Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the After The Fact Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

After‑the‑fact variance for Sears Avenue property fails on 3‑3 tie; board cites unpermitted work

Board of Zoning Adjustment (City of Daytona Beach) · February 20, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board split 3‑3 on an after‑the‑fact variance for 350 Sears Ave to permit a covered deck, two sheds and paver driveways built without permits; the tie vote meant the variance was not approved and the applicant must revise or reapply.

The Board of Zoning Adjustment on Feb. 19 voted in a 3‑3 tie against granting an after‑the‑fact variance for property at 350 Sears Avenue, leaving the application without approval. The variance would have reduced required rear and side setbacks for a covered deck and accessory structures, reduced spacing between principal and accessory structures, and increased maximum lot coverage above 35% to accommodate a covered 447‑sq. ft. deck.

Applicant counsel explained the lot is part of an older subdivision with an 80‑foot depth and that the covered deck — by the city’s measurements — pushed lot coverage above the 35% limit. The applicant said the owner hired contractors who were told permits were pulled when, in fact, they were not; the owner is undergoing cancer treatment and committed to pursuing after‑the‑fact permits if the board allowed the structures to remain.

Board discussion focused on the after‑the‑fact nature of the work, the physical size and location of one large shed that may encroach on the property corner, and the discrepancy between the applicant's stated lot‑coverage percentage (40%) and other calculations (up to 42%). Staff confirmed that fees for variances and for after‑the‑fact permit reviews are doubled.

Roll call on the motion to approve recorded: Betts—Yes; Barhu—Yes; Connors—No; Cameron—No; McCray—No; Johnson—Yes. Because the board was split 3‑3, the motion failed and the variance was not approved. The chair told the applicant the options are to modify the application and reapply or consult on specific corrections (for example relocating or removing the large shed, pulling required aprons/curb cuts, or revising the deck) before returning to the board.

Next steps: the applicant may resubmit a revised request or remove/unbuild encroaching structures and complete after‑the‑fact permitting; permit and variance fees for after‑the‑fact work will be assessed at the increased rate noted by staff.