Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Planning board approves variance to let under‑1,000‑sq‑ft units at 1901 South Atlantic convert to condos
Loading...
Summary
The Daytona Beach Shores Planning and Zoning Board voted to approve variance ZV‑A25‑0213 to allow 10 one‑bedroom units of 890 sq ft and one unit of 830 sq ft at 1901 South Atlantic Avenue to qualify for condominium/multifamily residential use despite the city’s 1,000‑sq‑ft minimum; staff recommended approval and the motion passed by roll call.
The Daytona Beach Shores Planning and Zoning Board approved zoning variance ZV‑A25‑0213, allowing units in the 72‑unit Max Daytona Beach Resort at 1901 South Atlantic Avenue that fall below the city’s 1,000‑square‑foot one‑bedroom minimum to be treated as residential condominium units.
City Planner Gwen Hurstein told the board that 10 of the units measure 890 square feet and one measures 830 square feet, and that staff’s review found the application met the seven variance criteria laid out in the staff report. “Staff is recommending approval of this variance request,” Hurstein said during the presentation.
The variance request stems from a change during construction when the developer added a restaurant and configured the building for hotel use. Applicant counsel Joey Posey said terraces are excluded from the code’s interior‑living‑area calculation and argued the units are functionally suitable for long‑term residential use even though they fall short of the interior‑area threshold. “We would meet the minimum unit requirement if we got to include that [terrace], but the code doesn’t let us,” Posey said.
Board members pressed the applicant on hardship, noting that economic reasons alone are generally not a ground for variance. Posey and owner representative John Ott of Bayshore Capital said market conditions and the building’s construction—which includes a transfer beam that limits moving interior walls—prevent retrofitting the units to reach 1,000 square feet without significant structural work. Ott said converting to condominium ownership is the owner’s strategy to make the project viable and that selling units as condos could increase ad valorem tax revenue for the city.
The building official confirmed that, if the variance is denied, the affected units could not legally continue to operate as hotel units in their present configuration. Board members debated whether the circumstance was self‑inflicted (construction choices made by the owner) versus a unique physical constraint; staff emphasized the variance analysis focused on the code criteria and on whether competent, substantial, fact‑based evidence supported the application.
After discussion, a board member moved to approve ZV‑A25‑0213 “as presented” and another member seconded the motion. The clerk called roll and the board recorded five yes votes from members Jordan, Desai, Delosch, Willie and Carlo; the motion carried.
With the variance approved, the applicant may proceed with the next steps in the conversion process subject to building‑code review and any permitting requirements. The board then moved on to the city’s 2025 concurrency management report.
