Planning board recommends conditional use for three‑resident community residential home at 1059 East Car Drive

The City of Deltona Planning and Zoning Board on Oct. 20 recommended that the City Commission approve a conditional use allowing a community residential home at an address listed in the staff report as 1059 East Car Drive. The board’s recommendation follows a staff report that found the request consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code.

City planning staffer Ron Paradise told the board the request would allow the homeowner to provide care for up to three elderly, non‑related residents at the single‑family property. Paradise said the lot is roughly 14,000 square feet and the existing single‑family dwelling is about 2,686 square feet; by comparison, typical Deltona Lakes lots are about 10,000 square feet.

The conditional use recommended by staff included these conditions: the dwelling may house no more than three non‑related elderly residents; residents and related services must be regulated by the state Agency for Health Care Administration; the community residential home must remain under the management and ownership of applicant Brenda Cruz or a new conditional use must be obtained on any change of ownership; the dwelling must continue to be used as the applicant’s primary residence/homestead; and any additional services beyond adult family care would require a new conditional use application.

Brenda Cruz, the applicant, told the board she has lived at the address for 20 years and described the residents she expects to serve as ambulatory elderly people who “need a little help and directions” rather than full skilled nursing care. Board member questions focused on the residents’ functional limits and staffing; Cruz said she would serve as a caregiver and would have another registered nurse assist on shifts.

A motion to recommend approval of Resolution No. 2021‑38 (conditional use for a community residential home) was made, seconded and approved on a roll‑call vote with no recorded opposing votes. The roll call as read by the clerk included Member Munoz (yes), Member Burbank (yes), Member Webster (yes), Secretary Pfeffer (yes), Vice Chair Stires (yes) and Chair Nor (yes). The board’s action is a recommendation; final approval rests with the City Commission.

The staff report and the board’s motion leave several implementation steps for future review. Any future change of ownership or proposal to expand services would require a new conditional use application and additional regulatory review by the Agency for Health Care Administration, the state agency identified in staff conditions.

Members and staff did not identify any city code or state statute that would be altered by the recommendation; the board’s approval was conditioned to rely on the existing regulatory framework administered by the Agency for Health Care Administration.