The Volusia County Planning & Land Development Regulation Commission on Dec. 18 approved five after‑the‑fact variances that will allow an elevated accessory structure and attached staircase to remain on Resource Corridor (RC)‑zoned waterfront property.

Staff recommended denying the application, saying the requests failed to meet four of the five legally required variance criteria. Kelly Tucker, a county planner, told the commission the 12.5‑acre parcel includes wetlands and does not meet the RC minimum 25‑acre lot size; staff also noted a 2020 start of the unpermitted construction and recommended denial unless the applicant supplied additional substantial evidence.

Mark Jones, representing the property owner, said the structure rests within a preexisting nonconforming footprint that dates to the 1960s and that the owners bought the parcel in 2015. Jones said the structure was damaged by Hurricane Irma and later repaired and that subsequent work expanded decking beyond the original footprint but has since been reduced. “The plans that have been submitted and are pending approval are within the original footprint of the preexisting nonconforming use,” Jones said.

Commissioners questioned whether the work was a repair or a rebuild, whether historic aerials and surveys support the claim that the structure predates the owner’s tenure, and whether hurricane recovery practices led the owner to believe building permits were not required. Staff and the applicant said surveys and building plans have been filed and that the current proposal would bring the structure back within the historic footprint.

Several commissioners voiced concern about setting a precedent for after‑the‑fact development on resource‑sensitive properties. Member Craig said the structure’s long presence “goes to their favor” but noted the site appeared abandoned for some time and urged caution. Member Bush cited growing flood risks and said she was sympathetic to the workmanship but worried about downstream impacts.

After deliberation, Member Costa moved to approve variances 1–5 with three staff‑recommended conditions; Member Shelley seconded the motion. The commission conducted a roll call and approved the variances 5–2.

The decision allows the owner to pursue final building permits consistent with the approved, revised plans. The county’s legal counsel reminded commissioners that a variance does not change ownership of authority: rezonings remain recommendations to County Council, while variances can constitute final action subject to appeal.

What happens next: the variance approval takes effect immediately for permitting purposes unless appealed to County Council within the statutory timeframe.