Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ormond Beach updates land‑use rules: design standards, detached‑garage size and recovery‑residence procedures move forward
Summary
The commission approved second readings for amendments to align local building‑design rules and accessory‑structure limits with state law and took first‑reading action on comprehensive‑plan amendments and an ordinance establishing reasonable‑accommodation procedures for certified recovery residences required by recent state law.
The City Commission advanced several land‑use measures, approving two ordinances on second reading and moving two others forward on first reading.
What the commission approved: On second reading the commission adopted Ordinance 2025‑35, a land‑development code amendment to make the city’s building design standards consistent with state statute (the state does not permit single‑family design standards). The commission also approved Ordinance 2025‑36, which revises the definition of principal structure and permits detached garages on parcels of two acres or greater to be up to 75% of the principal structure’s total square footage.
What moved forward on first reading: Planning staff presented comprehensive‑plan amendments associated with the 2045 update and asked the commission to rescind an earlier ordinance and readopt with two sentences removed per Florida Commerce comments; staff and the planning board recommended approval on readoption. The commission also considered Ordinance 2025‑38, implementing sections of Senate Bill 954 (codified at Florida Statute section 397.487) that require local procedures for reasonable‑accommodation reviews of certified recovery residences, including definitions, filing and appeal processes, a business‑tax receipt requirement and a revocation mechanism.
Commission discussion: Commissioners asked where certified recovery residences could locate, whether any exist in the city, and expressed differing views on state overreach versus local implementation. One commissioner noted personal family experience with addiction and supported access to recovery housing while also signaling a symbolic vote of protest against state preemption. Staff said they were not aware of any certified recovery residences currently in the city and explained that the state statute requires local procedural adoption.
Why it matters: the ordinances reconcile local code with recent state law and create an administrative path for recovery residences; this affects zoning, housing availability and future appeals to the commission.
Next steps: the comprehensive plan amendments and the recovery‑residence ordinance proceed through required adoption steps; staff will return with final language and any required transmittals.
