Page 1 of 8

GROWTH AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITY 123 W. Indiana Avenue, DeLand, FL 32720 (386) 943-7059 PUBLIC HEARING: June 11, 2013 Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission (PLDRC) CASE NO: V-13-023 SUBJECT: Variances to separate lots, reduce the minimum lot size, and minimum

required yards for an existing structure and proposed mobile home on Prime Agriculture (A-1) and Resource Corridor (RC) zoned property.

LOCATION: 488 Ranchette Road, New Smyrna Beach. OWNERS: Carlos and Marilyn Perez STAFF: Susan Jackson, AICP, Planner III I. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant requests variances to separate lots, the minimum lot size in the A-1 zoning classification, and to reduce the minimum front yard requirements for an existing structure and a proposed mobile home on their property located at 488 Ranchette Road, New Smyrna Beach. The existing structure is a modular classroom building that has been converted into a single-family dwelling. The proposed structure is a new mobile home that will replace the modular building as their dwelling once it is properly permitted and installed. The requested variances are as follows: Variance 1: A variance to section 72-206(1) Nonconforming lot to separate parcel 7230-00-00-0460 from parcel 7230-00-00-0030; and, Variance 2: A variance to minimum lot size from the required 10 acres to 2.6 acres in the Prime Agriculture (A-1) zoning classification; and, Variance 3: A variance for a west front yard from the required 100 feet to 30.38 feet for an existing modular building (Building #1); and, Variance 4: A variance for a south front yard from the required 100 feet to 36.44 feet for an existing modular building (Building #1); and, Variance 5: A variance for a west front yard from the required 100 feet to 86 feet for a proposed mobile home dwelling (Building #2); and, Variance 6: A variance for a south front yard from the required 100 feet to 39 feet for a proposed mobile home dwelling (Building #2) on Prime Agriculture (A-1) and Resource Corridor (RC) zoned property. Staff recommendation: Approval, subject to staff recommended conditions.

Page 2 of 8

II. SITE INFORMATION 1. Location: The property is located on the west side of Ranchette Road,

approximately 330 feet south of its intersection with Cedar Road, in the Florida Farm Acres subdivision, near Samsula.

2. Parcel No(s): 7230-00-00-0460 3. Property Size: ±4.90 acres 4. Council District: 3 5. Zoning: A-1 and RC 6. Future Land Use: AR and ESC 7. ECO Overlay: No 8. NRMA Overlay: Yes 9. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:

10. Location Maps:

FLU MAP ZONING MAP III. BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS ACTIONS The Perezes are seeking several variances to resolve outstanding code compliance issues and allow the processing of building permits associated with the development of their property. This application includes a variance to section 72-206 (1) Nonconforming lot to separate their parcel from the adjacent parcel to the north. They are also seeking a variance to the minimum lot size in

DIRECTION ZONING FUTURE LAND USE CURRENT USE North: A-1 and RC AR and ESC

Vacant/wooded

East: A-1 AR Sod Farm

South: A-1 and RC AR and ESC Single-family- Ranchette

West: A-1 and RC AR and ESC

Single-family- Ranchette

Page 3 of 8

the A-1 zoning classification, and variances to front yard requirements for one existing structure and one proposed structure on their property located at 488 Ranchette Road. The existing structure is a modular mobile classroom building that has been converted into their home (Building #1). The proposed structure is a new mobile home (Building #2). Once the new mobile home is properly permitted and installed, it will become their residence and the existing classroom building will be converted into a storage building. The new mobile home is required to meet the same zoning conditions as the modular classroom building and, therefore, requires the same variances. The Perezes purchased the property in January 2007, and soon thereafter placed the modular classroom building on their property to be used as their home. Internal renovations have been made to create bedrooms, and a kitchen/dining room, and front porch have been added to the original structure. Building permits were not obtained prior to the placement of the building, nor for any of the renovations. The Perezes have been cited for building without a permit and are attempting to rectify this violation. In order to issue the building permit for the existing structure, the zoning requirements must first be met. The lot does not meet the minimum lot size for the A-1 classification, and the placement of the classroom building is within the required setbacks. At the same time that the Perezes are trying to permit their existing home, they are also trying to permit a new mobile home. The variances required to permit both buildings are discussed below. Variance 1 – Lot Separation: Prior to June 4, 1992 the subject property was zoned A-2, which requires a 5 acre minimum lot size. The lot, although intended to be 5 acres, measures 4.90 acres and is therefore considered nonconforming. A nonconforming lot, if owned in common with an adjoining property, must be maintained as one parcel with the adjoining property in order to meet minimum lot size standards. In this case, the lot was under common ownership with the adjoining lot to the north until it was sold on January 7, 1988. As a result, for the lot to be eligible for a building permit, a variance to this requirement is needed in order to formally separate the lots. Variance 2 – Lot Size: The subject lot is currently split zoned with Prime Agriculture (A-1) and Resource Corridor (RC). In cases of split zoning with the RC classification, the lot must meet the minimum standards of the other zoning classification. The A-1 requires a 10 acre minimum lot size. In this case, the A-1 accounts for 2.6 acres and the RC for 2.3 acres, of the total 4.90-acre parcel. The variance request is to reduce the minimum lot size from 10 acres to 2.6 acres in the A-1 zoning classification. Variance 3 - 6: The subject lot has three front yards because it is located adjacent to three (3) street right-of-ways. In the A-1 zoning classification, the front yard is required to be 100 feet. The variance request is to reduce the 100-foot front yard requirement on two (2) sides of the property as follows:

