Gonzales, Gonzales, aye. Kochanowski, present. Vice-Chair Cardo, here. Chair Burke, present. Alternate D'Errico, here. Alternate Warnicke, here. Alternate Zlatos, here. Then to adopt for the 15-2-3. So moved. Second. Four, four. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any means unanimously adopted for the minutes. Three, couple, four. So then we'll go to new business. Ordinance No. 04-2035, amending the zoning code, Chapter 74, Administration, to approve and update public notice requirements, amending Chapter 75, 106, and 1-6, by removing these regulations in Chapter 74 of the land, 11-4. Madam Chair, I'd like to turn this presentation over to Alexis Crespo with RVI, the consultant that's going to be handling this item. Thank you. Good evening. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Okay, good. Thank you. I'm a little under the weather. I wish I could be there with you all tonight, and I look forward to meeting you in person in the future. I've just fallen ill with a head cold. But I'm pleased to be working with your team on city staff on this, really a procedural update to your land development code. I'll just, you can see my slides. I'll just walk you through. So, um, so. Excuse me. The amendment. One moment. I'm kind of losing you. So, if you can try to keep the volume of your voice up as you speak, that would be helpful. Okay. I will do that. And turn my volume all the way to the top. The top. Can you hear me better now? Yes. Okay. Great. So, the amendment before you this evening is some amendments to your land development code. These are amendments to your administrative chapters. So, your procedures and processes for the land development review process. I'm going to tell you again. I don't know if there's a mic can get closer to you because we're struggling a little bit. And we find what you have to say important that we would like to give it the attention. We can't. So, I don't know if you have a mic that can bring, come closer to you or. So, can these be turned up? Can our speakers be turned up? Yeah, we need your map here. I have maxed out my microphone. You can potentially call in. I could use its phone number to call in. We're trying to see if we can get some assistance here. The PIO is asking for you to call in, Alexis. Okay. Thank you. Is there a number in the chat? Was that on the person? They're sending it to you now. Those are to the screen. How'd that work for you? And I knew it wasn't going to work, and I still couldn't stop myself from doing it. When do I get the number? That sounds a little better. It's in the chat. It's in the chat, the number. Alexis, can you hear me? Yeah, I typed the number in the chat. Did you receive it? All right, yeah. It's different. Okay. Alexis, I think he's going to be unmuting you through the phone line. I'm calling in right now. Are you okay? Yeah, I can hear you. I'm not sure if I'll be able to hear the board this way. On my speaker's feedback of both the audio from the phone and the room, you know what I'm saying? Yeah, they should be able to hear you on the phone. Just mute the audio on your computer. Hear them? Yeah. I would assume you can hear me as I speak now. Are you able to hear me? Yes. Perfect. Very good. Much better. Well, that was a rough. I apologize for you this evening virtually. You can still see my brief to walk you through changes. If we did chapter 70 and 74 procedures. So, this is an inventory of the difference that our city of Daltona already is associated with those. This amendment was to do with doing the approvals. But if it was a staff, these may be yours and it's issues out. It is just it. Thank you very much. I appreciate all the hard work everyone's done on this because it's long overdue and very needed. I did have a question when you were talking about the, I believe it's the one, two, three, four, the fifth bullet item about the modification to public notice to create citizens' awareness and participation plan meetings. When I look on page 42, section four, which is the citizens' awareness and participation meetings, I don't see any changes there. So, is it, am I missing that or can you highlight for us what changes and improvements have been made to increase more citizen awareness and participation? Yes, I can take this. Thank you, Jordan. So, the citizen awareness and participation plan meetings, page 42 of 40, starts on page 42 of 46. It's a totally new section. In the city of Deltona, did not have a mechanism before for, so. So, that's only on the clean copy then, is that? Correct, yes. Do you, I'm sorry, but can you point out to me where on the clean copy that is? Page 42 of 46, starting with line 1743. All right, excellent. Thank you, Jordan. And so, basically, what's required is any application, rezoning, bearings, major condition use, any application that's going to come before the Planning and Zoning Board or City Commission, the applicant is required to have a community meeting with residents within, I forget the buffer we said, but they're required to have a meeting, then present a report outlining the concerns and how they're going to address those concerns as