PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION COMMISSION 1 PUBLIC HEARING HELD 2

September 17, 2020 3 4

The Public Hearing of the Volusia County Planning and Land Development Regulation 5 Commission was called to order by Ronnie Mills, at 9:07 a.m., in the Frank T. Bruno, Jr. 6 County Council Chambers of the Thomas C. Kelly Administration Center, 123 West 7 Indiana Avenue, Room 204, DeLand, Florida. On roll call, the following members 8 answered present, to wit: 9

10 COMMISSION PRESENT: 11 RONNIE MILLS, Chair – Physically 12 JEFFREY BENDER, Vice-Chair – Physically 13 WANDA VAN DAM, Secretary – Physically 14 JAY YOUNG – Virtually 15 STEVE COSTA – Physically 16 FRANK COSTA – Virtually 17 EDITH SHELLEY – Physically 18

STAFF PRESENT: 19 PAOLO SORIA, Senior Assistant County Attorney - Physically 20 SCOTT ASHLEY, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager - Physically 21 SUSAN JACKSON, AICP, Senior Planning Manager - Physically 22 PATRICIA SMITH, Planner III - Physically 23 DARREN EBERSOLE, Planner II - Physically 24 TREVOR BEDFORD, Planner II - Physically 25 JESSICA R. FLOWERS, Staff Assistant II - Virtually 26 YOLANDA SOMERS, Staff Assistant II - Physically 27

28 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 29

30 Chair Ronnie Mills led the pledge of allegiance. 31

32 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 33

34 None. 35

36 LEGAL COMMENT 37

38 Paolo Soria, Senior Assistant County Attorney, provided legal comment. 39

Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications 40 41

Members of the Volusia County Planning & Land Development Regulation Commission 42 were asked to disclose, for the record, the substance of any ex parte communications 43 that had occurred before or during the public hearing at which a vote is to be taken on 44

Page 1 of 23

any quasi-judicial matters. All members present disclosed any communication as listed 1 below. 2 3 Members Wanda Van Dam, Jeffrey Bender, Frank Costa and Chair Ronnie Mills – 4 Conversation with Attorney Glenn Storch on PUD-20-074 5 6 Member Jay Young had a conversation with Bruce Judinsky regarding PUD-20-074. 7 8 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATIONS 9 10 ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN 11 Items to be continued or withdrawn will not be discussed unless requested by a 12 commission member, the applicant, or any other affected party. If you wish to speak on 13 any of these items, please advise the commission clerk so that the chair can be advised. 14 It is requested that applicants attend the hearing to answer any questions, which may 15 arise. 16 17 None. 18 19 NEW BUSINESS 20 21 PUD-20-074 – Application of Glenn D. Storch, attorney for Barbara D. Blair, individually, 22 and as Trustee of the Everett Blair Revocable Trust and as Trustee of the Barbara Blair 23 Revocable Trust; Lawrence Wood Galbreath Jr. and Michelle Carey Galbreath; and John 24 P. Tapscott, owners, requesting a rezoning from the Commercial Marina (B-7), Mobile 25 Home Park (MH-1) and Rural Agriculture (A-2) classifications to the Planned Unit 26 Development (PUD) zoning classification with a Business (B) Sub-classification. 27 28 Patricia Smith, AICP, Planner III, presented the staff report. Ms. Smith explained to the 29 commission that the applicants desired to rezone approximately 89.36 acres to a Planned 30 Unit Development with a Business sub-classification in the Astor area. The proposal was 31 a redevelopment for a hurricane-damaged fish camp that included a hotel, store, bait and 32 tackle shop, RV Park, and a mobile home park. The project included multiple parcels that 33 had a variety of zoning classifications such as B-7, MH-1, and A-2. Ms. Smith stated that 34 the applicant wanted to redevelop the motel, the general store, the marina, and the RV 35 resort. They proposed 460 total spaces for RVs and cabins for rent daily, weekly, or 36 seasonal, and 199 boat slips with a combination of wet and dry storage. No full-time 37 residents would be permitted. The applicant held a community meeting to share their 38 plans with the neighbors of which the applicant will share the results. There was an 39 existing mobile home area where tenants leased the land and owned the units. A study 40 was done per Florida State Statues to determine whether adequate housing was available 41 for the tenants to relocate. The applicant was working on purchasing the units from the 42 tenants and the study showed adequate capacity to relocate remaining residents within 43 a 50-mile radius. Council would make the final determination to accept and approve the 44 study. Ms. Smith went on to explain that the applicant would remove old infrastructure 45 including derelict structures in the commercial area, an old wastewater package plant, 46 dilapidated docks, old mobile homes, and all the debris in the canals. They proposed to 47 add stormwater controls which would improve the quality of the St. John’s River and the 48 canals. The redevelopment plan included a commercial area with a restaurant, bait 49

Page 2 of 23

house, restrooms, fuel dock, boat slips, a small motel, a game room, and other RV park 1 amenities. Some of the buildings in the commercial area would possibly be reused and 2 would be brought up to current building and fire codes. The existing developed area is in 3 a confined area and nonconforming to the zoning ordinance. Reduced building setbacks 4 and accommodations for parking and landscaping would be permitted. The project would 5 connect to St. John's River Utilities for central sewer and potable water. A conservation 6 easement was proposed for 21 acres of wetlands along the southern portion of the 7 property, which would simultaneously provide a buffer for the residents to the south. Ms. 8 Smith spoke about the access to the subject property and provided that it would continue 9 to be via Jungle Den Road. A traffic analysis showed minimal increases in trips from what 10 was currently allowed, however; traffic improvements would be added to State Road 40 11 and Jungle Den Road. The applicant was working with the Florida Department of 12 Transportation, the county, and Google Maps on signage and directions to safely guide 13 travelers to the subject property. Traffic engineering staff confirmed the thoroughfare 14 road network was not experiencing level of service constraints in the area. The project 15 would increase ecotourism opportunities. Ms. Smith concluded that sea-level rise needed 16 to be looked at as new projects were being reviewed. The subject property was in the 17 coastal high hazard area, which is prone to storm surge and sea-level rise, making it 18 subject to mandatory hurricane evacuations. Utilizing it as an RV Park was considered 19 by staff to be a better use for the property in that regard when considering potential loss 20 of life and property damage. Staff found that the request was consistent with the 21 comprehensive plan and recommended forwarding the application to the county council 22 for final action with a recommendation of approval with suggested conditions. 23 24 Being that there were no questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 25 26 Glenn Storch, 420 South Nova Road, Daytona. Mr. Storch provided a PowerPoint into 27 the record and referenced it throughout his presentation (Evidence 1). Mr. Storch 28 explained to the commission that the project was 89 acres on the St. John River. The 29 main part of Jungle Den that the initial contract was held on was about 35 acres clustered 30 together with mobile home sites, commercial sites, and impervious area. It was obvious 31 you could not do anything with the 35 acres due to no stormwater being on the site so 32 everything flowed into St. John's River. They proposed 10 to 15 acres of stormwater 33 retention to provide for the protection of the St. John’s through the purchase of 34 surrounding properties, and they simultaneously would be preserving a large buffer to the 35 surrounding properties. Mr. Storch went on to explain that Jungle Den had been around 36 since the 1940s and was expanded in the 1960s and 1970s. It was a part of Astor’s 37 beginnings. The pictures showed the hotel, the restaurant, the store, and the bait and 38 tackle shop that were on the river at that time. There was also an RV Park and a mobile 39 home park behind all of that area. There were about 212 units of mobile homes and RV’s 40 on the site with plenty of activities to keep tourists busy. Over the years, the property had 41 declined drastically due to storms and old age. The motel, restaurant, store, and bait and 42 tackle shop were no longer operational. The quality of the mobile homes had declined 43 drastically and where there was once 128, there was now only 10. The contract purchaser 44 for the project was working on purchasing the mobile home units from the tenants. Every 45 one of the sites was on the antiquated septic plant which was in violation with the 46 Department of Environmental Permitting. They worked out a deal to patch it up to get 47 through the rest of the process as they worked with St. John's utilities to get municipal 48 water and sewer to the site. St. John’s sewer needed additional customers to make their 49