Building #1 (Variance #2) From the required 100 feet to 30.38 feet on the western side. (Variance #3) From the required 100 feet to 36.44 feet on the southern side.

Building #2 (Variance #4) From the required 100 feet to 86 feet on the western side. (Variance #5) From the required 100 feet to 39 feet on the southern side.

IV. REVIEW CRITERIA AND ANAYLSIS Section 72-379(1)a.4 Variances of the zoning code contains five applicable criteria by which a variance application may be granted. The following staff evaluation is based on these criteria:

Page 4 of 8

i. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, sign, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, signs, or buildings in the same zoning classification. Variance #1 and 2: Special circumstances peculiar to this property do exist that have created the need for these variances. This lot is part of the unrecorded plat “Florida Farm Acres”, which was subdivided in December 1980 into 48 lots ranging in size from 5 to 20 acres. The zoning at the time of the subdivision was Rural Agriculture (A-2), which requires a minimum lot size of 5 acres. The legal descriptions of the lots within the subdivision are metes and bounds descriptions, based on section lines. Thus, although the intent of the legal description for this lot is for it to be a 5-acre rectangular lot, measuring 660 feet by 330 feet, the physical measurement is .09 acres short of the 5 acres. The metes and bounds legal description does not match the true physical measurements of the land. This deficiency renders this lot nonconforming to the original A-2 zoning classification. In accordance with section 72-206 (1) of the Zoning Code, if the lot does not meet minimum lot size standards, and was previously owned in common with an adjoining property, it must be maintained in common ownership in order to meet minimum lot size standards. At the time of subdivision, Florida Farm Acres, Inc. owned this lot and the adjacent lot to the north. Florida Farm Acres, Inc. sold the subject lot in January 1988. The lot has since been resold and the current owners, Carlos and Marylyn Perez, purchased it in January 2007. In order for the lot to be considered a legal nonconforming lot, and to be able to obtain building permits for the lot, a variance to section 72-206(1) is needed. This application meets this criterion for granting the requested variance. Variance #2: The applicants are also seeking a variance to lot size. In June 1992, the subdivision, including this lot, was administratively rezoned from the Rural Agriculture (A-2) zoning classification to Prime Agriculture (A-1) and Resource Corridor (RC) zoning classifications. In cases of split zoning with the RC classification, the lot must meet the minimum standards of the other zoning classification. The A-1 requires a 10-acre minimum lot size. In this case, the A-1 accounts for 2.6 acres and the RC for 2.3 acres, of the total 4.90-acre parcel. The variance request is to reduce the minimum lot size from 10 acres to 2.6 acres in the A-1 zoning classification. If the lot had met the 5 acre minimum of the A-2 classification as the legal description intended at the time of subdivision, this variance would not have been needed as the lot would have been considered legal nonconforming and building permits could have been issued. However, because the lot’s physical land measurements are shy of the previous minimum 5 acres requirement, the lot separation is required; and because of the administrative rezoning the lot size variance is needed in order to remedy the nonconformities of this lot. This application meets this criterion for granting the requested variance. Variances #3 - #6: This parcel is unique in that it is bounded on three (3) sides by 50-foot wide ingress/egress easements, and therefore, is required to provide three (3) front yards measured from the easements. For the purposes of this request, the front yards for which the variances are being sought are to the south and west property lines. In the A-1 classification, the minimum front yard is 100 feet. Additionally, even though the legal description of the lot extends to the centerline of the easements, the setback is measured from the edge of the easement, rather than the property line. As a result, the buildable area of the lot is reduced by 25 feet on three (3) sides. The west and south easements are vacant, wooded and fenced, and function as part of the lot. They are not open to the traveling public. In examining the subdivision legal description, it appears that every lot is bounded by these easements, even though very few of them will ever actually function as access.