well. So, the applicant is required to have a meeting with the residents? That is correct. I love that. I don't know whose idea that was, but well done. I've used it in several other cities, and so we modeled it and brought it to Deltona. Very good. Thank you. You're welcome. Appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Chair. No problem. Anyone else, any other member who would like to ask any questions at this time? I would. You may proceed. Great. Thank you. Um, so, since we're on page 42, if we can go back one page to 41, I had a question with regards to posting requirements. Um, which part of the posting requirements is required by the applicant? The newspaper, the certified mailing, the sign? It's the signs. Um, our current code states that they have to do the certified mail. We do not make them do that to make sure that they actually get sent out. So, uh, moving forward, they would pick up the signs from staff, and they would have to post them themselves. Because as of right now, we do that. Okay. So, they don't do the certified mailing, or you're saying? No. We do that. And we'll continue to do that. Okay. So, they come to the office and pick up the sign, and then they're required to post it. And you're providing them with posting instructions? Yes. Okay. What kind of documentation do you require the applicant to provide you that shows that the sign was posted? So, they provide pictures. Um, we have those in every file of the notices being posted. So, there's pictures of every, or sign being posted, as well as we normally make them sign a sheet saying that they were posting it, and they were given a map of where they were supposed to post everything. Okay. Will that include a date? Oh, I don't know. Yeah, they sign it and date it. Okay. Okay. And so that, and that affidavit is turned back in to y'all? Yes, and it's added to the file. Okay. And that you maintain and make sure that that's done within the required number of days in advance of the hearing, that that needs to get posted, correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Awesome. Um, now if we can go back to page 12. That starts with the summary of authority. Um, and keeping in mind that a lot of these changes were made to streamline the process, I'm just wondering with the chart that's presented at the bottom of page 12 and then flows over to page 13. What's the mechanism to make, uh, recommendations for changes in this chart? Therefore, if you, if you think, um, decision-making authority should be mentioned, conditional use, particularly look at the process and changes, um, and recommendations you would like in this interest. Okay. So, talking about conditional, um, conditional uses, I think I heard you say, correct me if I'm wrong, that you implemented a minor category versus major so that they're separated. Can you outline what constitutes a minor and what constitutes a major conditional use, summarizing it? Okay. So, how were those, uh, uses determined? So, the use, the use table is, um, actually in your next item. So, if you want to. It, it would be appropriate if the board wishes we could introduce the next item, have a collective discussion, and then vote on them separately. Um, that may facilitate the conversation around the major and minor uses. Okay, that, that would make sense. Okay, or we can table that one piece and bring it up when we talk about the use table. If we could do that, too? Yes, that's also an option. Okay. Whichever is the, the will of the board. Okay. I think that might be easier. Why don't we do that one? We'll just table that aspect of this discussion. Yeah, we'll just move it to the other section. So, um, moving on to final plat application. So, it looks like that, uh, final plat application, um, the planning and zoning board, uh, is, let's see, I'm sorry, our application, our recommendation is on, uh, on final plat's for lots of 200 or more, and anything under that is a, um, approval by the director. I'm not sure that, I'd like to open it up to my colleagues on the board to have a discussion about that. I think that. Just, um, just a correction to that. So, you are correct. Any lots, 200 or more is a recommendation by the PNZ. Anything else is a recommendation from the DRC, and then that goes to the city commission. Okay. So, it bypasses PNZ. Did I hear that? Right. So, my concern is, is that if we're not platting 200 or more lots, we're not seeing it. Is that correct? That's the current process as of right now as well. Okay. So, we're not changing the process. Uh, okay. So, I would like to have a conversation about how the members of the PNZ board feel about changing that so that we're looking at more plat applications than just those that are over 200 lots. For instance, there are some jurisdictions that draw the line at two lots, five lots, ten lots, but as our code currently is written, we don't get the opportunity to review anything unless it's a 200-lot, platted lot, or more. Can you—Jordan, can you maybe explain the thought behind that? So, um, a plat is largely a ministerial approval and ministerial consideration. Um, when you're coming for a plat, there have