Page 3 of 23

system profitable as they had an overage of capacity. When the plant was designed in 1 the ’60s or ’70s, the pipes were way too close to the surface and so everything treated or 2 not flowed right into the river once the area flooded. There was nothing to protect the 3 residents or the adjoining properties as a result of the system degradation. Mr. Storch 4 stated that the docks that used to be on site had fallen into the St. John’s river. The 5 canals would have to be re-done in order to maintain the vegetation. He went on to outline 6 the potential issues that would arise if the PUD was not approved and stated they were 7 not just providing buffers and protections of the river, they were looking at placing those 8 in conservation easements so it could be a perpetual conservation of those areas forever. 9 If the PUD were to be approved, the plan was to reopen the restaurant, a general store, 10 remove all used trailers and replace it with RV spots where guests could only stay for up 11 to six months. They would be raising things in order to provide protection from flooding; 12 the sewer plant would be removed and they would connect to St. John's utilities. They 13 proposed to preserve 21 acres of habitat with a perpetual conservation easement that 14 provided between a 200 and 500-foot buffer between the adjoining residences and the 15 resort area. A stormwater system that meets the current standards of today and protects 16 water quality would be created and the docks and marina would be rebuilt. He referred 17 to the PowerPoint and showed pictures of the past, the current, and the proposed future 18 of what they planned to do with the area. There was sufficient room to provide a 19 substation for the sheriff’s office. He referred to the proposed plans and walked through 20 all of the different areas and pointed out that they would not be adding any additional 21 docks than there were in the past to meet the requirements of the manatee protection 22 zone. The goal was a first-class eco-tourist resort with amenities, pools, and more than 23 just a place to camp. There would be a private boat ramp to be utilized by those staying 24 at the resort and there would be gated access with the restaurant being open to the public. 25 The total investment was projected to be well over 30 million dollars, which included 26 utilities and stormwater reconstruction. Based on the current millage, the potential taxes 27 would be $633,000 per year. Approximately 40 to 50 jobs would be created which would 28 help the community of Astor. There were concerns from a few people in the neighborhood 29 so they thought it would be appropriate to have a community meeting. He obtained letters 30 of support from members of the community and submitted them into evidence (Evidence 31 2). Mr. Storch spoke to some of the concerns that were brought up at the community 32 meeting and outlined how they were addressing those issues; such as Alice Drive being 33 utilized for access. They were working with the Department of Transportation to place 34 directional signs, with traffic engineers for turn lanes, and with services such as Google 35 maps to make sure the directions take them in via Jungle Den Road. Other concerns that 36 were raised were issues with seating at local restaurants, their stores being overcrowded, 37 and all of the fuel being utilized by patrons. The applicant was proposing to put a 38 restaurant, a general store, and a fueling site at the docks so those concerns were 39 addressed. Another concern from the community was that the no-wake zone in the area 40 was too small and not enforced. The applicant stated that they would offer dock space 41 and amenities to the sheriff’s office and Florida Wildlife Commission, as well as look into 42 getting the no-wake zone expanded. They would be providing a substation to the sheriff’s 43 office and had been working with law enforcement to make sure they met the 44 requirements for it. Lighting would be directed onto the property itself and not across the 45 river, and music would be on-site and not broadcasted to the surrounding area. Mr. 46 Storch concluded that it was consistent with the comprehensive plan and pointed out that 47 staff recommended approval of their request. It would provide jobs, update the area, 48 provide eco-tourism, provide conservation lands, and fix the run-off issues into the St. 49

Page 4 of 23

Johns River and many other things. He requested to rebut any comments made at the 1 end of the public comment. 2 3 Member Steve Costa clarified if St. John's utility was in St. John’s County. 4 5 Mr. Storch answered in the negative. 6 7 Member Steve Costa inquired about the comment that they did not have enough capacity 8 because they needed more customers. 9 10 Mr. Storch clarified that they actually had too much capacity for the number of customers 11 which created more work to continuously flush the system. 12 13 Mark Dowst, 536 North Halifax, Daytona Beach. Mr. Dowst was the engineer for the 14 project and stated they had extensive discussions with the utility company. They were 15 very anxious to sign up customers as they built their plant some time ago and expected 16 to sell more capacity at an earlier date, which did not happen. Once the impact fees were 17 paid for the project, St. John’s utilities would gain that revenue to maintain and expand 18 their system. St. John’s utilities indicated they had the capacity for both the sewer and 19 the water. 20 21 Member Steve Costa inquired if the utility company was public or private. 22 23 Mr. Dowst clarified that it was a non-profit like all other utilities that were regulated, so 24 they were able to set their rates. 25 26 Member Steve Costa provided that he was very much for the redevelopment of the site, 27 but was concerned over the utilities having to be taken over by Volusia County utilities. 28 He stated that the best thing for that area was to treat the sewage and remove the 29 nitrogens and phosphates in order to not have them go into water resources. 30 31 Mr. Storch asked Mr. Dowst if the plant was a fairly modern plant. 32 33 Mr. Dowst answered in the affirmative. It met all of the DEP standards and they had to 34 do a monthly report both for water and sewer. 35 36 Mr. Storch stated that if the plant fails at Jungle Den and no one can afford to fix it, the 37 only options would be either for the county to come in and provide that service, or they 38 could assess all of the remaining residents in order to build a new plant, which they did 39 not have the money to do. 40 41 Member Steve Costa inquired about the treatment of stormwater and the credits for 42 existing impervious surfaces and wanted to know how those credits would be awarded. 43 44 Mr. Dowst stated that there were two main components of stormwater management, one 45 being water quality and the other being pre and post-discharge. They would capture all 46 the pollutants to improve the water quality of the river. Then, you don't want the rate of 47 water increase to increase over what it was today. The credits that were referenced were 48 credits for the rate of discharge that's currently there. Anything that would be increased 49

