This page is designed to view on a laptop/PC/TV screen, not a cell phone.
Most pictures clickable to open larger in new window to be readable.

Volusia County Administration/Zoning/Code Enforcement Corruption
Examples of lack of code knowledge or intentional negligence.

11/8/19- received response from S. Ashley the Accessory Structure size limits were amended in 2004 (zoning ordinance 2004-20).
Prior to that, Ashley says 35 foot height, no size limit applied. Pity the person who lived next door whose objections were ignored.
Will see if ordinance details available online and revise page. The other errors/deficiencies in passing this permit still stand.
Plus later addition of electric/plumbing without permits and use as living space, were openly allowed by inspectors.

How Volusia County Administrative employees disregarded the Codes they are paid to enforce.
Allowing a 34 foot tall, 1,200 sqft accessory building in an R-4 zone (max 15 ft height and 500 sqft area).

In middle of residential neighborhood on the Ormond Beach peninsula.

Code 72-277 Accessory building size limits (R-4 Zone):
The maximum height for an accessory structure is 15 feet.
Only one building over 500 square feet is allowed on a lot.
Accessory building sqft cannot exceed 50% of principal building sqft.

The home at 47 Brooks Dr is under 800 sqft, accessory building over 1,200 sqft and 34 feet tall.

Feb 1999- Homeowner applied for a Permit to add 12x24 to existing 12x24 garage.
Expanded garage would be 24x24 (576 sqft), should have been rejected for exceeding 50% of principal building.
Only the survey/site plan was submitted, no required architectual drawings of the planned 2-car garage.
The application also indicates no electric or plumbing would be installed.

April 1999- Permit 19990211028 Issued
For "12x24 addition to garage", issued without architectual drawings for Zoning review.
Should not have been issued without drawings and the non-compliant 576 sqft total area.

Notice of Commencement was not posted until October, after the 12x24 expansion was done.

October 6, 1999- Architect affidavit (and Notice of Commencement posted)
Homeowner blocked inspectors from property during construction (neighbor reported construction deficiencies).
Architect's affidavit states that "construction was done according to my plans, specifications and design".
Means the 12x24 expansion was completed before the 10/6/99 Notice of Commencement was posted.
Still no actual architectual drawings submitted (first drawings on file dated 3/7/2000).

October 1999-March 2000- 2nd story construction
After 576 sqft garage was completed, homeowner requested adding an attic space and cathedral roof.
Zoning rejected the revision because the attic wall's west setback was under 5 feet from property line.

With the proposed cathedral roof, the revised "single-story" building would have been close to 30 feet tall.
Now both the 15 foot height and 500 square foot limits for accessory buildings were being "missed" by Zoning.

The as-built 24x24 garage was about 12 feet high, a simple 3 foot increase would have matched the 15 foot limit.
Homeowner may have been told 3 foot attic would be ok, but then added a high-pitched roof (and built full 2nd story).

The homeowner claims the revision to add an attic (and high-pitched roof) was accepted, then denied.
Nothing indicates the attic/roof change was initially "accepted", the homeowner will fabricate any storyline he can
to convince people something "wasn't his fault" and actually built the full 2nd story (far exceeding the "attic" plans).
Drawings with the "attic" were not even created until March 2000, after the full 2nd story's initial construction.

Note how the homeowner chose a high-pitched roof which does not match his or adjacent homes.
The homeowner had been friends with the 49 Brooks homeowner in 1997/1998, until the 2nd story was started.
The 47 Brooks Dr homeowner then began a campaign of harassment against the next-door neighbor.

Because the lots are only 56 feet wide, the 34 foot tall, 24 foot long building
(5 feet from fence), blocks most of the eastern view from the back yard of 49 Brooks Dr.
The 47 Brooks Dr homeowner made the building excessively tall to cause harm to the other homeowner
whose civil rights included the expectation of the County to apply the 15 foot height limit for accessory buildings.

March 10, 2000, the County posted a "Stop Work Order"
For "work not proceeding per reviewed plans" and expired permit.
The first architectural drawings were dated March 7, 2000 but were for 1-story with attic.
The 2-story building was structurally complete with 1,152 total sqft area and 34 foot height.
The 15 foot height and 500 square foot limits were never mentioned.

July 21, 2000 Architectural Drawings
Based on the 2-story structure built months before "plans" drawn. Does not reflect actual construction or show height.
Garage west wall is original concrete brick, not CBS and no foundation as required by code (slab was just extended).
Plans rejected by Zoning for setback issue. Accessory structure height and size non-compliance still being "missed"?

November 9, 2000 County Council hearing - appeal A-00-115
Considered homeowner's appeal of Zoning Dept's rejection to add an attic space
with 1.5 foot west side setback for the added wall height (current code required 5 foot setback).
County Council Denied the appeal, upholding Zoning's rejection.

Minutes (below) from the hearing state that Scott Ashley Zoning Planner testified.
"Mr Ashly said that the previous permit was issued in error and that neither plan should be approved."
When I requested the audio file from the County, they said it "could not be converted".

