The planning and zoning meeting for today, May 21st. Maybe start with the roll call, please. Member Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Member Northey. Here. Member Stewart. Here. Secretary Amoroso. Here. Vice Chair Diarico. Here. Alternate French. Here. Alternate Nair. Here. Alternate Warnecke. Present. All right, great. Thank you very much. So before we move on to approval of the minutes from the April 16th meeting, I do believe that there is a clarification that was requested that we just want to get on the record. Yep, I just wanted to, Member Northey at our last meeting brought it up and I was able to kind of add some more context to that, just a concern over public schooling and capacity issues as it relates to Halifax and Delta High School capacity issues, as well as other schools across the city. I just want to make sure that that was noted in the records. Thank you. All right, so then would we still move forward with a motion to approve the minutes with that clarification? All right, I'm looking for a motion to approve the minutes with clarification. All right. Motion made by Member Northey, seconded by Member Stewart. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay, motion passes. All right, so I'm going to assume there's no public forum, but yet I would like to open it up for public forum if there is anyone that will mysteriously appear. There is none. None? All right. Any old business that we need to cover? No? No old business? All right. Checking down the list. All right, so let's move on to new business. So the first topic is Ordinance No. 21-2025, Repealing the Medical Marijuana Dispensary Article of Chapter 110, Zoning and Amendment Article 3. Good evening, Planning and Zoning Board. As stated, this is Ordinance No. 21-2025. For the record, my name is Jonathan Knight, Planner 1 with the City. This is a repeal of Article 14, Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, and an amendment of Article 3, Establishment of Classifications and Official Zoning Map. So the purpose of this ordinance is— Jonathan, wait one second. Hey, guys in the back, can we put the PowerPoint up, please? Thank you. Again, Ordinance No. 21-25. So the purpose of this ordinance is to repeal Article 14 of Chapter 110, which is Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, and we will also amend the Land Use Table to remove dispensaries as a permitted or conditional use, and this will prohibit dispensaries in all zoning districts within the city. This is an implementation of a full ban as directed by City Commission on April 7, 2025. So for some background, in 2014, Ordinance No. 10-2014 allowed dispensaries in our commercial zoning districts with a conditional use, which would have to be approved by City Commission. Fast forward to 2018, Florida law limits the local authority. So with that legislation, cities must treat dispensaries as pharmacies or ban them entirely. In 2025, staff presented Ordinance No. 0725 to City Commission, and it was denied. With that denial, City Commission directed staff to pursue a full prohibition of medical marijuana dispensaries within the city. So key changes, a repeal of Article 14, complete repeal, taking it out of our code. We will be updating Article 3, which is Chapter 110 of our zoning code, which is amending our land use table. We will be removing dispensaries completely, as well as within all zoning districts. So for the dispensaries that are currently in the city, they will be considered legal non-conforming, as they were approved prior to Ordinance No. 21-20-5, and they must comply with Section 110-601, which is our abandonment of use. So if the property is abandoned for six or more months, it will revert to the zoning that is within the zoning map. This is a current map of parks, churches, pharmacies, dispensaries within the city. So with that being said, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend City Commission to approve Ordinance No. 21-20-25. Any questions from any members of the board? I got them. What prompted the commission to push for a total ban? Through the chair, if I may, in the discussion at their meeting, it appeared that there was concern about the distance requirements, and through their discussion, there seemed to be a consensus that providing additional opportunities for medical marijuana dispensaries within the city was not the correct policy fit. I would encourage all of you for additional detail, certainly to review the minutes or review the recording of the meeting so you can see the commission's verbatim conversation. Thank you. Do we know currently how many, is there three currently and two? Currently we have two medical marijuana dispensaries, one active and one that's ready to be occupied. So we have two, and then within the surrounding community, within the surrounding Louisiana County, other cities, there are medical marijuana dispensaries available. And what about our sister cities? Do we know anything about neighboring cities? Yes, ma'am. He was saying that there are some within Orange