Page 5 of 23

had to have mitigation for it, even if it's paved now. In the commercial area, there was a 1 lot of paving that would be pulled out and reconstructed. Anything to be reconstructed 2 had to have stormwater. 3 4 Mr. Storch inquired of staff if the sheriff’s office substation would need to be added to the 5 use. 6 7 Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager provided that it could be added to the 8 development agreement. 9 10 Member Jeffrey Bender inquired about the hours of operation because there were written 11 concerns submitted. 12 13 Randy Knapp, 361 Denton Avenue, Auburndale. Mr. Knapp stated that the restaurant 14 would be operating for breakfast, lunch, and dinner but would not operate beyond 11:00 15 p.m. He also stated that they were engineering the sound so that it was directed at the 16 deck or the inside. The intent was for the music to create an ambiance, not to have it 17 blaring out into the waterways. 18 19 Member Jeffrey Bender inquired about the reference to assisting the current residents 20 with their relocation and wanted to know how that was being addressed. 21 22 Mr. Storch provided that there was a statute that indicated what you had to do once the 23 leases were terminated. The statute stated that if you could not move your mobile home, 24 the developer had to pay a certain amount of money to the tenant to relocate. The 25 applicant had been purchasing the mobile homes and they were down to 10 residents; 26 six that were permanent and four that were seasonal. They were purchasing the mobile 27 homes with cash so the tenants had money to be able to find a new home. They were 28 also assisting them with finding new homes, as well as giving them free rent for up to six 29 months. 30 31 Mr. Knapp clarified that the free rent was on the lot, as they had already bought the 32 homes. 33 34 Member Wanda Van Dam inquired about the boat slips and wanted to know if they were 35 going to be individual docks. 36 37 Mr. Dowst stated there were extensive docks in place now. They proposed to have 38 perpendicular docks along the St. John’s River and they would have a linear walkway 39 along the bulkhead on the canals. There were no covered slips proposed. 40 41 Member Wanda Van Dam inquired if they were individual docks, would they meet the 42 county standards for separation. 43 44 Mr. Storch stated they were not individual docks for individual owners, they were owned 45 by the community. If you rented a space, you got to use the dock. 46 47 Mr. Dowst provided that the docks were limited to the people who rented the space. Unlike 48 single-family lots, where you had to have a separation from the riparian line, this was all 49

Page 6 of 23

single ownership so you don't have the same type of constraint. The Manatee plan 1 restricted them to a certain number and there would be signage and railings where they 2 were not allowed to dock. 3 4 Member Wanda Van Dam clarified if it would just be one continuous dock. 5 6 Mr. Dowst stated that the vision was to have a linear connected dock. That did not mean 7 they could not do separate pieces, however, they were still working out the final design. 8 9 Mr. Storch provided that the docks also had to go through St. John's and DEP review, as 10 they would tell them how many boat slips they could have along the river, which would, 11 in turn, determine how many they could have along the canals and in the dry stack area. 12 The dry stack area counted towards the total number of slips. 13 14 Member Wanda Van Dam inquired about the site-built cabins and whether or not they 15 were going to be allowed. 16 17 Mr. Storch stated that park models would be allowed. 18 19 Mr. Dowst clarified that they were not site-built cabins. They would have RVs and park 20 models of which photos were provided in their submittal for reference. 21 22 Member Wanda Van Dam inquired if it was in the development agreement that there 23 would be no 220-square-foot site-built cabins. 24 25 Mr. Dowst provided that if it was not, they would not object to stipulating to that. 26 27 Member Wanda Van Dam inquired how they would prevent a permanent residence from 28 occurring. 29 30 Mr. Storch provided that there was a system in place for intake and regulation. 31 32 Mr. Knapp provided that there would be documents that had to be completed for approval 33 to come in as a guest and the duration is very plainly spelled out. They cannot stay longer 34 than that period. They also had language in the documents that provided for emergency 35 services if there was the threat of a pending storm in Volusia County or a federal 36 emergency system for people to vacate. 37 38 Member Wanda Van Dam inquired if they could stay for six months and then go back to 39 the office and re-up the documents. 40 41 Mr. Storch provided that it would be six months on an annual basis. 42 43 Member Wanda Van Dam spoke to the existing developed area that would need to have 44 accommodations to meet the waterfront and perimeter setbacks and inquired as to what 45 kind of accommodations would be needed. 46 47 Mr. Knapp pointed out on the exhibit what areas needed accommodations. They could 48 not do anything to the canals and some of the buildings were right on the water or 10 to 49

Page 7 of 23

15 feet from the water. If the property were to be developed today, they would have to 1 be much farther away. 2 3 Member Edith Shelley inquired about a concern expressed about phasing and wanted to 4 know what their plan was for construction. 5 6 Mr. Storch indicated that it would all be done at the same time so there would not be 7 construction during operation. 8 9 Public Participation. 10 11 DeLynn Stroup, 24906 Loyd Street, Astor. Ms. Stroup explained to the commission that 12 she has owned a mobile home in Jungle Den and they used to frequently visit as children. 13 She was a real estate broker that offered her services free of charge to the tenants to 14 assist them with finding a new place to relocate to as she felt that this project was much 15 needed in the Astor area for the creation of jobs, cleaning up the area, handling the water 16 concerns, and getting rid of crime. There were several lots available to purchase in Astor 17 for the tenants to relocate to that she had found and she also confirmed with the utility 18 company that water would not be an issue. She felt that this was a very good thing for 19 the Astor area and was in support of it. 20 21 Randall Allen, 1631 Spring Garden Drive, Astor. Mr. Allen stated he lived in one of the 22 closest homes to the subject property and he expressed his concerns for the state forest 23 that abutted the project and the people that hunt in the wildlife management lands. Boats, 24 trailers, and motor homes always go down Alice Drive. Even if they say there would not 25 be access, people would still traverse it. He went on to express concerns for the hours 26 of operation, the noise to be generated from the project, and people boating down the 27 river at night through the no-wake zones. Flooding would happen regardless if they 28 provide a stormwater pond. He concluded by expressing concern for the dry storage and 29 boat ramp as it would spit out onto the canal and create traffic. 30 31 Chair Ronnie Mills asked Mr. Allen how it would be different if they renovated just what 32 was there currently and were to begin operating versus what was being proposed. 33 34 Mr. Allen indicated the noise difference would be significant, as well as people traversing 35 the canal and Alice Drive. Another concern was the number of people that were boating 36 on the river that would stop to patronize the facility. 37 38 Glenn Porter, 1662 River Road, Astor. Mr. Porter expressed that he was in favor of the 39 project as he had been frequenting Jungle Den for over 52 years with his family and had 40 fond memories of their trips there. 41 42 Georgia Turner, West Volusia Tourism Advertising Authority, 116 West New York 43 Avenue, DeLand. Ms. Turner explained to the commission that she wanted to express 44 support for this project. She stated they had their West Volusia Advertising Authority 45 meeting yesterday and they were staying apprised on the project and they requested that 46 she attend the hearing in support of the project on their behalf. They believed it would be 47 a welcome addition to the region. The Authority represented the 14 communities from 48 Seville down to Deltona. They understood there would be more than 400+ RV units, as 49