49 Brooks Dr homeowners testified with photos, objecting to the height (34 feet) and loss of privacy.
They should not have been expected to cite the specific codes for accessory building size limits. By now, County
employees or an administrator should have been aware of the non-compliance (intentional negligence?).

Minutes from the November 9, 2000 County Council hearing

November 28 2000- the homeowner applied for a Variance
Variance(s) requested allowing 5 foot east-side setback of the main house and 1.96 foot west-side setback for
the accessory building and "add 2nd story with balcony and exterior stairs". Homeowner's attorney falsely says
height was within limits (only main home can be 34 feet). Zoning never noted the non-compliant height (and size).
Application requirements include survey "no more than 2 years old" but used 10/13/98 survey (filed 11/28/00).

January 9 2001 Code Board hearing - variance V-00-013
Variance review only covered the two setback issues, only the east-side setback for the main house was Approved.
"2nd story" discussion only covered concerns for intended usage, the height and size still ignored by the County.

The 49 Brooks homeowner testified (audio clip below), pointing out the
as-built 2-story accessory building square footage was actually larger than the main home.
Code 72-277 states accessory building sqft area cannot exceed 50% of principal building sqft area.
Even when specific non-compliance is bought up (% of principal building sqft area), his protest is ignored.
49 Brooks homeowner also disputed the intended usage. The 2nd story ultimately had electric, kitchen and full bath.
No Certificate of Occupancy but has been occupied by tenants and the homeowner (when renting/remodeling main home).

Minutes from January 9, 2001 hearing

January 9, 2001 hearing- 49 Brooks homeowner testimony
PLDRC 01 09 2001elag2.mp3

The full audio from Jan 2001 hearing
PLDRC 01 09 2001x.mp3

After Zoning rejection upheld by County Council and Variance denied by Code Board

January 16, 2001 letter sent out by County.

February 21, 2001 online "Property Notes" added by the County say the resulting status after denial of the
Variance and Appeal that the homeowner "must convert the upper story back to attic.".

After rejection of Permit changes upheld by County Council and Variance denied by Code Board
Because Zoning treated like a principal structure, only the setback issue was noted when attic plan rejected.
Homeowner's attorney focused on narrowing to that alone, dismissing the intended usage issue.
This set up the methodology to "resolve" the setback issue by making the structure larger.

Homeowner extended the floor slab east 3 feet to increase the bottom floor dimensions to 27x24.
Placed rollers under 2nd story (walls/roof), used bulldozer/cables to pull east, attach to new garage wall.
2nd floor met 5 foot west setback but structure was now 1,224 total square feet (and 34 foot height).

February 16, 2001 Site Plan approved by Scott Ashley
Shows how architect put "new addition" on wrong side (plans did not match structure already built).
Zoning only looked at the west side setbacks, not accuracy of as-built to design plans. Roof overhang issue noted but
accessory structure height and size non-compliance still being ignored and foundation compliance questionable.

March 5, 2001 Architectural Drawings
Final drawings submitted after Zoning "approval" of 2nd story being slid east 3 feet to achieve setback.
Inaccurately modified from July drawings. Does not reflect actual construction or show height.
Incorrectly shows "New Addition" on garage's west side which is still the original 1955 wall.
Garage west wall is original concrete brick, not CBS. Foundations not as shown in plans.
Windows in west side of 2nd story not in plans. Defects "overlooked" when permit finaled.
Accessory structure height and size non-compliant with code 72-277.

June 19, 2001 - Permit 19990211028 Final Inspection by Mike Nelson
34 foot high, now 1,224 total sqft with no variances approved for the structure.
Inspection Summary Report was actually signed off as "Grand Total Square Feet 288".
Permit invalidated by inaccurate/falsified information by homeowner/architect/County employees.
County should be liable for encroachment damages to all adjacent homeowners from this date forward.

June 19, 2001 Inspection Summary Report

Property tax value manipulation
Suzanne Holloway/Ronald Hendricks purchased property December 1997
after Hendricks had remodeled the entire house (originally like 49 Brooks) as follows:

Entire roof/trusses removed, new roof/trusses realigned East/West (original was North/South).
Southwest corner of home extended 4 feet to square-off the building, west wall now load-bearing.
Interior walls removed/added to make 2nd bedroom. HVAC installed, electric/plumbing redone, etc.
None of this 1997 work was permitted/inspected, Code Enforcement (Godfrey) falsely claims it was addressed.

Hendricks did the remodeling work before he was the owner, as an unlicensed contractor (a felony).
Holloway/Hendricks only claimed the $25,000 paid for sales price, $20,000 remodel cost omitted (tax fraud).

Hendricks removed Holloway's name from the title in 2008 as a "sale"
Hendricks only reported his 1997 out-of-pocket $20,000 remodeling cost as the "sale price".
The $25,000 paid by Suzanne Holloway not considered, grossly undervalued in 2008.
Current market value of the 1,200 sqft accessory building still under $10,000.

Property values 2010-2018 for 47 Brooks vs 49 Brooks (no accessory building)
47 Brooks listed as being over $220,000 market value. County grossly undervalued as $124,000 due to manipulation.
Actually valued less than 49 Brooks which has close to same main home size but no accessory building.