Page 5 of 8

Further reduction of the buildable area occurs because of the 2.3 acres of RC zoning that is situated in the middle of the lot. There is a sliver of A-1 area on the eastern side that is not large enough to accommodate the residential structures. The larger portion of A-1 is located on the western side of the lot where Building #1 is located and where the proposed mobile home will be located. This area is not considered wetlands, but it is in the floodplain. The location of the home sites was chosen because it was the most suitable portion of the lot to place the septic system and occupied structures. There are also special conditions and circumstances peculiar to the building involved because the modular structure is already located in the required west and south front yard area. An after-the-fact building permit is required since the owner failed to obtain a permit to install the structure. However, the structure does not comply with the applicable front yard setbacks and must obtain variances to proceed with the county building permit review process. The new mobile home dwelling is planned to be placed adjacent to the modular structure for ease of connection to existing on-site utilities. The two structures cannot feasibly be shifted on the lot due to the location of existing property improvements, such as a power pole and meter, water well and accessory structures. This application meets this criterion for granting the requested variances. ii. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Variance #1 and #2: The special condition is not a result of the actions of the applicant. The property was intended to be subdivided into a 5-acre parcel and was zoned A-2 at that time. It was administratively rezoned to A-1 and RC by the County in 1992. This application meets this criterion for granting the requested variances. Variances #3 - #6: The applicants are responsible for placing the modular building on the lot without benefit of a permit. The special conditions of the property are not a result of the actions of the applicant. The requirement for three (3) front yards measured from the easements is also not a result of the applicant’s actions. This application can meet this criterion for granting the requested variances with conditions. iii. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning classification, under the terms of the ordinance, and would work an unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant.

Page 6 of 8

Variance #1 and #2: Literal interpretation of lot size for either the previous A-2 or the current A-1 zoning classifications would prohibit construction on this lot. The intent at the time of subdivision was that this would be a buildable 5-acre lot. Thus, literal interpretation of this ordinance would create unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. This application meets this criterion for granting the requested variances. Variances #3 - #6: Literal interpretations of the code, in this case, will work an undue hardship to the owners to realign and move the existing modular residential unit and relocate the proposed mobile home unit on the parcel given the location of existing utility connections and accessory structures. This application meets this criterion for granting the requested variances. iv. The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, structure, or sign. Variance #1 and #2: These are the minimum variances that will allow the existing modular structure to remain in place without modification. This application meets this criterion for granting the requested variances. Variances #3 and #4: The existing modular building has existed in its present location for five (5) years. The owners added a dining room/kitchen addition and a front porch. It is connected to a septic system located to the rear (south) of the building that was permitted by the Health Department in 2008. The variance request is the minimum needed to allow the structure to stay in its current location. However, a condition of approval must be added to ensure that this building will revert from a single-family residence to storage use only, once the proposed mobile home is properly permitted. This application meets this criterion for granting the requested variances. Variances #5 and #6: The proposed location for the new mobile home is due to its proximity to the existing septic tank. This will allow the property owners to utilize the existing septic, rather than installing a new one. The location of the home sites was chosen because it was the most suitable portion of the lot to place the septic system and occupied structures. This location avoids wetland impact; however, the applicant will be required to mitigate wetland buffer impacts at the time of permitting. This application meets this criterion for granting the requested variances. v. The grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this ordinance and the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. 90-10, as amended, and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved. Variance #1 and #2: The objective of the subdivision was to provide for the development of home sites and small farm/ranchettes on 5-acre lots or larger. Granting the variances to separate lots to meet A-2 zoning standards, and to reduce the lot size to meet the A-1 zoning standards, will be in harmony with the development pattern of the area, the general intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. This application meets this criterion for granting the requested variances.

Page 7 of 8

Variances #3 - #6: Based on the original A-2 zoning of the property, granting the variance to the setbacks for both structures will provide for reasonable development and be in harmony with the development pattern of the area, the general intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. This application meets this criterion for granting the requested variances.