Page 8 of 23

well as 30+ hotel rooms. All the other amenities that they were talking about, such as the 1 swimming pool, camp store, restaurant, and whatever else would attract a lot of tourists 2 from all over the state, was what they represented and promoted. She believed it could 3 also be a national and international destination. This project would contribute to economic 4 development in the county and West Volusia would benefit because they would get three 5 percent of the lodging tax collected for promotion of the destination and the resort itself. 6 7 Participants on the webinar from the public were there to listen to the case but did not 8 have anything to add. 9 10 Mr. Storch understood that most of the public was in support of the project. He clarified 11 that the rezoning was not allowing for the restaurant, hotel, or marina, as it was all already 12 allowed. They were simply providing a plan of how they were going to execute the 13 renovation. 14 15 Member Wanda Van Dam asked to reiterate what the plan included that was not currently 16 allowed. 17 18 Mr. Storch provided that it allowed for RV’s instead of mobile homes. MH-1 zoning did 19 not allow for RV’s. 20 21 Member Wanda Van Dam inquired if there would be the same amount of space for RV’s 22 as there were for mobile homes. 23 24 Mr. Storch indicated that there were originally 35 acres that allowed for 212 units of mobile 25 homes and 42 RV spaces. What they were proposing was up to 416 spaces, over 86 26 acres, so they would be providing for the additional area and would be increasing the 27 number of RV spaces to make it financially feasible. They would also provide for a 28 conservation easement and buffers. 29 30 Commission Discussion. 31 32 Chair Ronnie Mills indicated that he did not feel that the impact would be any greater than 33 if they renovated what was already there and he was in favor of it. 34 35 Member Wanda Van Dam concurred and also felt that since it was already currently 36 allowed, she was in favor of the project as cleaning it up would be an improvement. 37 38 Member Jeffrey Bender MOVED to forward case number PUD-20-074, a rezoning 39 from the Commercial Marina (B-7), Mobile Home Park (MH-1) and Rural Agriculture 40 (A-2) classification to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning classification, 41 to county council for final action with a recommendation of approval, subject to the 42 following conditions: 43 44

1. Approval is subject to the staff recommended order and resolution. 45 46

2. The applicant shall comply with the county's Manatee Protection Plan, the 47 conservation element, and the coastal element of the county's 48 comprehensive plan. 49

Page 9 of 23

1 3. A maximum of 199 boat slips (wet and dry) are allowed at any given time. 2

3 4. A maximum of 460 RV sites (including park trailers) are allowed. Any wetland 4

impacts will require a wetland alteration permit and mitigation. 5 6

Motion Discussion. 7 8 Member Wanda Van Dam inquired if they could prohibit the 220-foot site-built cabins. 9 10 Mr. Storch indicated that was a stipulation. 11 12 Member Frank Costa SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (7:0), 13 by roll call vote. 14 15 CPA-20-005 – Application of Samuel E. and Judith A. Parks, Jr., owners, requesting a 16 Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from the Agricultural Resource (AR) to 17 Rural (R) designation. 18 19 Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. Jackson 20 explained to the commission that the applicant was requesting a comprehensive plan 21 amendment for a 10.19 acre parcel from Agricultural Resource (AR) designation to a 22 Rural (R) designation to go along with a companion rezoning case, Z-20-088. She stated 23 that the AR designation allowed for a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 10 acres 24 and the applicant would like to subdivide the lot into two five-acre parcels for family 25 members. The Rural designation allowed for one dwelling unit per five acres. Prior to 26 1994, the subject property was zoned A-3, which would have allowed parcels as small as 27 one acre. In 1994, it was rezoned administratively to A-1. Ms. Jackson stated that the 28 request was compatible with the surrounding uses, consistent with the comprehensive 29 plan and staff recommended that the commission find it as such and forward it to county 30 council with a recommendation of approval to transmit to the Department of Economic 31 Opportunity and to the Volusia Growth Management Commission for certification. 32 33 Member Wanda Van Dam inquired what they would need to do if they wanted to subdivide 34 into smaller than five acre lots. 35 36 Ms. Jackson stated that the companion rezoning case was to rezone to A-2, which 37 required a five acre lot size. If they wanted to have lots less than five acres, they would 38 have to rezone it again. To further clarify, they could not drop below the five acre density 39 limitation unless they were in proximity to smaller lot sizes. 40 41 Member Wanda Van Dam clarified that the existing was one dwelling unit per four acres 42 adjacent to the subject property, could they go lower. 43 44 Ms. Jackson stated it did not specify that they could not go lower than that, but staff would 45 recommend the lot size be the same as what they were adjacent to. 46 47 Being that there were no further questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 48 49

Page 10 of 23

Judith A. Parks, 1311 U.S. Highway 17, Pierson. Ms. Parks did not have anything to add 1 to the staff report. 2 3 Public Participation. None. 4 5 Commission Discussion. None. 6 7 Member Edith Shelley MOVED to forward case number CPA-20-005, a Large Scale 8 Future Land Use Map Amendment from the Agricultural Resource (AR) to Rural (R) 9 designation, to county council with a recommendation of approval to transmit to 10 the Department of Economic Opportunity and to the Volusia Growth Management 11 Commission for certification. Member Frank Costa SECONDED the motion. 12 13 Motion Discussion. 14 15 Member Steve Costa provided that he was morally opposed to increasing density in a 16 rural area that did not have sewer or water in the area, knowing what septic tanks did to 17 the environment and the water supply. He stated that this property was on the edge and 18 if they kept pushing the edge to allow this person and the next, there would be no 19 boundary. He understood the property owner was in a bad position with the zoning and 20 the future land use, but he could not support it. 21 22 Chair Ronnie Mills stated that he had to disagree because there were septic systems that 23 addressed the nitrogen and phosphorus reduction to allow development in rural areas. 24 The Department of Environmental Permitting was not regulating anything over an acre 25 and above per their studies. If public utilities are brought to an area, it seemed like the 26 density got a lot greater than what was being requested. Chair Mills stated that he 27 respected his opinion, but did not agree with it. 28 29 Motion CARRIED (6:1). Member Steve Costa opposed. 30 31 Z-20-088 – Application of Samuel E. and Judith A. Parks, Jr., owners, requesting a 32 rezoning from the Prime Agriculture (A-1) classification to the Rural Agriculture (A-2) 33 zoning classification. 34 35 Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. Jackson 36 explained to the commission that the applicants were requesting a rezoning from A-1 to 37 A-2 in order to subdivide the 10.19 acre subject property into two five acre lots. The 38 current zoning required a minimum of 10 acres for the lot size. This request had a 39 companion future land use amendment case, CPA-20-005, in order to allow for a greater 40 density. Prior to 1994, the subject property was zoned A-3, which allowed for a one acre 41 lot size, but it was rezoned administratively to A-1. Ms. Jackson concluded that the 42 request met all of the criteria so staff recommended the commission forward the request 43 to county council for final action with a recommendation of approval. 44 45 Being that there were no questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 46 47 Judith A. Parks, 1311 South U.S. Highway 17, Pierson. Ms. Parks did not have anything 48 to add to the staff report. 49