been other reviews that have already taken place. It's just how the lot lines and rights of ways are going to be cut up and divided, um, and, you know, posted on the property appraiser recorded with the—with the, um, with the county. So, it is largely a ministerial act. There is very little discretion for a, um, for the board or even the commission to, uh, recommend denial of a final plat, um, you know, absent some major defect that would generally have been caught by your staff in the previous, uh, reviews internally. So, that's just, uh, an explanation of why a final plat may not necessarily require, uh, review by the Planning and Zoning Board. However, you know, you are the board, and we will, of course, defer to your determination and discussion. I'm just concerned that there are situations where residential subdivisions come before us, the ones that we've seen, the ones that we will not see, because they will be creating less than 200 lots, so that those plats would not come before us. And where we have seen residential developments that the, um, density is extreme, creating situations where we have traffic situations that we're considering, as well as, um, stormwater, uh, we're not seeing those. And so, that is, that, that then leads to why I'm concerned that anything less than 200 lots is not coming to this body for review. And I'll, again, defer, I'll defer to Jordan, um, as far as the specific reviews that go in on a staff level prior to seeing a plat. Um, but the, at the point of a plat approval, the board is not considering the density or the zoning, um, or even the, the stormwater requirements of the, of the development that has already been considered in an administrative review. Uh, and density is not a, um, point of discussion at a final plat. Uh, that would be if you were looking at a rezone or, uh, or a final site plan. Which this board would see a rezone. Let, let me ask this question. It seems as though we don't have a whole lot of 200 lot development. What is the percentage of lots that are being out there that's, will have a final plat that don't fall within our preview, that are less than 200? Do you know? And it's just rough. I'm not trying to get you, I wouldn't hold you on, is it 50%? 75? I mean. It's a low, it's a low number. It's a low number. Under 200? Yeah. Under 200. Yeah. We don't get a lot of applications for over 200, correct? So you don't get a lot over 200. Correct. Right. So we see few in comparison to what's being done, as far as final plots. Few to none. Few to, yeah. Winneke, did you have someone? I was just saying, there really is not that much property left to develop in the number of plots. So, I mean, if we take it down to 100, would that be sufficient? I mean, I just don't, I don't see a lot of open land left to develop, looking at the overall scope of the city of Deltona. That's a fair point. Anyone else? I think 100's good, because I know on the east side of the county, east side of the city, there is a few pretty large parcels, and I think 100 is a nice, I know there's townhomes going up now with 189, so we wouldn't see it, correct? We didn't see it, because it's already in the works. You would have seen the rezone. Right. All set. Which would have been after the plat. Which would have been before the plat. Right. So you have the rezone, and the plat has to adhere to the final. The primary plat or the final plat? The final plat has to adhere to the rezone application. Has to appear after, you say? Correct. It has to appear after. Okay. After the... The final plat comes after the rezone. Okay. May I? Thank you. Yes. So, if something does come up here that's for a final plat, what authority would this board have? You, as the planning and zoning board, you would be making a recommendation of approval or a denial to the city commission. Because final plats are largely ministerial, there is very little discretion to recommend denial. So, it's frankly very difficult to articulate on the record and establish a record that would not be subject to challenge for a recommendation of denial on a final plat. So, this board would not be able to say, we deny this being built, because that would already be done. This would just be the final layout, so to speak. Correct. The denial would have come... Prior to that. Prior process. Okay. Thank you. I have one question. So, basically, when it comes before us, we're just giving recommendation for the commission. The commission can basically do what they basically want to do in their situation, correct? Correct. The commission, of course, would take into consideration your recommendation of approval or denial, but they can either choose to follow that or override that. Florida statutes to deny, as long as it's technically sufficient and matches the zoning that you've already presumably looked. Okay. So, city council's not going to deny any final plat request. Which I don't think it would even get to the NSB Cat-A-School G, but allow it to move forward to a hearing if it didn't meet. That is correct. There's instances where platts have been held up, but eventually, legally, they have to be approved. I