V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the requested variances 1 through 6 can meet all five (5) criteria with conditions. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the following: Variance 1: A variance to section 72-206 (1) Nonconforming lot to separate parcel 7230-00-00-0460 from parcel 7230-00-00-0030; and, Variance 2: A variance to minimum lot size from the required 10 acres to 2.6 acres in the Prime Agriculture (A-1) zoning classification; and, Variance 3: A variance for a west front yard from the required 100 feet to 30.38 feet for an existing modular building (Building #1); and, Variance 4: A variance for a south front yard from the required 100 feet to 36.44 feet for an existing modular building (Building #1); and, Variance 5: A variance for a west front yard from the required 100 feet to 86 feet for a proposed mobile home dwelling (Building #2); and, Variance 6: A variance for a south front yard from the required 100 feet to 39 feet for a proposed mobile home dwelling (Building #2) on Prime Agriculture (A-1) and Resource Corridor (RC) zoned property, subject to the following conditions:

1. Variances 3-6 (the west and south front yard variances) apply only to the existing one-story modular structure (Building #1) and the proposed mobile home dwelling (Building #2) as shown and labeled on the enclosed variance site plan/property survey prepared by Atlantic Surveying Inc., received via email dated May 3, 2013. Any future expansion of the either structure beyond the current and proposed footprint, and not in compliance with the A-1 zoning classification requirements shall require a separate variance.

2. If Building #1 is damaged by more than 75 percent of its building value as assessed by the

Volusia County Property Appraiser, any reconstruction or replacement of the modular structure shall comply with current county code requirements.

3. The structure on the property labeled “Building #1 existing modular structure” as shown on

the enclosed variance site plan, shall be converted to a storage building when the proposed mobile home dwelling is permitted. This structure shall not be used as or converted into a dwelling and shall not include a kitchen as defined by the zoning code.

4. The property owner(s) or authorized agent(s) shall obtain and complete all required building

permits, development approvals, and inspections for the existing modular structure and proposed mobile home dwelling as shown on enclosed variance plan, within 180 days of the date of variance rendition, unless the property owner(s) requests and is granted an extension by the Zoning Enforcement Official.

Page 8 of 8

VI. ATTACHMENTS

Application Boundary survey Site Plan Florida Farm Acres Plat and Easements Environmental Management Comments Maps Photographs

VII. AUTHORITY AND PROCEDURE The commission may, except as otherwise provided in Section 72-379 of the zoning code, authorize, after due public notice upon application on a form prescribed by the zoning enforcement official, such variance or variances from the terms of this ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest when, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provision of this ordinance would result in unnecessary and undue hardship. Said variance application shall be heard only if it is presented by the person owning 51 percent or more of the specific area of land involved or upon an administrative application by the county council.

Any new information to be presented at the planning and land development regulation commission meeting for any application will be grounds to continue an application to the next planning and land development regulation commission meeting. Applicants shall inform and provide staff with the new information prior to the planning and land development regulation commission meeting.

AMENDMENTS, (IF ANY) ARE REVISIONS, RECERTIFICATION

A S

JAMES H. BENNETT, FLA. P.L.S. # 4974 FLA. LB # 5611

TLANTIC URVEYING

NOTED ABOVE

Received via email May 3, 2013

llc:realOruld hit end, ,to~o,ll othor' pal'Cltla of acrea • ." in' Section s'20, lO,and3 r. . - -. "- -, .'". - . .' - - -~

of Township 11. South. Rango 52 E4~t, Voli.1sinCounty. florida B'1id ';asgrantcdto

tho purcnssers thereof certain RIGIIT OF WAY'EASE~lENTSand does Intend,to grant

to 5ubs!!quent purc;has~rs5illlilar JUr.11T ,OFlI'AY EA~mNTS.,forthc;PIJii>ose11f in-

tress and Ogrc5~ to and (vrthoir tracts of land.

. ",- .:-:;

~lOij niERE,FORE:f'!oridaRanchCltto5, Inc., docs,'hcrebYlIrant t rans fe r' .and set

over to the owtletTS. 'mid, to': those per-sons who have a proprietary i'!tcrest in land'-s i tuat.ed in the allOY!! lIes,cribild sect Ions., a perpetualri~ht of war ease1l\C;.rt for"

'ingro!'s and .eg re ss or toaaw~y purpose over 3 3S foo,t stdp,.',on ,the' North., l.as t ,

South and l~est5ide5 of Sections 20, 30, 3i anu t,heWe:5t 'S'lde of Section, 17 I)'in!!. '. ~.

