Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PLDRC approves multiple variances, rezoning and map amendment recommendations; votes summarized
Summary
PLDRC on Jan. 16 approved multiple variances for existing structures, granted an ADU size variance, approved a pool‑enclosure setback variance and forwarded a PUD reinstatement and a small‑scale CPA and rezoning to County Council.
The Volusia County Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission considered multiple zoning and variance cases Jan. 16 and either approved them or forwarded related land‑use requests to County Council. The commission recorded multiple motions, and the following summarizes the formal actions, outcomes and key points of discussion.
Votes at a glance
- Case B‑25‑04 (Cob Cole / variance to minimum yard requirements for a converted pole barn on Transitional Agriculture A‑3 property): PLDRC approved two variances to recognize an existing pole barn used as a residence and to memorialize setbacks. Staff recommended approval. Motion carried unanimously.
- Case V‑25‑09 (Heiser / variance to ADU regulations on Prime Agriculture A‑1 property): Applicant William Heiser asked to convert an existing 1,686‑square‑foot house to an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and to build a 2,400‑square‑foot primary residence. Staff recommended denial because the proposed ADU would exceed the 50% size limit; the commission approved the variance subject to three staff conditions (limit the ADU to the site plan, apply for a change of use with the permit center, and require ADU setbacks match principal detached single‑family setbacks). The motion passed unanimously.
- Case V‑25‑011 (Keller / after‑the‑fact variances for unpermitted detached garage, canopy and enclosed expansion on Rural Agricultural Estate property): Staff recommended approval with two conditions; neighbors submitted a letter of opposition concerning a plywood garage extension that encroached on an adjacent property. The commission required removal of the non‑conforming garage extension as a condition, adjusted the western side‑yard variance for the concrete block garage to 12.3 feet (instead of 0 feet for the extension), and approved the canopy variance on the condition that the canopy remain open and unenclosed. Commissioners discussed permitting follow‑up and noted that any non‑code features would have to be repaired, replaced or removed as part of permitting.
- Case V‑25‑012 (Myers / variance to allow an 1,170‑square‑foot enclosed accessory structure around an existing pool in Transitional Agriculture A‑3 zoning): The homeowner presented a VA letter describing a medical need for year‑round aqua therapy; staff recommended approval and PLDRC approved the variance to reduce the rear yard from 40 feet to 6.8 feet.
- Case PUD‑24‑011 (Henro LLC / request to reinstate an expired Business PUD and Resource Corridor zoning to a new PUD): The applicant asked to reinstate an expired PUD originally approved in 2008; PLDRC initially continued the case but later reconsidered and forwarded the reinstatement request to County Council with a recommendation of approval.
- Case CPA‑24‑6 and Z‑24‑010 (small‑scale comprehensive plan amendment and companion rezoning for an Osteen site): Staff recommended forwarding the CPA (Osteen TR to Osteen MUV) and rezoning (OTR1 to OMV), saying the change would permit townhomes and increase maximum theoretical density by only three units over current allowance. PLDRC voted unanimously to forward both the CPA and the rezoning to County Council with recommendations of approval and to transmit the CPA to state review and county certification.
What commissioners and staff emphasized
Several cases involved after‑the‑fact permitting and neighborhood complaints; commissioners stressed that approval of a variance typically triggers the building‑permit process, which in turn can require remediation, removal or replacement of non‑code elements. For the garage/canopy case, both the applicant and the adjacent property owner agreed the plywood extension could be removed, and the commission built that removal into the approval conditions.
For the ADU and pool‑enclosure cases the commission considered prior use, vested subdivision statuses, and medical or family circumstances cited by applicants. For the PUD and CPA/Z rezoning items, staff and the applicant said the requests made the site consistent with adjacent land use and would allow the intended housing type (townhomes) without a large increase in density.
Next steps: County Council will take final action on the PUD reinstatement and the CPA/Z rezoning items. Applicants granted variances must proceed through permitting and any required corrective work noted during plan review.