City, and I believe to bury in the land. How many? I don't have a number at the top of my head. There are other facilities. There's probably about 12 between here, the land, or city sampling. If you give me a second, I can check my email, because I did that research. So if you want to ask further questions, then I'll come back to the board. If you want to move on, and then he'll come back to us with that information. Did you have more questions? And I, go ahead, Rachel, I think you had a question. Are you done? Okay. The only, the only question, I want to just clarify. So we have two in the city, and one application, is that correct? No, two total. One is active, and one is an active application that's ready to be occupied. Okay, so if we vote to ban, when we're not voting to ban, if we recommend that they ban, is there also a possibility to limit, like, to say only three? So this way they'll, like, because if the ones close that are here, they will never be again. So instead of banning completely, is there a possibility? Because we don't want to deny commercial anyone who comes in, in my opinion, but if we could limit it to three, and one closes, and, I mean, I know it's kind of complicated. I don't know if that's possible. So under the state regulatory scheme, the local governments are prohibited from regulating medical marijuana dispensaries in a manner that is different from pharmacies, drugstore, pharmacies and drugstores, other than the distance requirement from schools. That is, so it would not be possible unless you were going to limit the number of pharmacies. You either have to allow them all or disavow them all. Yeah, it says in here, you can ban, or you can do it like a pharmacy, and I get that, but I was just saying, no, I'm just trying that. Just ask, let me just, Member Northey? Thank you. You're welcome. Is that all? There we go, okay. Okay, I have a number of questions that have already been asked, but I want to go back to, I understand we have two right now, and do we have any that are pending with you all? We have one that is active and one that is preparing to be active. Okay, so we would have four. No, ma'am, that would be two total. One active currently and one prepared to be active. Okay, so there aren't, there's only one that is pending. Yes, ma'am. Is that the right way to say that? Okay, okay. And this is, I think, kind of a follow-up to Rachel. Can we identify a certain number by area that says we can, does state allow that? No. No. So we can't say we'll have a total of 10 and be done with it. Correct. They have to be regulated in the same manner as pharmacies and drugstores. And I want to ask what the state definition of a pharmacy is. What does that mean to me? Right, so, I mean, to the layperson, that is going to be anywhere where prescription-controlled substances are dispensed. There is a more complete definition in Florida statute so that I can pull up and read into the room if you'd like. Does that then give Walgreens and CBS, or what are they called, CVS, and Publix the right to do dispensaries? No. No. The nuance is that pharmacies and drugstores are regulated in a certain manner and medical marijuana dispensaries must be regulated in that same manner. It does not entitle a pharmacy to dispense medical marijuana. Okay. And so the existing one that we have now, and what happens, that one becomes a nonconforming use, correct? Legal nonconforming, correct. Legal. And if they close down, they cannot, that location can't be used, correct? No, ma'am. It will revert to current standing, current zoning, excuse me. Okay. So that's what happens to the existing. The one that is pending, what does this ordinance, what is this ordinance that we're looking at? It was accepted prior to approval of this ordinance, so the rules would not apply. Okay. Okay. So I have one thing here. I have to see if I can read my own writing. Okay. It's about the definition of pharmacy. What happens to this if this PNC does not forward this with a positive approval, if we say no? It would still go to the city commission for their consideration. The commission still gets final, but if it was returned to us, why then? So they denied the original ordinance back in April, and the direction to staff at that time was to consider, do a ban for medical marijuana dispensaries. So it's a whole new ordinance at this time to repeal medical marijuana within the city of Daltona. I believe if it helps, the original ordinance was to classify them the same as a pharmacy or drugstore. Correct. Any more questions? No, that's it. Thank you. Madam Vice Chair, I have that data for you. Okay. Do you want to share that, Jordan? Sure. So within the surrounding communities, there's nine in Daytona Beach, one in Deland, two in Deltona, two in Edgewater, two in Holly Hill, three in Orange City, one in New Smyrna Beach, one in Ormond Beach, and six in Port Orange. And so that's a lot. And they're unincorporated in the county? That's city unincorporated. So that's. Throughout Volusia County. That's 26, if I captured that right. I