Board flags parking, variances and public outreach as sticking points in code rewrite

Planning Board members in DeLand spent substantial time discussing parking requirements, variance practices and community outreach methods as key issues for the land development regulations rewrite.

Several board members described parking as a recurrent challenge for downtown and infill projects. One member said the board has been creative about trading bicycle storage for reduced parking requirements but questioned whether parking demand figures used in the code are accurate. "Are we asking for too much parking? Are we not asking for enough parking?" the member asked.

Another member, Andre (Planning board member), said he would "like to see more leniency" in code language to reduce the number of routine variances the board grants. "I've sat here and listened to people speak, and they're asking for a variance. We grant it. It makes sense. It doesn't seem to me that they should need a variance," Andre said, describing small lots and neighborhood parking patterns as a practical constraint.

Board members discussed options such as shared parking arrangements across multiple buildings, alternative compliance provisions (an "if you can't meet X, you can do Y in exchange" approach), and administrative adjustments for minor deviations (for example, tolerance for differences under one foot). Several participants urged that variances be rare and that the code provide predictable alternatives so applicants do not routinely need the board to grant exceptions.

Outreach and public education also featured in the discussion. Participants suggested taking engagement to markets, parks and senior clubhouses; using QR codes and targeted social media posts; partnering with Stetson University's polling resources; and even low-key prompts like an ice cream truck to attract participation. A planning board participant urged that outreach clearly explain what the code rewrite can and cannot change, to counter public misconceptions that the update would, for example, alter state law on where certain uses are permitted.

Board and staff members urged clearer, consolidated code language, more visual examples for the public and an emphasis on making the regulations readable so residents do not need an attorney or planner to understand permitted uses. They also asked the consultants to identify common variance topics that could be addressed in the code itself to reduce repetitive hearings.