think bringing it before us just adds another layer of bureaucracy that we probably do not need to introduce. That's my thought at this point. Okay. So, what about annexation? Presently, right now, we have no authority in annexations. I'd like to propose that the P&Z board at least get an opportunity to make a recommendation on annexation applications. It's typical that the board makes a recommendation, or it's typical that the P&Z board doesn't get a say. Which— A typical P&Z would be sure. Okay. So, that you would support changing to a recommendation by P&Z? So, a reasonable request, yes. We're having a hard time hearing what you're saying. I'm actually saying you're the boss. The P&Z is the boss to see change. It's a reasonable recommendation. Oh, thank you. That it comes to P&Z. Yes. Further questions from the—no? Madam Chair, I'll make a motion to—oh, there's no—okay. To approve—I will make a motion that the P&Z board recommend the City Commission approve Ordinance 0425, amending the zoning code. Zoning code—do I need to read the entirety of the motion? No, you do not. I will read the ordinance into the— Thank you. And you'll include the provision for the annexation? The recommendation for annexation, and then also revise the subdivisions to 100 or more lots. Okay. Yes. That's exactly what I meant to say. Thank you. I'll second. So, this is an ordinance of the City of Deltona, Florida, amending the zoning code, Chapter 74, Administration, to include review procedures, eliminating review durations, and updating public noticing requirements, amending Chapters 75, 106, and 110 by removing procedures regulated in Chapter 74 of the Land Development Code of the City of Deltona, providing for conflicts, codification, severability, and an effective date. Very good. Before we take a vote, I want to make sure there's no public—I see no one in the public, so I want to confirm for the record there is no public to comment. Is there any further discussion we want among ourselves before we vote on that motion? All right. We'll put back. Can you call? Member Gonzalez? Gonzalez is yes. Member Trojanowski? Yes. Alternate D'Erko? Yes. Alternate Warnicke? Yes. Alternate Zletos? Yes. Vice Chair Cardo? Yes. Chair Burke? Yes. Motion passed, 7-0. Okay. Proceed now to our second matter, which is Ordinance 13-2024, amending Sections 110-300 to 110-320 of Article 3, Establishment of Classifications and Office Zoning Map to include zoning regulation updates of the Land Development Code of the City of Deltona. Before you begin, I meant to say that we needed to make an adjustment in the ordinance of the matter that was before us previously. It has the wrong date. It has that the matter was a public hearing before us on January 15th. It should reflect today's date. We will make that update. Thank God. I don't want to forget again, so I apologize for interrupting you. You may proceed. Thank you. All right. Tonight, we're going to go over the LDC Chapter 110 zoning. This has gone before you guys before. We've made some additional changes. So these updates include streamlining allowed uses. We're expanding the commercial uses that are allowed. We are standardizing commercial zoning uses. We expand industrial zoning opportunities. We introduced that use chart that you guys see. And we're also going to allow agriculture-type uses in RE1 and RE5. So our commercial updates include permitting activities within the zoning district by adding, removing, and modifying uses. We are also ensuring that the uses for commercial for C1, C2, C3 are more unified. You'll see them go across the board, unlike they are now. We're going to start requiring drive-thru restaurants, car washes to obtain a conditional use permit to operate in any C1 or C2 zoning district. We are combining entertainment-type uses. So this is going to be like bowling alleys, escape rooms, items like that, into one single use without calling them out separately. And then we do have government-type uses. Permitting additional uses within commercial zoning districts. Subject to conditional use approval also includes tattoo shops, pet boarding, and schools. Entertainment-related uses include trampoline parks, arcades, bowling alleys, escape rooms, any type of use like that. And then your government-type uses, fire stations, libraries, city halls, items like that. Industrial uses. New uses will include medical offices, government facilities, microbreweries, entertainment-related uses, and more. We added—or uses like warehouses, automobile service stations, contractor shops, storage facilities will still remain in that zoning. And then, as stated before, agriculture-type uses will now be permitted in your residential estate one and five uses. These are smaller than one acre. You'll find a lot of these lots off of Doyle, off of 415, areas like this. All right. Communication towers are only going to be allowed in public and resource protection zonings unless it gets a major conditional use permit. And your takeaways. Chapter 110 of the Land Development Code has been revised to be more streamlined and consistent. The land uses will now be organized in a clear, easy-to-read