Page 11 of 23

1 Public Participation. None. 2 3 Commission Discussion. None. 4 5 Member Wanda Van Dam MOVED to forward case number Z-20-088, a rezoning 6 from the Prime Agriculture (A-1) classification to the Rural Agriculture (A-2) zoning 7 classification, to county council with the recommendation of approval. Member 8 Edith Shelley SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED (6:1). Member Steve Costa 9 opposed. 10 11 V-20-075 – Application of Peter Zarcone, owner, requesting variances to the minimum 12 yard requirements on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-9) zoned property. 13 14 Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. Jackson 15 explained to the commission that the applicants were requesting to reduce the side and 16 rear yard setbacks for a proposed single-family residence. The subject property was 17 zoned R-9, which required a lot area of 7,500 square feet and a lot width of 75 feet. At 18 6,076 square feet and 62 feet wide, the parcel was nonconforming; however, it was a 19 lawful nonconforming lot. The property had a single-family residence that was 20 constructed in the 1920’s. It included a garage that straddled the property line and 21 attached to the neighbor’s garage. In March of 2018, the garage was removed and the 22 applicant purchased the property in August of 2019. The existing house was 23 nonconforming to the rear and side yards already, and in October of 2019, the applicant 24 began renovating the home without the benefit of permits. In February of 2020, after being 25 cited for construction without permits, the owner applied for after the fact permits to 26 reconstruct the house within the same footprint the house was in before he purchased it.. 27 The extent of the renovations negated the legal nonconforming status of the original 28 home; therefore, the new proposed home had to meet the current setback requirements. 29 Ms. Jackson explained that the applicant had worked with staff to minimize the requested 30 variances and the end result was an encroachment into the east side yard of 3.84 feet 31 and into the rear yard by 4.5 feet. Ms. Jackson concluded that staff recommended denial 32 of the requests for failure to meet all of the criteria for granting the variances; however, a 33 condition was provided for consideration should competent substantial evidence be 34 presented to support approval of the requests. 35 36 Being that there were no questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 37 38 Peter Zarcone, 109 Tornita Avenue, Port Orange. Mr. Zarcone explained to the 39 commission that this was his retirement home that he purchased without knowledge that 40 a variance would be necessary. He tried to reduce the variance request as much as 41 possible. 42 43 Member Jay Young provided that he was familiar with the property and opined that the 44 applicant’s plans did not seem to fit with the area. He inquired if the applicant could bring 45 the building forward that would reduce the variance request for the rear yard and widen it 46 in the front to be more in keeping with the surrounding homes. 47 48

Page 12 of 23

Mr. Zarcone provided that the front was the same and he was only re-siding over what 1 was currently there. He was trying to stay similar to the surrounding area. 2 3 Member Jay Young stated he felt it could move forward to be a bit more fitting. 4 5 Chair Ronnie Mills inquired if the applicant had been given a reason to believe that he 6 could make renovations to make the existing house inhabitable. 7 8 Mr. Zarcone provided he did not think it would be an issue to put it back as it was originally. 9 The slabs and foundation were still there and he intended to renovate it to the same 10 footprint. 11 12 Chair Ronnie Mill inquired if the applicant believed he could remodel it and be within the 13 setbacks. 14 15 Mr. Zarcone stated that he did not know what the setbacks were when he purchased it 16 and thought that if it was already there it would be grandfathered in. 17 18 Public Participation. 19 20 Dennis Iglay, 4119 South Penninsula Drive, Wilbur by the Sea. Mr. Iglay was neither for 21 nor against, he just wanted to know what was being constructed. 22 23 Member Jay Young inquired what impact the request would have on him and what side 24 he lived on. 25 26 Mr. Iglay indicated that he was on the side to the left with the other half of the original 27 garage. He indicated what Mr. Zarcone was proposing would not affect him. 28 29 Member Jay Young inquired if he felt that it fit in with the neighborhood. 30 31 Mr. Iglay provided that the home had been there for 100 years, like his, and it is just a 32 part of the neighborhood. 33 34 Member Frank Costa inquired how the current condition of the home impacted his 35 property value. 36 37 Mr. Iglay felt that once the renovation was finished, it would complement the 38 neighborhood but the current state was negatively impacting the value of his property. 39 40 Kevin Scannell, 4006 Cardinal Boulevard, Wilbur by the Sea. Mr. Scannell provided 41 written opposition to the board in regard to Mr. Zarcone’s disregard of the building codes, 42 the cutting of the mangroves, and the deterioration to the property values surrounding 43 him. 44 45 Mr. Zarcone provided that he was working to fix up the property, and wished to improve 46 the neighborhood. He stated he was a contractor and desired to fix it up himself and 47 retire there. 48 49

Page 13 of 23

Commission Discussion. 1 2 Member Edith Shelley commented that permits are needed and if they had been pulled, 3 a lot of staff’s issues would have been addressed. 4 5 Member Jay Young commented that he was not for the request and felt that the applicant 6 should have known that he needed permits. He felt that the configuration could be 7 adjusted to not impact the setbacks as much. 8 9 Chair Ronnie Mills stated that regardless of what the applicant does, he feels no one in 10 the area would be satisfied unless it were completely removed which would not be fair to 11 the owner. 12 13 Member Edith Shelley provided that he would have kept the legal nonconforming status 14 if he had gotten the proper permitting. 15 16 Member Jeffrey Bender commented that it could stay as it is which would not benefit the 17 neighborhood at all. 18 19 Member Jeffrey Bender MOVED to approve case number V-20-075, a variance to 20 reduce the east side yard from the required seven feet to 3.16 feet for a single-21 family residence and a variance to reduce the rear yard from the required 20 feet to 22 15.5 feet for a single-family residence on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-9) 23 zoned property, subject to the following condition(s): 24 25

