Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

DeBary council approves variances and moves rezoning for KBC Luxury Storage to second reading

5577803 · August 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The DeBary City Council granted project-specific variances for a proposed indoor RV and vehicle storage facility and approved first-reading steps to rezone the parcel to a BPUD, with conditions limiting vehicle servicing and requiring an 8-foot sidewalk.

The DeBary City Council voted unanimously Aug. 6 to approve variances for KBC Luxury Storage and moved forward on first reading with a zoning map amendment that would reclassify the site as a business planned unit development (BPUD) for an indoor vehicle storage facility.

Council action followed a staff presentation that described the 4.06-acre parcel (Volusia County parcel ID 900900000370) as constrained by wetlands and a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) drainage easement. Stephen Babgrove, Growth Management Director for the City of DeBary, said those conditions limit conventional development and supported the variances under section 3.11 of the city’s land development code.

City staff and the Development Review Committee recommended approval with three conditions: require an 8-foot sidewalk along the FDOT corridor rather than a 6-foot sidewalk; limit on-site servicing or repair of motor vehicles to owners performing work on their own recreational vehicles stored in units; and make any approved variances applicable only to the KBC Luxury Storage development as proposed, not run with the property for future, different projects.

David Stokes, civil engineer representing the applicant KBC Development, told council the applicant accepted the staff-recommended conditions and reserved time for rebuttal. The site plan presented to council shows a single building running perpendicular to U.S. Highway 1792 with 18 enclosed storage units, a retention pond to the east and certified wetlands beyond that pond. Staff noted a proposed maximum building height of 45 feet to accommodate taller vehicles.

Council members emphasized minimizing community impacts. Council member Sells said he supported the three staff conditions and asked that they be codified in any motion. Mayor Chazet and Vice Mayor Butland joined Sells, Council members Papalardo and Stevenson in approving the variances; the motion included a finding that the criteria of section 3.11 were met and that the variances be limited to the specified KBC development.

Following that vote, staff presented ordinance O-5-2025 to rezone the same parcel from Heavy Commercial (B-5) to a site-specific BPUD with the only permitted use being an indoor public storage facility for vehicles, boats and recreational vehicles. Babgrove said staff found the rezoning generally consistent with the comprehensive plan and compatible with nearby warehouse-type uses in the southern part of the city’s Southeast Mixed Use Area; he noted the property is outside the city’s transit-oriented design overlay.

Council members questioned site circulation for large vehicles. David Stokes said on-site turning radii were designed to accommodate the city’s largest fire apparatus and that FDOT had issued the driveway permit; Babgrove said final site-plan review would address outstanding engineering and fire-marshal details. Council member Stevenson raised concerns about how drivers would travel to points south on 1792 after exiting the site under right-turn-only driveway movements; staff said drivers would use nearby signalized intersections or other route options.

A motion to approve first reading of O-5-2025—finding the rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan—passed unanimously. If the council adopts the ordinance at second reading, Babgrove said final site-plan review and the manager’s development order would follow.

No public commenters appeared at either quasi-judicial hearing after the city called for public participation and swore in potential speakers.

The council’s approvals are limited to the scope and conditions presented at the Aug. 6 hearing; any change to the project or successor development would require new review and entitlement actions by the city.