be taking a vote individually. Miss Ray. >> Good morning. So, bear with me. I'm going to go through a little bit of
history of the Ousley local plans as might be a longer presentation than you're used to. Um so, the applicant is requesting a small scale future land use amendment and a rezoning for a 1 acre site uh within the Ousley local plan area with the intent to make his existing single
family residence a conforming use in order to refinance his home. The subject property is currently designated as commercial village and the proposed future land use is for transitional residential. To kind of give you a background of the Ousley local plan.
Um the Ousley local plan was originally adopted in 2008 by the County Council in an effort to preserve the community of Ousley. This local plan adopted specific future land use designations and in 2012
the county administratively rezoned the area to match those future land use designations. These classifications were designed for specific uses, densities, and intensities to be strategically placed throughout the plan with the most intense urban uses
concentrated along State Road 415 and the with the intensity gradually decreasing into more rural areas. The commercial village designation is most similar to our county's urban high intensity designation that can be developed at a residential density of
anywhere between 8 to 20 units per acre. The proposed transitional residential is most similar to the county's urban low intensity with a maximum density of four dwelling units per acre. However, the transitional residential designation is considered a rural designation because
the parcels that fall within it can be developed at either the urban of up to four dwelling units per acre or more transitional of one dwelling unit per acre. The surrounding um area is developed with single-family residential uses on lots that range
between 11,000 square feet to 2.5 acres in size with some outliers as small as 6,000 square feet and as large as 9 acres in size. These lots were developed with residences from 1967 to 2002 with the most recent as 2020.
The subject property is currently developed with a residence constructed in 1997. As part of the local plan, the county and the city of Deltona entered into a joint planning agreement to coordinate the review of projects. Staff sent the proposed applications to the city of Deltona
and at the time of the staff report, it we did not receive comment from the city of Deltona. However, since then we did receive comment and they had no objection on the proposed future land use and rezoning. Under the existing commercial villas village designation, the site would only
be able to be developed with commercial and multi-family uses. The future land use designated is designated to be developed as a mixed-use with commercial uses on the bottom floors and either office or residential on the upper floors. The designation does not allow for any
single-family residential uses, causing the existing single-family residence to become a lawful non-conforming use. The subject site is approximately 0.2 miles east of State Road 415, causing the property to be closer to the transition of less intense residential
use. And the applicant's request to change the future land use designation to transitional residential is consistent with the existing development pattern of adjacent properties. Now, on to the rezoning. The subject property is currently zoned
the Osteen Commercial Village, and the applicant are proposing to rezone to the Osteen Transitional Residential OT-R1 to match the future land use designation. Prior to 1980, the property was zoned
single-family dwelling district R-1. When the unified zoning ordinance was adopted in 1980, the property was zoned with the urban single-family residential R-4 zoning classification. That remained in place until 2012 when it was administratively rezoned to the
Osteen Commercial Village. The Osteen Commercial Village uh sorry, the purpose and intent of the Osteen Commercial Village is to facilitate a mixed-use development pattern featuring various commercial and residential uses. The proposed Osteen Transitional
Residential is to provide a transition between more intense urban uses planned along State Road 415 corridor and the rural environmental character characteristics of the land. So sorry. Um Transitional Residential as
previously stated has two residential densities. OTR-1 has the maximum density of up to four dwelling units per acre, which is more on the urban side. And then there's OTR-2 that has a maximum density of one dwelling unit per one acre, which is more on the rural side.
Although the surrounding area exhibits characteristics consistent with the OTR-2, the proposed rezoning to OTR-1 is appropriate since OTR-2 is not located anywhere near the subject site. This rezoning is contingent upon the comprehensive plan amendment as the
OTR-1 zoning classification is the is only compatible with the transitional residential future land use designation. The rezoning would result in a decrease in density and intensity and would have minimal impact on the necessary governmental services, the environment or natural resources, or
the use and value of the affected area. Staff recommends forwarding both the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning to the County Council with a recommendation of approval. I'm available for questions. >> [laughter] >> Any questions for staff?
>> [snorts] >> It's hard to hear you and I unfortunately that's that's the way it is in here. It's not you. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right, any questions for staff? Okay. And did you address the zoning in this
also? >> Yes, I addressed yes, the comprehensive plan and the rezoning. >> All right. So, any questions for staff? >> [laughter] >> Well, I've read the staff report. >> I tried to speak as loud as possible. I'm so sorry. >> [laughter]
>> Okay. We're going to um Did we have any public participation for this case? Oh, yeah, the applicant. I'm sorry. Yep, you're present. >> I'm looking at a CPA. I don't know. >> Is the applicant present?
