Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variance to split 851 Bryant Street, creates nonconforming lot with condition discussed
Summary
The Daytona Beach City Board of Adjustment approved a variance allowing Keyshawn Smith to subdivide 851 Bryant Street, reducing required lot depth and a rear-yard setback; the board discussed a condition linking a narrow sliver of land to the southern parcel to improve future conformity.
The Daytona Beach City Board of Adjustment approved a variance request that will allow the owner of 851 Bryant Street to subdivide the parcel and permit an existing house to encroach into the rear-yard setback.
Keyshawn Smith, the applicant, asked the board to reduce the required rear-yard setback from 25 feet to 18 feet and to reduce minimum lot depth from 100 feet to 58 feet so the parcel can be split into two lots. "This house belongs to my grandmother... I'm looking to subdivide land," Smith told the board.
Board members pressed Smith about plans to make the new lots conforming in the future and about access to a narrow sliver of land to the west that, if combined with the southern lot, would increase overall depth. Several board members said they were reluctant to approve a variance that would create a permanently nonconforming lot without some assurance the owner would combine the adjacent strip to improve conformity.
Assistant City Attorney David Russell told the board that the land development code "does allow for development of nonconforming lots for family residences" under the code’s standards, and he noted the applicant could still need further variances later if he decides what to build on the new lot.
Board members discussed making any approval conditional on administrative review of the final lot-split paperwork to ensure the narrow strip is combined with the southern parcel (referred to in the meeting as Parcel B plus the strip). The board did not record a roll-call vote in the hearing transcript for this item; the clerk later summarized that Case A was approved. The transcript does not include a motion text, mover/second, or a roll-call tally tied directly to the discussion.
The applicant told the board he needs the split, in part, to obtain financing to renovate a dilapidated house currently on the parcel and that negotiations and probate matters affect timing for acquiring adjacent pieces of land.
Because the transcript does not show a formal recorded motion or vote count for this case in the hearing portion, the board action is reported here as reflected in the meeting record: Case A was noted as approved by the clerk at the meeting’s close. The board also flagged that the applicant may need additional variances later depending on final building plans.
The board’s discussion makes clear the approval will allow the immediate lot split and encroachment relief described in the application but leaves open future approvals and administrative review related to final lot configuration and any subsequent building permits.
No public speakers testified about this case during the hearing recorded in the transcript.