1. These variances shall apply to the 2,798-square-foot single-family residence 26 as depicted on the variance site plan. Any enlargement or alteration which 27 increases its nonconformity shall require approval of a separate variance 28 application. 29

30 Member Edith Shelley SECONDED the motion. Motion PASSED (5:2). Members 31 Edith Shelley and Jay Young opposed. 32 33 S-20-086 – Application of Delano Demps, owner, requesting a special exception for a 34 garage apartment on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-4) zoned property. 35 36 Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. Jackson 37 explained to the commission that the applicant was requesting a special exception for a 38 garage apartment in order to construct two homes on one lot to provide affordable housing 39 options in the Spring Hill neighborhood of DeLand. The single-family residence would be 40 on the south portion of the lot and the garage apartment would be on the north portion 41 with all the applicable setbacks being met. She explained that the request met all of the 42 criteria for granting the special exception, as well as the requirements of the zoning 43 ordinance for lot coverage and accessory structure size. Therefore, staff recommended 44 approval with two conditions. 45 46 Being that there were no questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 47 48

Page 14 of 23

Delano Demps, 4105 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida. Mr. Demps had nothing to add to 1 the staff report. 2 3 Public Participation. None. 4 5 Commission Discussion. None. 6 7 Member Edith Shelley MOVED to forward case number S-20-086, a special 8 exception for a garage apartment on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-4) zoned 9 property, to county council with a recommendation of approval, subject to the 10 following conditions: 11 12

1. The special exception is limited to one garage apartment containing a 13 maximum living area of 700 square feet, pursuant to the site plan and floor 14 plans prepared by The Addison Group, dated 07/28/20. Any future expansion 15 of the structure or living area, beyond the approved footprint shall require 16 approval of a separate special exception and/or variance, building permit 17 and inspections. 18

19 2. The property owner or authorized agent(s) shall pay all required impact fees, 20

and obtain and complete all required building permits and inspections for 21 the proposed garage apartment. 22

23 Member Jeffrey Bender SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously 24 (7:0). 25 26 V-20-087 – Application of Confidential, owner, requesting a variance to the minimum yard 27 requirements on Transitional Agriculture (A-3) zoned property. 28 29 Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. Jackson 30 explained to the commission that the applicant was requesting a variance to reduce the 31 front yard setback from the required 40 feet to 25 feet for a 2,400-square-foot barn. The 32 subject property exceeded the minimum standards for the A-3 zoning classification. Even 33 though the parcel was agriculturally zoned, it did not have an agriculture exemption and 34 therefore, required the barn to meet principle structure setbacks. The property had right-35 of-ways on the north and west property lines and had a 30-foot ingress/egress easement 36 on the east. Due to the easement, the proposed structure would encroach into the 37 setback by 15 feet even though it was technically 90 feet from the property line. Ms. 38 Jackson concluded that staff recommended denial of the request for failure to meet all of 39 the criteria for granting the variance; however, a condition was provided for consideration 40 should competent substantial evidence be provided to support approval of the request. 41 42 Member Jeffrey Bender inquired if the barn could be constructed without a home being 43 on the parcel. 44 45 Ms. Jackson provided that in agricultural zoning classifications you could. The applicant 46 desired to construct the barn to apply for an agricultural exemption. 47 48

Page 15 of 23

Chair Ronnie Mills inquired about the agricultural exemption and whether or not a 1 variance was needed if there was an agriculture use in an agriculture zoning 2 classification. 3 4 Paolo Soria, Senior Assistant County Attorney, provided that there were two ways to get 5 a nonresidential farm building without having to get a variance. One was by going to the 6 property appraiser and obtaining an agricultural exemption. The other would be to have 7 an agricultural use on the property and prove that the structure is an integral part of the 8 use. Since the property was vacant, that would be why they required a variance. 9 10 Chair Ronnie Mills wanted to know if the barn was necessary to begin the use. 11 12 Mr. Soria provided that there could be an agricultural use without the structure, such as 13 prepping the land for grazing and there was no evidence of that. 14 15 Chair Ronnie Mills stated that if there was a use before the barn went in, the variance 16 would be unnecessary. 17 18 Mr. Soria answered in the affirmative. 19 20 Being that there were no further questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 21 22 Confidential. The applicant provided that they did the research before they purchased 23 the property and spoke to staff. Once they purchased the property and went to submit 24 for permits, the requirements changed. They went to the property appraiser and found 25 out how many animals would be needed for the exemption, but they didn’t have anywhere 26 to keep them at the moment which is why they were trying to get the variance to place 27 the barn first to have somewhere to protect them. They stated that if they had animals 28 out there and construction started with all the vehicles, it would tear up the pasture and 29 they would not have a place to graze. The pointed out on an aerial photo and indicated 30 the tree line that abutted up to Kicklighter Road and expressed their desire to keep that 31 privacy in place for the animals as well as their eventual home. He explained that the 32 easement was a private road that he and one other neighbor maintained, it was not 33 publicly traveled. He paid to extend city water out to the property and they are also 34 working with Duke Energy to get power out there so this was the starting point to move it 35 forward. 36 37 Member Jeffrey Bender inquired if the open space was where the home would be 38 constructed. 39 40 The applicant indicated where the barn would be and where the home would be behind 41 that. 42 43 There was a discussion about where the cul-de-sac was located and what was going on 44 with the other parcels in the cul-de-sac. The applicant indicated he was proposing to 45 place the barn where he was to keep from blocking the natural stormwater draining. 46 47 Member Jeffrey Bender inquired what would happen if they shifted the barn 15 feet to the 48 west. 49

Page 16 of 23

1 The applicant indicated there was a swell there and that’s where the stormwater flowed 2 from. He stated he was trying to be less intrusive for the neighborhood and desired to 3 keep the privacy of the existing tress. 4 5 Member Frank Costa inquired which direction the proposed home would face. 6 7 The applicant provided it would be facing more towards Kicklighter Road. 8 9 Public Participation. None. 10 11 Commission Discussion. 12 13 Chair Ronnie Mills pointed out that once the applicant was able to get the animals out 14 there, he would no longer need the variance as the agricultural use would be established. 15 16 Member Frank Costa commented that the parcel also had three front yards which was a 17 burden to the homeowner. 18 19 Member Wanda Van Dam MOVED to Approved with Conditions case number V-20-20 087, a A variance to reduce the front yard setback from the required 40 feet to 25 21 feet for a 2,400-square-foot barn, on Transitional Agriculture (A-3) zoned property, 22 subject to the following condition(s): 23 24

1. The variance shall apply to the 2,400-square-foot barn as depicted on the 25 variance site plan. Any enlargement or alteration, which increases its 26 nonconformity shall require approval of a separate variance application. 27

