Volusia County PLDRC approves multiple variances, continues one case to Oct. 16

Volusia County’s Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission approved a string of variance requests at its Sept. 18, 2025 meeting, voting to grant relief for accessory structures, a waterfront pool and attached deck, and several detached garages while continuing one variance to Oct. 16 for further review.

Staff opened the meeting with background for each agenda item. For V-25-045, staff recommended denial of two variances for a proposed 486-square-foot detached accessory structure but provided four conditions should the commission find competent substantial evidence to approve (see staff report). Applicant Joe Shawfield told commissioners he sought “only about 90 square feet” of encroachment to align his proposed office with neighboring properties and said adjacent owners support the request. After questions about alternatives, the commission approved variance 1 as requested and approved variance 2 with a modification — granting an 18-foot setback rather than the 15 feet originally requested — with the four staff-recommended conditions. The motion carried unanimously.

Other cases approved by the PLDRC included: - V-25-046: variances for a new pool and deck within the waterfront yard of an atypical lot; staff recommended approval with three conditions and the commission approved the variances subject to those conditions. - V-25-051: a variance reducing the north side yard from 50 feet to 16 feet for a proposed 1,650-square-foot detached garage on a legal nonconforming lot; approved with two staff conditions. - V-25-053: replacement home setback variance related to a deeded easement; the applicant reported neighborhood letters of support and commissioners approved the variance with two staff conditions. - V-25-055, V-25-057, V-25-059 (and others on the posted agenda): each was presented by staff, discussed with applicants about site constraints (wetlands, easements, past ag exemptions or flood issues), and approved with staff-recommended conditions.

Commissioners handled a procedural request early in the meeting to continue case B-25-062 to the Oct. 16 PLDRC meeting to allow the applicant to address an additional variance; that continuance was granted unanimously.

Legal counsel reminded the commission that rezonings considered by the PLDRC are recommendations to County Council and that new evidence may be introduced at the council hearing, while decisions on special exceptions and variances made by the PLDRC are final actions subject to appeal to County Council. “Decisions by this body on cases which rezone real property … are recommendations only to the county council,” counsel said (transcript SEG 110–116).

Votes at a glance (cases and outcomes referenced in the meeting record): - Continue B-25-062 to Oct. 16, 2025 — continued (unanimous) - V-25-045 — approved with modification (variance 2 set to 18 ft) and four staff conditions (unanimous) - V-25-046 — approved subject to three staff conditions (unanimous) - V-25-051 — approved with two staff conditions (unanimous) - V-25-053 — approved with two staff conditions (unanimous) - V-25-055 — approved with two staff conditions (unanimous) - V-25-057 — approved with three staff conditions (unanimous) - V-25-059 — approved with three staff conditions (unanimous) - Z-25-009 (rezoning) — forwarded to County Council with a recommendation of approval (unanimous)

Why it matters: The variances affect property development rights across Volusia County neighborhoods — from waterfront lots along the Halifax River to small in-town lots in Bethune — and set site-specific precedents about how the county interprets setbacks, upland buffers and development in constrained lots. The rezoning forwarded to County Council will be considered later by the elected body and, unlike variances, may receive new evidence at that hearing.

What they said: - County counsel: “New evidence may be introduced at the county council public hearing. Decisions by this body on cases which rezone real property … are recommendations only to the county council” (transcript SEG 110–116). - Applicant Joe Shawfield on V-25-045: “I’m only looking for 90 square feet” (transcript SEG 360–366), and he told the commission his proposal is an enclosed office, not a music venue (transcript SEG 596–599).

Next steps: Cases that were forwarded (rezoning Z-25-009) will proceed to County Council for final action; variances granted by PLDRC are final actions subject to appeal to County Council. Several bylaw items raised during the meeting will return once staff and counsel draft proposed language.