South of St;1te'Road 44 (40). TO_'f1ship 17' South, kiln!!c32f.;!st. Vo'u~i;i'COUII~?,', "

rIori,!',,; also over and acio's~".'SO foot strips' runnl~I:"orth' al\.J,' South the ,cr.t'irc

Jcng t h of the "hove sections (with the excep t ion of 17). ilt 'one si~tec~tli, one

eighth, three s ixtecnt ns , one quarter; five sixteenths, thri:e:'c.i~ht'hsi seven,

sixteenth". one ha Lf , nine, s ix t ecnt bs , fivc eighths,eleven ',;ixn,c~tlir.i', fhree 'i'.'~r'-

t cr s , thirteen .sixi cent hs , seven eiJ:hths and f i f tccn is r xtecn ths ; 's cc tiou Ijl';(:~'rc-

spe ct ivc Iy ; a Lso over ant.! across SO fuo t s t.r ips runn inp Ea~t: and h'est." the i.cnt i r c

lcn~th of ",aid sc c t i ons (with the cxcc nt ion of Sect ion 17) on the on~',,'ei;:hth, one

section lines resrcctivclr.

In ~'itncss ",,-hereof. Floric.l.a Hanchcttcs, lnc .•, Ita!'! caused these pre-sent'S to

be ,signed, in its n:Jr.1Cby its p rope r officers and its cor-po rn t i on s"aj to 1,(, ;d't'i,;:c,:

this oay of _ ••L,-",,.2..=--U_'_' __ ,JW'c. 19{,~.

(COIWORATE SI'M,)

A ttC$l'..,t2 .nt.a1"t, a h ad1f-ec re rary

5i gned. sea 1ell and de Ii vercd in the presence [If us:

'J-,r-a 'nI s ,/

~---------- - - - - '

- -- --------------------.

STAn: elf FLORIn •••}, , , )

COHN TY or llAOt: ,)

~. . -. .

-'IPs' 451".50S',

Id4y of ~A.D." 1962

;/before "'C pe r sonat Iy 3PPCOfCd JI:n"fy Gonion on,' 'Ilonna llr'ady,Prc5id~nt and secre-

illREHY (lRT: 1''1', thl',t on this

tllr), r'c spcc t Ivc l y of FLORIDA RANpa:l'll:s. 11K., a ,(orporation ~n<ler the laws of'

the State of F1ur id",toe".c k~(I\lIlto' be the pe rscns who lIIgnod the 10 r,el:oim: In-

stn~cllt 'lS~tld; officers ,undsevctaJ/)' ~(j(no"lcdgctl .the nltJlculion, thereof .zo be, ,

t he r r r ree act and dc.id iJS such 'officc'rs for'thc USes amI purposes tllcretn,',!lIen-

t iouc d ;mJ thatthcy, affixedthcrtito the official seal of 5:11d corporation, ;l/;J

that t/rt· ~njd .i ns t runen t is the act and deed of ~!tJc! corpoT1ltion.,

:I~'commi ss ion cxp i r es :

~\. . )

'.j',L~_j.~\d#~, ,-- ---" ..'

••fl{ ',4,,". \ _ o: _-,po'.- l~ ,'~",," ,.~,' '

~~ ,: ", t( -~ ••

k; .

Inter-Office Memorandum

TO: Susan Jackson, Planner III DATE: May 13, 2013 FROM: Danielle Dangleman, Environmental Specialist III SUBJECT: Planning & Land Development Regulation Commission meeting for Date: June 11, 2013 Parcel #: 7230-00-00-0460 Case #: V-13-023 Environmental Permitting (EP) inspected this parcel on 5/10/2013. There is a Cypress Swamp wetland system that runs north and south through the center of the property. This wetland has a 50 foot buffer associated with it because it is in the Natural Resource Management Area. The wetland has been left undisturbed, but a portion of the buffer has been filled in to the east of the portable structure with shell for the Mobile Home the applicant would like to place on the property. This fill is in the wetland buffer. The area this alteration covers is approximately 2,900 square feet. EP has no objection to this variance as long as the applicant applies for a Wetland Alteration Permit and pays the fees that are associated with the fill in the buffer. If the applicant does not want to apply for the permit, the fill pad must be removed from the wetland buffer.

Photo facing south and west easements/property lines. Septic mound on left side of photo. Photo taken from rear of existing modular building toward the south west. White pole in background is the southwest property corner. Photo taken from front of existing modular building looking southeast. Gravel area is where proposed mobile home is to be located.

Photo taken from rear of modular building, standing on septic mound, looking east. Gravel is proposed location of new mobile home. Photo taken from front of existing modular structure, looking northeast. Photo of rear of existing modular building, looking east. Septic mound on left side of photo.

Photo of rear of existing modular building and septic mound, looking north. Photo of electric power and well equipment in front of existing modular unit.