28 Member Edith Shelley SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (7:0). 29 30 V-20-089 – Application of David and Christine Schmelz, owners, requesting a variance to 31 separate nonconforming lots on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-4) zoned property. 32 33 Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. Jackson 34 explained to the commission that the applicants were requesting to separate 35 nonconforming lots in order to obtain a building permit for an addition to a single-family 36 residence. The parcels were platted in 1961, prior to the current R-4 classification. Both 37 were developed in 1969 and 1988 and remained in the same configuration and size since 38 they were originally platted and developed. In May of 2020, the applicants applied for a 39 building permit for an addition to their home and during the permit review, staff found that 40 there was common ownership of the parcels from 2014 to 2019 which made them unable 41 to obtain a building permit without a variance to separate the lots. Ms. Jackson concluded 42 that staff recommended approval of the request. 43 44 Being that there were no questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 45 46 David and Christine Schmelz, 107 Beau Rivage Drive, Ormond Beach. Mr. Schmelz 47 indicated that they had no idea the parcels had to be separated before they purchased 48 the home. 49

Page 17 of 23

1 Public Participation. None. 2 3 Commission Discussion. None. 4 5 Member Edith Shelley MOVED to approve case number V-20-089, a variance to 6 Section 72-206(1) of the Zoning Ordinance to separate parcel 3221-03-00-0270 from 7 parcel 3221-03-00-0280, on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-4) zoned property. 8 Member Jay Young SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (7:0). 9 10 V-20-091 – Application of Jerald A. Davis and Connie C. Wilder, owners, requesting 11 variances to the minimum yard requirements on Transitional Agriculture (A-3) zoned 12 property. 13 14 Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. Jackson 15 explained to the commission that the applicants were requesting variances to reduce the 16 west front yard from the required 40 feet to 22 feet for an existing garage, and to 11 feet 17 for an existing carport that both predated their ownership. The property exceeded the 18 minimum requirements for the A-3 zoning classification. In April of 2020, the applicant 19 applied for a building permit to install electrical service for the existing garage. During the 20 review process, it was discovered that there was not a permit for the garage or the carport 21 and after the fact permits were now needed. Accessory structures within agricultural 22 zoning classifications were required to meet principle structure setbacks if there was not 23 an agricultural exemption. An ingress/egress easement traversed the western property 24 line which is where the setback was to be measured from. The garage was 44 feet from 25 the property line, but 22 feet from the easement, while the carport was 11 feet from the 26 easement line. Ms. Jackson concluded that staff recommended denial of the requests 27 for failure to meet one of the five criteria for granting the variances; however, conditions 28 were provided for consideration should competent substantial evidence be presented to 29 support approval of the requests. 30 31 Being that there were no questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 32 33 Connie Wilder-Davis, 466 Shaw Lake Road, Pierson. Ms. Davis provided that they 34 purchased the property and were unaware the structures were not permitted. They were 35 working with a contractor in order to bring everything up to code. 36 37 Public Participation. None. 38 39 Commission Discussion. None. 40 41 Member Jay Young MOVED to approve case number V-20-091, a variance to reduce 42 the west front yard from the required 40 feet to 22 feet for an existing garage and a 43 variance to reduce the west front yard from the required 40 feet to 11 feet for an 44 existing metal carport on transitional agriculture (A-3) zoned property, subject to 45 the following conditions: 46 47

1. The applicant shall obtain an after-the-fact building permit for the structures 48 within 90 days of the date of rendition of this variance. 49

Page 18 of 23

1 2. The variance shall apply to the existing garage and metal carport as depicted 2

on the variance site plan. Any enlargement or alteration that increases its 3 nonconformity shall require approval of a separate variance application. 4

5 3. If the existing structures are removed or damaged by any cause or means 6

exceeding 50% of their assessed value as determined by the Property 7 Appraiser of Volusia County, Florida, immediately prior to the damage, any 8 reconstruction of these accessory structures shall thereafter comply with 9 the applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, or obtain approval for 10 a new variance. 11

12 Member Wanda Van Dam SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously 13 (7:0). 14 15 Z-20-092 – Application of Michael Woods, attorney for Gregory T. and Lisa G. Ramsby, 16 owners, requesting a rezoning from the Commercial Marina (B-7) classification to the 17 Urban Single-Family Residential (R-3) zoning classification. 18 19 Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. Jackson 20 explained to the commission that the applicant was requesting to rezone two acres of a 21 12.11 acre parcel from the B-7 classification to the R-3 zoning classification. Historically, 22 the parcel contained a restaurant, built in 1959. New owners purchased the property in 23 October of 2019 and applied for demolition permits in January of 2020 for the restaurant 24 building. They wanted to rezone the two acre piece in order for it to be consistent with 25 the rest of the property. A single-family residence was constructed in 1977 on the R-3 26 portion of the property. She explained that the surrounding properties to the north, west 27 and south were all zoned R-3 as well making it a more compatible classification than the 28 B-7. Ms. Jackson concluded that the request met all of the criteria for a rezoning and 29 staff recommended forwarding the rezoning application to county council for final action 30 with a recommendation of approval. 31 32 Being that there were no questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 33 34 Michael Woods, Cobb Cole, 231 North Woodland Boulevard, DeLand. Mr. Woods 35 provided that this was really just a housekeeping request in order to make the zoning 36 consistent for the whole parcel. 37 38 Public Participation. None. 39 40 Commission Discussion. None. 41 42 Member Jeffrey Bender MOVED to forward case number Z-20-092, a rezoning from 43 the Commercial Marina (B-7) classification to the Urban Single-family Residential 44 (R-3) zoning classification, to county council with a recommendation of approval. 45 Member Edith Shelley SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (7:0). 46 47

Page 19 of 23

V-20-093 – Application of Peter Ferrentino, owner, requesting a variance to separate 1 nonconforming lots and to minimum yard requirements on Transitional Agriculture (A-3) 2 zoned property. 3 4 Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. Jackson 5 explained to the commission that the applicant was requesting variances to separate 6 nonconforming lots and to reduce the front yard setback from the required 40 feet to 37 7 feet for a proposed single-family residence. The applicant purchased the subject property 8 in October of 2019 and discovered it was nonconforming while submitting permits to 9 construct a single-family residence. While the subject parcel was vacant, the second 10 parcel had a single-family residence already, and both lots were nonconforming. The 11 subject property was a corner lot with setbacks of 40 feet in the two front yards and 25 12 feet in the two side yards. The proposed home met the requirements for three of the 13 setbacks, but the garage would encroach three feet into the south front yard. Ms. Jackson 14 concluded that staff recommended approval of the variance to separate nonconforming 15 lots as it met all of the criteria for granting the request. Staff recommended denial of the 16 request to reduce the front yard setback for failure to meet two of the five criteria for 17 granting the variance; however, conditions were provided for consideration should 18 competent substantial evidence be presented to support approval of the request. 19 20 Being that there were no questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 21 22 Peter Ferrentio, 1305 Jane Avenue. Mr. Ferrentio explained to the commission that when 23 he purchased the property, it was advertised as being zoned R-1. He submitted plans for 24 a home that was 1,435 square feet of living space. He found out it was A-3 once he 25 submitted his permits. He shifted the house back as much as possible in order to meet 26 the requirements; however, it would cost him a substantial amount of money to get the 27 plans re-done in order to meet the setbacks. 28 29 Public Participation. 30 31 Mike French, 5840 West Street, DeLeon Springs. Mr. French expressed concerns for 32 unnecessary development and congestion in the area. 33 34 Member Frank Costa inquired if he was against the variance request or the home being 35 built at all. 36 37 Mr. French clarified that since the property was not even an acre in size and the request 38 was in violation of the code, he was concerned that would open the door to allow for 39 others to request the same. 40 41 Tim Bradley, 5815 West Street, DeLeon Springs. Mr. Bradley felt the parcel was small to 42 be building on for the area. 43 44 Jacob Wilkerson, 1265 Arredondo Grant Road, DeLeon Springs. Mr. Wilkerson provided 45 that he was concerned about the division of the property since the surrounding area had 46 large lots and farms. The people that purchased the other property had believed they 47 purchased the subject property as well. The community as a whole was not happy about 48 a home going in where it did not fit. 49

