Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Zoning Appeals approves variance to allow two‑story detached garage at 401 Ravillo Boulevard
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals approved variance BOA 2026-014 to let a property owner replace a 456 sq. ft. garage with a two‑story, 1,610 sq. ft. detached garage, reducing side-yard setback and raising accessory‑area and lot‑coverage limits; a neighbor letter supported the request and the board voted in favor.
The Daytona Beach Board of Zoning Appeals voted to approve variance BOA 2026-014 on a motion and roll-call vote, allowing construction of a two‑story, 1,610‑square‑foot detached garage at 401 Ravillo Boulevard.
Miss Johnson, the board clerk, read the application into the record: the request by property owner Saul Cormano Beachus sought variances from the CODB land development code (article 4) to reduce the required side-yard setback from 7.5 feet to 4.2 feet, increase the accessory structure floor-area allowance from 50 percent to 72 percent of the primary structure, and raise total lot coverage from 35 percent to 41 percent to permit a 23‑by‑35, two‑story detached garage to replace an existing 456‑square‑foot single‑story garage.
Chair Mister Johnson said the applicant was present and invited him to explain the proposal. The applicant, identified in the filing as Saul Cormano Beachus, described plans for the new garage and told the board the balcony shown on the plans was decorative and would be removed. "I will do the changes on the plan," the applicant said when asked whether the balcony or access would be altered.
Board members asked clarifying questions about the design and the lot. Mister McCray inquired whether a proposed 264‑square‑foot addition attached to the house was complete; the applicant said it had been permitted and the work was closed. The applicant also confirmed a pool shown on the plan was a future project and not part of the variance application.
The chair noted there were no in‑person public speakers on the item and that the board had received a letter from a neighbor in the meeting packet supporting the variance. A motion to approve Case B (BOA 2026-014) was made and seconded; the clerk conducted a roll call and the board recorded assent, approving the variance.
The board concluded the item with brief thanks to the applicant and then moved to adjourn. The Board of Zoning Appeals did not detail any additional conditions on the variance during the meeting; any conditions or permit requirements will be reflected in the permit issued after administrative review.
(Reporting note: all quotes and attributions come from speakers recorded in the meeting transcript.)