didn't go to Volusia. I'm at Seminole. Yeah. Okay. And we, staff did not look at Seminole, but there are within the city of Stanford as well. Do we know of any other cities that are doing a full ban on them? There's many cities that do a ban, yes. Yep. In Volusia County? Volusia County. That I'm not. We can staff them with that up. Member Dave. Yeah. So I got a lot of feedback on this and was able to go to the last city commission meeting. And two commissioners in particular, I mean, kind of made the point, like, I mean, there's not really an issue with medical marijuana, with the opioid crisis and fentanyl and all those other things that are there that are considered illegal, utilizing medical marijuana was kind of a great thing. I think the issue in lies and vice chair, and I brought this up at the last time, is when the state of Florida tries to direct or say, hey, 500 feet and you can't go any more than that. That's where I kind of had that struggle or that battle. That was within the school, right? Between schools, places of worship. Between schools, places of worship, yeah. 1,500 feet between pharmacies, that's great. If we could do 1,500 feet between pharmacies and, you know, medical marijuana dispensaries, which is a pharmacy and schools and places of worship, I think it would be more acceptable and calm some of those issues. But when we're forced with an option from the state to say, hey, either you accept 500 or you outright ban it, you know, it kind of forces the hand. And whether you agree with it or disagree with it, lots of discussions on Facebook forums local to Deltona and gossips and complaints and the place we call home and City of Destinies and there's a lot of discussion going on. But I want to emphasize and highlight it's with the best interest in mind of, I bring this up every time, of my children, of other children in this community, of houses of worship. I have no issue with medical marijuana, whether it's legal or not. I see the benefits of it. What I have issue with is when we're being forced by the state to say, hey, it's either this or you ban it outright or it's the wild, wild west and we can build it on every street corner and do whatever you like. And so that's kind of where I take issue with it. So I think I sense that struggle in the last commission meeting when they discussed that and that's kind of where my struggle is as well. Well, and so I just want to lock this in and confirm this, the existing businesses that are in place, if this goes forward and the commission does an outright ban, this will not impact the current business in a negative way, if anything positively, because they're the only place in town. That's open to interpretation, but they will not be forced to shut down. Okay, got it. And for the new location that's coming on board, they would just be considered non-conforming, legal, non-conforming. They would still be able to conduct business as usual. And as long as their lease is allowed to continue with whoever manages that property and they're in good standing, they can continue and conduct business and they're good to go. Correct. Okay. And with these two businesses that are there, are they within 500 feet of a school or house of worship or the 1,500 rule? Like, I guess if there's an outright ban, it doesn't really matter because they're non-conforming already, right? Correct. But I can look that information up if you need it. Okay. Okay. Yeah. I mean, it's tough when it's either, you know. All or nothing. Yeah. All or nothing. It kind of forces the hand. And while I hear everybody online, very loud and clear, and people that I've just talked with throughout the city in relationship to this specific topic, it just kind of puts us in an awkward spot. I know there are a bunch of folks that have more questions, and I just want to indulge and ask one, too. Is there—so I know we've got one already established, one in the process. Are there any other—has anybody filed or shown interest in a business tax receipt? Because I know that was in the bylaws or in the— No, ma'am. So we're just the two. Okay. Thank you. Just want to clarify it. Then we'll go— Member Lurie. Oh, I'm so sorry. Madam Vice Chair, just to answer a question about if the two current ones meet the regulations, so prior we did have a conditional use process, and they would have had to meet the distance requirements, so yes. Okay. Thank you. We'll go to Member Lurie, then we'll go to Member Amoroso, and then Member Northey. The two dispensaries that are currently—and you said if one happens to go out of business or close down, they have a six-month period to find someone else that may want to come into the city and take their place, correct? If the permits—they have—I believe that's the way I've read it. So according to the city's non-conforming use of premises code, which states in any classification, a lawful principle or accessory use of premises existing on the effective date or adoption or amendment of the chapter referring to the zoning code, but not permitted thereafter, may