The Board of Adjustment voted 3-0 to approve a variance allowing construction of a single-family dwelling on a 6,250-square-foot lot at 712 Sixth Street.

The variance was approved after the applicant, Jonathan Dilullo, and city staff discussed whether the applicant had created the hardship and whether the application met the six factors required in the Land Development Code. Senior Planner Stephanie Streeter had recommended denial, citing the code and the deed record showing a 2022 warranty-deed split. City Attorney Jack Morrison reminded the board that the six factors in the Land Development Code must be expressly considered and said, “it appears the conditions are met and this is an improvement of what’s currently on that property and it fits within the findings of staff.”

The board’s approval means the owner may pursue a building permit for a single-family dwelling on the undersized lot. The applicant applied for a building permit in April 2025 and told the board he purchased the parcel from his grandfather in 2022. Dilullo said he did not request the lot split and argued that he did not create the hardship: “I purchased the property … I did not create the hardship.”

Why it matters: the decision allows a residence on a lot that does not meet the R2 zoning district’s required minimum site area (7,500 square feet) and could affect how similar, nonconforming lots are treated in future Board of Adjustment cases.

What the board considered: Streeter told the board that the zoning district’s minimum site-area requirement is 7,500 square feet for single-family dwellings and that the subject lot is 6,250 square feet. She reported staff review of deed records and confirmed with the Osceola County Property Appraiser’s Office that the 2022 warranty deed described the parcel as the “East 62.5 feet of Lots 13 Through 16 Block 8.” Based on that record and the standards in Land Development Code Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 3.5.2.C, staff recommended denial and asked the board to make the findings required under Section 1.3.2.D.2.E.

The applicant said he applied for an owner-builder permit because he intends to build and live in the house. He told the board he pays taxes on the lot and that several other properties in town have been built on nonconforming lots in recent years; he referenced a 2023 case at 791 On Third Street as an analogous example.

Board discussion focused on two legal questions: whether the hardship that supports a variance was created by the applicant and whether denying the variance would deprive the owner of reasonable use of the land. Board members repeatedly referenced the six factors in the Land Development Code as the criteria for their decision. One board member said the variance decision hinged on whether the recorded deeded lot split “created the hardship.” Another said the proposed structure met required setbacks.

Alternatives noted: staff and board members discussed rejoining the undersized lot with a neighboring parcel as a path to meet current lot-size standards. Streeter also noted that R2 zoning permits single- and two-family dwellings and that an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is governed by separate standards adopted by the city (an ADU can be sized relative to the principal dwelling under the city’s ADU rules).

Public comment and notice: the city mailed public-notice mailers “as required by state statutes,” and staff said no oral or written public comments were received for this application. The applicant spoke in support of his own request; no neighbors spoke in opposition at the hearing.

Outcome and next steps: A motion to approve the variance, with the mover and second recorded on the meeting record, passed by voice vote: three ayes, zero nays. The board’s action was recorded as a 3-0 approval. The applicant thanked the board and the case was closed.

Discussion-only items, directions and formal action: Board members and staff engaged in discussion and asked the applicant clarifying questions; the board then took formal action to approve the variance based on their finding that the six statutory factors were met on the record. No additional conditions, amendments, or follow-up tasks were recorded in the transcript.