PLDRC approves several variances, forwards tower and code change to council; contentious dog-diving request continued

Volusia County's Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission on March 20 approved multiple variances for waterfront and residential projects, voted to forward an ordinance and a proposed communications tower to the County Council for final action, and continued a contested special‑exception request for a dog‑diving business to May 15.

The commission approved a series of site‑specific variances for private property owners seeking to resolve code violations or rebuild storm‑damaged docks and decks. Planning staff presented each item and recommended approval in most cases. Miss Ray, planning staff, told the commission the variances generally met the ordinance criteria or otherwise addressed longstanding encroachments.

The most contested item at the hearing, a special exception and related variances for a private dog‑diving and training facility on Marsh Road (case S‑25‑001 with companion V‑25‑023), drew the largest public turnout and sustained neighborhood concern about traffic, noise and event management. After extended public comment and discussion the commission voted unanimously to continue the special‑exception and its companion variances to the May 15 PLDRC meeting to allow the applicant and nearby property owners to meet and for staff to prepare a revised report.

Votes at a glance - Case V‑25‑010 (accessory dwelling unit variances) — Motion to approve variances 1 and 2 with two staff conditions. Moved by Ms. Shelley; second by Mr. Sixman. Outcome: approved unanimously. - Case V‑25‑015 (dock, boathouse encroachments and new deck) — Motion to approve variances 1–3 with three staff conditions and amendment extending the permit‑compliance deadline from 60 to 90 days. Moved by Mr. Sixman; second by Ms. Shelley. Outcome: approved unanimously. - Case V‑25‑017 (replacement dock variances) — Motion to approve variances 1 and 2 with one staff condition. Moved by Ms. Shelley; second by Mr. Sixman. Outcome: approved unanimously. - Case V‑25‑018 (waterfront deck variance on R‑9 property) — Motion to approve the waterfront variance with two staff conditions. Moved by Mr. Sixman; second by Mr. Costa. Outcome: approved, 4–1 (Miss Craig in dissent). - Case V‑25‑020 (reconstruct decks/walkways; lot coverage from 35% to 45%) — Motion to approve five variances with two staff conditions. Moved by Ms. Shelley; seconded by Mr. Costa. Outcome: approved unanimously. - Case S‑25‑001 and V‑25‑023 (special exception for a dog‑diving recreational facility and related variances) — Commission continued both the special exception and the variances to the May 15 PLDRC meeting to allow additional neighbor‑applicant discussions and time for staff to update the report. Motion to continue by Mr. Costa; second by Mr. Sixman. Outcome: continued unanimously. - Case S‑25‑006 (special exception for a 195‑foot communications monopole) — Motion to forward to County Council with recommendation of approval, subject to five staff conditions. Moved by Ms. Shelley; second by Mr. Costa. Outcome: forwarded unanimously. - Ordinance 2025‑13 (Ord. 25‑005 — amendments to accessory structure and residential fence permitting) — Motion that the PLDRC find the ordinance consistent with the comprehensive plan and forward it to County Council with a recommendation of approval (subject to commission comments). Moved by Ms. Shelley; seconded by Mr. Sixman. Outcome: forwarded unanimously.

What the votes mean The commission's approvals will allow property owners to obtain the permits and perform the repairs or rebuilds described in their applications, often with conditions that require the owners to build exactly as shown on approved plans, to obtain any required building or wetland permits within a set number of days, and to limit changes that would enlarge the approved footprint. The special‑exception and variances for the dog‑diving facility were not decided; the continuance gives neighbors, the applicant and staff time to work through operating conditions, parking and signage controls before the commission issues a new recommendation to County Council.

Staff and legal notes Planning staff and the county attorney reminded commissioners that some decisions (rezonings and special exceptions) are recommendations to County Council, and that quasi‑judicial actions must be based on competent substantial evidence in the record. The Federal Aviation Administration issued a determination of no hazard for the proposed monopole; staff said the tower's fall radius would remain on the parcel and that carriers intended to site equipment for at least two wireless providers.

Next steps Approved variances that require building or wetland permits proceed through the county's permitting and inspection process; the communications tower and the accessory‑structure/fence ordinance now move to the County Council for final action. The dog‑diving special exception and related variances will return to PLDRC on May 15 after the applicant and neighbors meet and staff prepares an updated report.