chart. And this chart will include all zoning districts, land uses, clearly indicating whether a use is permitted, requires a conditional use, or is not allowed. And I will take any questions you guys may have. Jessica. Yes, ma'am. Can we look at page—oh, I'm sorry, there's no page number. Line 127. So, in the conditional use section of the Transitional Agricultural Zoning Classification, there's a list of permitted uses, and then there's a list of conditional uses underneath that. So, within the list of conditional uses, line number 130 is off-street parking, and line number 127 are retention ponds. I just want to make sure that this clarification is made in that if you are a condition—if you are an allowed use or permitted by right, for instance, your office-type use, the parking lot that goes with the office-type use is not a conditional use. Correct. Yes, ma'am. Okay. So, I don't know if there's some clarifying language that might need to be added to that. The off-street term that's the distinction here. The— As opposed to on-site? The distinction is that the parking lot of an office building wouldn't require a conditional use, otherwise the office would never be permitted by right— So, when it would come in for a final site plan, your parking is included in that final site plan. If you're building just a parking area, you would need your own individual site plan. Right. So, they would be separated. So, when you read this, you can interpret it both ways. Because the first time I read it, I interpreted it that the associated parking lot and retention of an office building means that the parking lot and the retention area would require a conditional use approval, thereby the office use would not be permitted by right. Then I went back and thought, well, maybe it's just the parking lot without a permitted by right use, so that it would be a parking—standalone parking lot all by itself would require the conditional use. So, there could potentially be some misinterpretation in how someone reads that, and I'm just asking that maybe we might need to add some clarifying language that doesn't lead someone to misrepresent the fact that the associated parking lot with a permitted by right use is not something that requires a conditional use. That's something we can do. Great. Yeah. And I like the way you state a standalone parking lot. I think that—are you comfortable with that? Yeah, you could—yeah, that's a good idea. Just to clarify that the parking lot is a standalone and not associated with a permitted by right use. Okay. Thank you. We had tabled the concept of the minor conditional use versus major. To the next—to the next rule. All right. So, now I'm bringing it up at this point. Where within the amendments or this language is there a definition of major and minor conditional uses are contained within a table, which is located at line 738, is where the permitted use table begins. So, you'll see that in each of the zoning categories, you have the color-coded chart, which defines a major versus minor conditional use. I knew I saw it somewhere. But I just did not—I saw it. So, if we can look at retail sales outdoor display, it's under the heading of commercial. There is a conditional use C in the iPod column that needs a color. I'm not sure which layer of approval that would be required. That would be a major conditional use. And then if we could look at transient lodging, especially a nightclub. So, we're allowing a nightclub to be a permitted use in C1 and C2, but we don't get the same for a drive-thru for a restaurant? So, with the drive-thrus, we are trying to limit the areas of C1 that they can continue to go into. Okay. And that's why we're requiring conditional use for that. In C1, I can understand that, but C2 as well? Our C2 is the general commercial, so they have more of expanded uses, and that's why we are asking for that. Okay. So, if you compare a restaurant with a drive-thru and a nightclub, you're going to allow a nightclub in C1 and C2, but you're not going to allow a restaurant with a drive-thru in C1, C2. So— And from a perspective of planning for future development, the theory behind that is to discourage the auto-forward, auto-oriented uses like the drive-thrus in commercial districts where we want to encourage more pedestrian-friendly and walkable areas where you might have, you know, restaurants, bars, entertainment uses all grouped together. Don't have a problem with that. My problem is, is that you're going to allow a nightclub where you won't allow a drive-thru restaurant. So, my problem is with the nightclub use, not the drive-thru restaurant. I'm using drive-thru restaurant as a comparison. A nightclub allowed in a C1 through C2 and C3, that's my question. And they're not—and they're permitted by right, so we don't even have a conditional use stipulation with those. So, personally, my recommendation is, is that at least C1 and C uses and C3 be permitted by right, so that that use type in the table mirrors what we would also require of a restaurant with a drive-thru. We're certainly open to what the board has, you know, to discuss on that item. I would