Page 20 of 23

1 Chair Ronnie Mills clarified that the properties had already been split and were under 2 different ownership already. There were personal property rights to be able to do 3 something with it. If it were under common ownership currently, it probably would not 4 come to that. 5 6 Chair Ronnie Mills inquired of the applicant if there was a for sale sign on the parcel. 7 8 Mr. Ferrentino provided it was listed on the MLS. 9 10 Chair Ronnie Mills clarified that the adjacent owner could have purchased it. 11 12 Mr. Ferrentino answered in the affirmative. He went on to explain that the only reason he 13 was having to get a variance to the setback was because he had a corner lot which made 14 the setback greater. He wanted to build an attractive home, but acknowledged it was of 15 average size because he did not want it to be too small. 16 17 Commission Discussion. 18 19 Member Steve Costa clarified that the applicant could construct a home with or without 20 the setback variance, it would just need to be smaller. 21 22 Ms. Jackson provided that it would be subject to the separation of nonconforming lots. 23 24 Chair Ronnie Mills stated that he understood the neighbor’s concerns. He felt the issue 25 was not the variance so much as building on the lot as a whole. They had to protect 26 private property rights though. 27 28 Member Frank Costa commented the separation of lots was housekeeping at this point 29 since the lots were under separate ownership. He understood the concern, but felt that 30 a smaller home would impact the area in a negative way for property values. He did not 31 have an issue with the request as it was only three feet, not 25. 32 33 Member Steve Costa commented that a larger home would be consistent with the 34 neighborhood. 35 36 Member Frank Costa MOVED to approve case number V-20-093, a variance to 37 Section 72-206(1) of the Zoning Ordinance to separate parcel 6005-05-91-0250 from 38 parcel 6005-05-91-0290 and a variance to reduce the south front yard from the 39 required 40 feet to 37 feet for a new single-family residence on Transitional 40 Agriculture (A-3) zoned property, subject to the following conditions: 41 42

1. The applicant shall complete the subdivision exemption application to 43 combine Lots 25 through 28, Block 91, DeLeon Springs Heights, 5th Division 44 to create a unified building parcel. 45

46 2. The variance shall apply to the 2,062-square-foot single-family residence as 47

depicted on the variance site plan attached to this report. The proposed 48 build footprint shall not be enlarged, increased, or extended further to 49

Page 21 of 23

encroach or occupy any greater area of the property not in compliance with 1 this variance or without approval of a separate variance, and/or building 2 permits and inspections. 3

4 Member Jay Young SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (7:0). 5 6 OLD BUSINESS 7 8 None. 9 10 OTHER PUBLIC ITEMS 11 12 None. 13 14 STAFF ITEMS 15 16 Ms. Jackson stated that one of the board members was being requested to volunteer join 17 the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. 18 19 Chair Ronnie Mills stated that Member Jeffrey Bender had expressed he would like to be 20 considered for the matter. 21 22 Member Jeffrey Bender answered in the affirmative. 23 24 Mr. Soria provided that a physical quorum would be necessary after October 1, 2020 25 when the governor’s order ran out. The members would not be able to participate virtually 26 unless they had a medical emergency. 27 28 STAFF COMMENTS 29 30 None. 31 32 COMMISSION COMMENTS 33 34 Member Wanda Van Dam inquired what regulations were in place to prevent lots to be 35 separated and sold that did not meet the minimum requirements. 36 37 Ms. Jackson stated that anyone could split their properties and sell it off, which was legal 38 to do. That did not mean there was a right to build on it if it did not meet the minimum 39 requirements. There were antiquated plats that were platted a long time ago that required 40 the lots to be combined. There was nothing staff could do to prevent anyone from selling 41 a property of any size. If someone called, then staff would deter them from splitting the 42 lots; however, that was rare. 43 44 Member Wanda Van Dam was concerned because she doesn’t want anyone to think they 45 were not doing anything about it. 46 47

Page 22 of 23

Mr. Soria provided that staff could not control the buying and selling of property. The 1 jurisdiction they had was whether or not to issue building permits. The plats predated the 2 zoning regulations so the pieces of land had parcel numbers and people think they can 3 just go ahead and build on it but then they get told at the permit submittal that they cannot. 4 There is only so much information they can push out. 5 6 Member Edith Shelley was surprised to find that the adjoining property owners assumed 7 it was theirs. 8 9 Member Frank Costa stated they could not deny the property owner their right to build on 10 their property. 11 12 Ms. Jackson stated that the reality was that the whole area was not built to the A-3 13 standards, it was more along the lines of R-4. 14 15 Chair Ronnie Mills commented that a lot of areas were zoned and changed during the 16 uniform zoning ordinance that should not have gotten the zoning they ended up with. 17 18 Ms. Jackson answered in the affirmative and stated that it had to do with the 19 comprehensive plan and needing the zoning to match with that. 20 21 Member Jay Young pointed out that happened beachside as well. 22 23 PRESS AND CITIZEN COMMENTS 24 25 None. 26

ADJOURNMENT 27 28 Having no further comments from the public, staff, or commissioners, Chair Ronnie Mills 29 thanked everyone and adjourned the meeting at 12:41 p.m. 30

Page 23 of 23

COMMISSION PRESENT:STAFF PRESENT:PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEAPPROVAL OF MINUTESLEGAL COMMENTDisclosure of Ex Parte Communications

ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWNNEW BUSINESSMember Jay Young SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (7:0).OLD BUSINESSOTHER PUBLIC ITEMSSTAFF ITEMSSTAFF COMMENTSCOMMISSION COMMENTSPRESS AND CITIZEN COMMENTSADJOURNMENT