continue or be resumed if destroyed, provided number one, it is not enlarged, increased, or extended to occupy a greater area than it is occupied on the effective date or adoption or amendment of this chapter. It is not moved in whole or in part to any portion of the lot other than that occupied by such use on the effective date of adoption or amendment of this chapter. And number three, no additional structure is constructed or erected in connection with such non-conforming use. So that is the provision of our code that governs non-conformity with regard to premises and use. The additional piece that ties in is later in the chapter where there's a provision related to involuntary moves, so the provision related to that non-conformity is not intended to apply to involuntary movement or use of structures that are the result of condemnation actions or litigation. Okay. I kind of understand that, but they have to have a permit to dispense medical marijuana. That permit just cannot go, it can't be transferred? Like if ABC dispensary goes out of business, can XYZ move into the building as long as the permits haven't lapsed six months? You're speaking on the building permits? Well, I'm trying to understand that if we have two dispensaries now and one of them doesn't make it or goes out of business, can another dispensary come in, like a perfect example is some zonings don't allow, it's like they're grandfathered in. So would a new dispensary be as long as nothing lapsed over six months? Because it said in here, it says section 110601, non-conforming abandonment for six consecutive months. Yes, that's correct. So as long as the same use at the same intensity was resumed within six months, that non-conforming use can continue. Even if they're two different companies? Two different owners? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Does that help, Lori? Yeah. That makes sense because if it's a thriving business, somebody's going to come in. Okay. All right. Member Amoroso? Mine's not really a question. It's a discussion, so do we have to make a motion first or how does that work? I know on the commission, you have to make a motion to open discussion, so I'm not positive. No, we could discuss and then we can make a motion. We're, yeah. And we'll go then. We're, okay. Okay. So I watched the meeting on Monday and then, it's not a question, so you can listen though. He's looking like, oh, what do you want to know? So I watched the meeting on Monday and the public forum where this was discussed and I watched the meeting when they discussed this. Um, the issue that I do have with stuff is bringing up, I'm worried about my kids, I don't like the smell, all that stuff. It can't be because you don't like it that this is why you're banning it. And the issue that I looked at was the fact that we don't ever want to turn away commercial business. So I started to do a little bit of research and 3.8% of the population in Florida have a medical marijuana card. So if you take the population of Deltona, 3.8%, assuming that we have the highest of Florida, you're talking about less than 4,000 people in this city that would be able to shop there. Now, I do understand that people from other cities might come here if we have the right marijuana and the good place and all this stuff. But every, it's not going to, in my opinion, is not going to cause a monopoly if we ban the future of these. The thing is, the, in my opinion now, this is totally off topic, but this is not the problem. Medical marijuana clinics are not the problem. But we had the opportunity to ban vape stores and gas stations and liquor stores from selling THC 8 and 9. Would we have done it? That's my issue with the whole thing. I have nothing against medical marijuana or even people that smoke pot. I don't care. I think people are much calmer when they smoke weed, so it's all good, but I am in favor of this ban because it does not relate to a large population of this city. And you can compare it to a dollar store as much as you want, but 110,000 people can shop at a dollar store in Deltona with no issue if they want to or not. Only 4,000 people in Deltona can shop at a medical marijuana dispensary. That's just my opinion. And one thing for clarification from the meeting on Monday, the person who spoke at public forum did say that 71% voted for recreational marijuana. The actual number is 55%. So that's a big difference to me. I just wanted to get that out there. But that's my opinion of that. Thank you. Thank you. And I think we were going to go to Member Northey. Thank you. I just, before I say, first of all, whoever wrote this back on 1-6-2025, the original, it's really well done. And I thought that it was a complete piece of ordinance that was very clear in what the city could do. I guess I'm going to take a different opinion than Rachel. I'm not going to support this recommendation. I do think that, I mean, I have family members that are medical marijuana cards. I happened to visit one just the other day with them, and they're clean businesses that are