push back slightly in that, you know, the theory behind permitting a bar nightclub use is to encourage these entertainment uses and to, frankly, send a message to, you know, interested developers and business owners that Deltona is looking for and encouraging these uses by eliminating bureaucracy surrounding them. And there will—if—because of their alcohol consumption permits, they will still be required to follow these other requirements as far as distances from schools, you know, noise requirements, all of these other requirements within the code. So I just wanted to throw that out there for the board's consideration. Any follow-ups? No? Well, I've already made my position clear, so other board members are welcome to voice their opinion. Okay. I was wondering if you had any questions, but I guess that's it for now. Anyone else? No, ma'am. No further questions? Okay. Well, I just recognized the color code from the conditional minor and major. I had recognized it before, and now I'm back at it again. Um, so if I—if I understand correctly, when we had the memo, and the industrial zone included entertainments like the bowling alley and escape rooms, you guys are now taking that out of the industrial zoning part? No, we're adding it. It wasn't—it wasn't in there originally. It was not in there originally. Correct. I thought now you have an entertainment category that you did not have before, correct? Yes. And now those items are in the entertainment category, are they not? So, um, uses that are entertainment are in that type of category, and those are now allowed in industrial uses. Okay, so it's— It was not previously allowed. Okay. All right. I have no further questions. Um, I had one more with regards to car washes. Um, what looks like car washes, we have permitted by right in C1, but conditional uses in C2 and C3, shouldn't that be swapped? C1 should be the conditional use, and C2, C3 should be permitted by right? I think so. That seems to make sense. Yes, that's—that's correct. We can make that adjustment. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for catching that. So, again, we have no public discussion. So, anyone wants to make a motion for the board to consider? Madam Chair, I'll make a motion. I make a motion for the City Commission to approve Ordinance No. 13-2024, amending Sections 110 through 300 to 110 through 320 of Article 3, Establishment of Classifications and Office Zoning Map to Include Zoning Regulation Updates of the Land Development Code of the City— I'll second it. With the changes— With the changes, with the conditions of changing the car wash and C1 being the conditioners? I'm comfortable with the way it currently reads. Okay, so you're not— Okay, so you're not— Yes, ma'am. So, does anyone want to amend the motion? Or do I need to— Yes, so if we could— Wait, you're second first. From the staff side, I believe that the correction of the C1 and C2, C3 uses in the car wash, we would like that included in the motion, please. The correction, yes. I'm so—my apologies, I misunderstood. Okay, no. Yeah, the C1 and C2— Yes, I will amend my motion to include those corrections. I'll second it. Very good. Any further discussions? So are we going to include the cell that's missing the color under retail sales outdoor display? Okay. Very good. And so we're not going to discuss the nightclub situation as it pertains to C1, C2 being allowable use? Y'all are okay with that? I am. I'm trying to encourage— I would rather have— In an area without bureaucracy. I would rather have restaurants and nightclubs than another drive-thru. I kind of would encourage that kind of—I mean, we need places to go to dinner and entertainment. It seems like all we're getting is drive-thrus. And also from the commissioners and the general public as well, too, their comments on it, they seem to want the same thing. Very good. Anyone else wants to get there? You can call the roll on the phone. Member Gonzalez? Gonzalez, yes. Member Trojanowski? Yes. Alternate D'Erko? Yes. Alternate Warnicke? Yes. Alternate Zlatos? Yes. Vice Chair Cardo? Yes. Chair Burke? Yes. Motion passed, 7-0. Thank you, Jessica, for your presentation. I appreciate it. We appreciate it. The board appreciates it. You got it? Okay. The third matter that's coming before the board today is—I lost my agenda. Ordinance 14-2024, amending Section 110-810, Driveways, Residential, of Article 8, Supplementary Regulations to Include Regulation Updates of the Land Development Code of the City of Deltona. Good evening, Madam Chair. Board members, before you is Ordinance Number 14-2024, Amendment to Section 110-810, Driveways. This item was before you back in August, and it got tabled. The City Commission requested staff to update the zoning section in the Land Development Code, as some of the sections were outdated. Changes to Section 110-810, Driveway Expansions for Residential, are as follows. We're updating language regarding residential driveways, adding criteria for expansion of existing driveways. Building permits are required when impervious materials are constructed. Expansion limited to an additional 380 square feet, or 40 