Would you like to come forward, please? Can I get your name and address for the record? >> Uh Steve Edwards, 200 Longwood Drive, Osteen. >> April Edwards. >> Okay, you've heard the staff report. Anything you'd like to add to it? >> No, the the we've been there 29 years
and and we're trying to refinance. We tried it 6 years ago. That and the only reason we got turned down was strictly the way it got zoned. Now we're in the same situation and it got turned down again. So that's why we're here to try to rezone it back to residential.
>> Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Do we have any public participation forms for this case? >> No, sir. >> Okay, we're going to close the floor for public participation and give you an answer here in >> All right, thank you. >> Okay.
All right. I'll entertain a motion or if you want to talk about it. >> I'll be glad to make a motion. >> Go ahead. >> I move that case number Do you want me to read vote on them separately? >> Yes, yes, separately. >> Okay, case number CPA-26-003 be approved.
>> Second. >> Okay, I've got a motion on the floor from Miss Shelly to find the future land use amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and forward the application case CPA 26003 to County Council the recommendation of
approval to submit to the Volusia County Growth Management Commission for certification and it's second from Mr. Ursan. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Okay, we're going to do the second one here. Any discussion on the zoning Z-26055? >> No, I'll motion it if you want me to. >> Go ahead. >> All right, let's go ahead. Forward rezoning application case number Z-26055
to the County Council for final action and recommendation of approval. >> Second. >> Okay, I got a motion on the floor to forward the rezoning application case number Z-26055 to the County Council for final action with the recommendation of approval. From Mr. Ervin and second from Ms.
Shelley. Any discussion on the motion? Ms. Bush. >> Um I just want the record to reflect that I am very supportive of this and um however, we are losing amount of space to develop an Osteen Town Village in the future. So, I just want the record to reflect that I am very supportive of
what this is, this case specifically, but I do want to reflect that for the rest as we consider these rezoning and and future land use applications in the future in this area. >> Okay, any other comments? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. All right, that takes care of the new business for today. Do we have any other public items? >> No, sir. >> Do we have any staff items? >> Yes, uh
we recently welcomed two new staff members to our team. So, I'd like to welcome Jasmine Brown, our new office specialist. >> Okay. >> She's behind you. And also our new planner two, Rob Zuzak, who's going to be joining us with presentations next month. >> All right.
>> And I just wanted to remind everyone, um I think most of you have done it, but the financial disclosure forms are due July 1st. I believe we have one member who may not have completed it yet. >> Me. >> Yes, Ms. Shelley. >> I'll raise my hand. I keep forgetting. >> I wasn't trying to draw brought but
>> [laughter] >> But I'll fill it out. >> Okay, for the new members, don't I mean the new staff members, don't expect me to remember your name. I can barely remember the commissioner's >> Took me 6 months. >> [laughter] >> Okay, um any other
staff items? >> No, sir. >> Staff comments? >> No, sir. >> How about commission comments? Mr. Costa. >> Are we meeting here again next month? >> I hope not. >> Yes, we'll be back in the council
chambers in August. In August? Yes. >> Anything we do to improve the microphone system? >> We'll certainly try. >> All right, that's the comment number one. Number two is I'm assuming this is Ms. Jasmine's handwriting. And I want to commend this cuz if you haven't seen this, this is I haven't
seen handwriting this neat in ages. Uh that's a big plus. Uh and then number two regarding the packet, uh postmarked June 11th, arrived yesterday afternoon. So, I'm just a comment on if it sits in
the mail room before it goes out, but it was postmarked good enough to get there on time, but it showed up at the last minute yesterday afternoon. And then lastly, and I've noticed this over the last couple years, but more so lately, um just a consideration for staff. It's a
potentially we should have a um let me call him a staff advocate in the gallery. So, when these folks are done with their session, a lot of them have the deer in the headlights like, what do I do now? What just happened? And someone in the staff that could actually take them aside and say, "Hey, all right, so you
passed, you failed, or your next steps are go to the building department." Because they do, they kind of look they're staring at us like, and we're just moving on with business, and they're like, "We're being ignored." So, it's just a suggestion. That's it. That's all I got. >> Great suggestion.
>> Any other comments from the commission? Any press and citizen comments? This meeting is adjourned.