percent of the front yard, whichever is less. Screening is required for new parking spaces adjacent to side property lines and along the side of the parking space parallel to the street. Driveway aprons are required for driveway expansion or second driveway to prohibit driving over curbs. We have fixed spelling errors, provided restrictions for residential driveways to ensure there is no interference with swales and drainage. And providing approved driveway services for driveway expansion or second driveways, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the City Commission approve Ordinance Number 14-2024 to modify the City's Land Development Code related to Section 110-810 of Article 3 of Chapter 110, Zoning of the Land Development Code. And I'm available for any questions. Any questions from the Board? Yes. No? No? I did. Anybody else? I feel like I keep jumping in and going first. Anybody else? No, you're fine. Thank you. Thank you, Jordan. I know this came up to this Board previously and there was a lot of conversation on it. So I see that a lot of the suggestions were incorporated. So thank you very much for that. I did still have a few questions, though. When I look at lines, I think it's on the, it's the red line copy, lines 42 through 48. We're talking about Shell or others, and this is specific to line 45. Shell or other similar material, acceptable to the City. Any thoughts about more clearly defining that, just to avoid confusion of what one person may approve as acceptable and what another person may not approve as acceptable? So I just wanted to just maybe throw that out there to see if there was any consideration there. And then my other comment is, and I think I had the same comment last time, so I'm sorry, I'm repeating it. But we're now requiring a building permit for all driveway extensions, where I believe currently, if it's considered an ancillary driveway extension, so it's a non-permanent—I'll use the example of mulch. Mulch are like pine bark. That currently does not require a permit. So now, if I'm reading this correctly, we're now requiring a permit for all extensions, and it also looks like we are no longer allowing, perhaps, a mulch or pine bark extension, that now it has to be concrete or asphalt. Am I reading this correctly? That is correct, yes. Okay. I understand why we're doing that, because we've all driven by the houses that have the mulch driveways that were done 10 years ago, that now the mulch is all washed away into the neighbor's yard, and there's three-foot weeds growing. What would happen if we tried to do something a little differently? Because where I'm coming from is that's—for many people, that's the only affordable option that they can provide to accommodate more than maybe two cars. So that's my only concern. Is there something different we can do? Can we still allow maybe a different substance that might be a little less expensive? And maybe it just needs to be inspected every year to assure that it hasn't washed away, it's still maintaining certain standards? So there is a provision starting, I believe it's line 45, where we do allow any crushed materials shall be held in place. So we do allow crushed material, which would be a cheaper option than concrete or asphalt. So would that be like a bark or a mulch? Is that what we mean by crushed material, or are we talking like crushed, like gravel, like the little gravel chunks? Where water can seep through, and it's not impervious. Okay. I'm sorry. Repeat what you just said. It's nonpervious, so it can drain. All right. All right. Thank you. I just wanted to just bring that to the attention, because I do know I did have actually, the last time and this time again, quite a few residents that reached out to me that currently have the bark or mulch driveway. So what are we going to do about those? Are we going to ask them to redo them? No, those would still be permitted. If they have them in place, they'd be continued. They'd be grandfathered in. Okay. So then how would we enforce that? How do we know who currently has them and who doesn't and who's not sneaking one in and saying, oh, I had it for three years? So that is going to be a question more properly directed to the city's code compliance department. I will say that Google Maps and Google Street View is a very powerful tool. When looking back, if you say it's been here for 10 years and Mr. Google says, no, no, it hasn't. Well, maybe it's Mrs. Google. Mr. or Mrs. Google, yes. So that's really more of a code compliance question, but the intent is that it would be grandfathered and then as, through attrition, as, you know, new materials are required, they would start to come into compliance. Okay. And the intent was for aesthetic purposes for residential neighborhoods. Yeah. My understanding when this matter came before us before is that the city had, the staff had indicated they would consider waiving those fees that were associated with getting a building permit. For the expansion of driveways. It's not incorporating here. Was that something you consciously thought about not including? Or is it something that was forgot after the meeting? It's going to be a low impact permit. So it's not going to be a heavy permit fee. But a... I think is that, is it $40 now? What do we charge right now? Staff will look it up right now. I just wanted to know if there was a conscious going away or if there was a reason. I wasn't really questioning the amount. I know the board as a whole considered saying it was somewhat burdensome to have to do a building permit. One of which would be a financial. It wasn't the only burdensome aspect of it. So a building permit application is going to be required. But it will be up to the planning and zoning board and city commission to decide if a fee will be associated with that. Any other questions? So then can this board recommend to the city commission to require the building permit but to not require a fee? Did I hear that correctly? We're just talking about driveway expansions and... Oh, okay. I would require a fee for second driveways and then for driveway expansion, no fee. And that would be addressed through the fee, through the city's fee resolution. So that would not be necessarily addressed here in the code provision. But we have... Coming soon. Yeah, we can certainly take your recommendation to the board. All right. Great. Thank you. Anything else? No, ma'am. Anything you want to add? Nope. Nope? Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Motion? Anyone? I'll make a motion that the planning and zoning board approve ordinance number 14-2024 amendment to section 110-810 of article 3 of chapter 110, zoning of the land development code. I second. Let's vote. However, I want to make note that we did not have public discussion because there is no public here tonight for the record. You can call the roll. I would appreciate it. Member Gonzalez? Gonzalez, yes. Member Chojanowski? Yes. Alternate D'Erko? Yes. Alternate Warnicke? Yes. Alternate Slatos? Yes. Vice Chair Cardo? Yes. Chair Burke? Yes. Motion passed, 7-0. Okay. So we are being blessed with the presentation on the Sunshine Laws by the city attorney. Thank you, Madam Chair. And if it's all right with the board, I would actually like to defer this presentation to March in recognition that we're going to have some new members joining us, and I want to be respectful of everyone's time. That makes sense. Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. So any staff comments? No additional staff comments. Okay. So board comments, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the board members whose terms expire next month, which includes yours truly. Thank you for your participation, your assistance, being involved in our community, and taking the time to let your opinions and your thoughts known. And I'm sure everyone appreciates the efforts we've done. Not always recognized it's not the most well-sought-out position, but it's one I think is well-respected. And I think we all take it seriously, and we do a good job at least presenting and trying to be involved and contributing to Deltona. So thank you all, which is almost quite a few of us that will—terms are expiring. And so we have a large—we'll have a large turnover. Some will come back, perhaps, but we'll have a large turnover. And I think we have—we've come a long way since I first joined the board as far as level of knowledge, skills, questioning. And hopefully—I'm sure it will go forward in the future. So thank everybody, the staff and the board members and the city attorney. It's been a smooth—sometimes bumpy road, but we've got it done. We have a lot of 7-0 votes, and that's indicative of the fact that I think we all want to work together to get this done. Okay? So thank you. Any other comments from the board? Coming new onto the board, and I have talked to, you know, legal before, in light of other issues with elected officials, I also see this board as coming on brand new. There is no streamlined process of an orientation or something acknowledging an oath or something. Is this something we can put together for the board, especially coming to a new one, to where we could, you know, document any conflicts of interest? We could say that, hey, we've read the policies and procedures for the training, for example, reimbursement for training, that we have this documented so that we can hold each other accountable. We can work with staff to make sure that all of the board members receive a proper orientation and onboarding. And part of the presentation that will be seen next month includes an orientation on the Sunshine Law and ethics, which includes the conflict of interest. And just for everyone's edification, conflict of interest has to be documented at the time there is a conflict, because, frankly, you can't imagine any single conflict that may happen, you know, at the beginning. No, I saw that on the agenda, and I appreciate you taking those steps already. Thank you. Thank you. Well, anything else? No, ma'am. All right, well, do we have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Wow, a lot of participation. Second? In one second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Any nays? No. Thank you. Thank you. It's adjourned. Thank you.