here to sell a product that is legal. So I guess my question is, and I did not watch that part of the meeting when they had that discussion, is the only reason that we're doing this is because of the difference between 1,500 feet and 500? I mean, is there anything else that would cause us to, is it just the amount of, you know? It was the commission that asked. Well, I know the commission asked. I understand that. But I'm not going to support it. I know what they said on the, at the commission meeting was that they were talking like we were, like, can it be 1,500 feet? Can it be 1,500? And then one commissioner said, can we ban them completely? And that's where it came from. They had a consensus. So my question still remains. Is it only because of the 500 feet that you understand the council wants, the commission wants to change this? I think there are various factors. I do think that the distance is one of the largest contributing factors. There was certainly discussion otherwise about odor, et cetera. But I do believe that the direction we received from the commission was mostly about the distance. Okay. All right. Thank you. I just want to highlight again and reiterate the struggle that I have is the distance, again, to schools and to places of worship. And as someone who, my neighbor and like you, family members, struggling with cancer, various stages, some end-of-life care, and have only found relief from medical marijuana, I have to balance those two. And I have to figure out, okay, what do I think? At the end of the day, I'm just making a recommendation for the commission. But I heard what the commission had to say. And I heard what people on Facebook had to say. There's a lot of misinformation there. Believe it or not, just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true. But I have to balance knowing that people I know, love, and care for, terminally ill with cancer, neighbors terminally ill with cancer, and have real anxiety, social anxiety disorders and things like that, that really benefit from, like you said, Pat, something that is legal and I don't necessarily have an issue with, and the struggle of having to make a recommendation based off of what the state of Florida has said, it's either this or you ban it. Well, that kind of fits us, tries to shoehorn us in. But I also have to recognize that, you know, the smell and this and that and the other, it's not just smoking, there's edible, there's all kinds of things, there's pills, there's capsules, lots of great benefits to it. But I also can't, I can't get over the distance from me. Like, if you had the option and the ability to say, hey, state of Florida, if we can amend this, if we can change this, kind of an all or nothing approach, I don't like being kind of held over that or being forced to that. And I think it's unfair to the people of Deltona and to the people that need this, need the medicine. But then also, I have to think of children and schools and houses of worship and all the other things that come with it. So because of that, you know, I'm going to vote how I vote, but it's a struggle for me to do that. And at the end of the day, I don't want to hurt the existing businesses that are there and the existing businesses that are coming into the city of Deltona, the ones coming in. I wish them the very best of luck. And I hope that they do succeed. And whether they have change of ownerships or six months of, you know, for that, I hope and wish them the very best. But that's where I stand on it. And again, I just wish the distance between those protected places and areas could be a little bit, have a little bit more space there. Understood. Well, let's go, we'll do Member Amoroso and then we'll come back to Member Northey. Okay. Just one more thing that I came across. So we're talking about, you know, now there's going to be two in Deltona, right? And being that 3.81% of the population has a medical marijuana card, okay? I already told you that, less than 4,000 people. So doesn't, I find it a little bit odd that a business is able to open multiple, how many we have in so little of a space. Don't we kind of think that maybe medical marijuana places are ripping people off? I mean, you know how much it costs to get a card? Do you, insurance doesn't cover medical marijuana. I mean, not saying that there's, there's not alternatives. I'm all for it if you can get it and you can afford it. I mean, the only people I know who use medical marijuana are veterans and I don't have a problem with that. But isn't it something to think about that? I mean, I'm not trying to, I'm just trying to say when the commission does bring it and hopefully they watch this and they think about some stuff, if you're able to open three businesses in Del, or more businesses in Deltona to make enough money to do that. I mean, you know how hard it is to open a business that I can't afford to do. I mean, but isn't there a bigger issue that we might be looking at? That's all. Okay, that's it. And for those, the other thing I'll say too real quick, sorry, Pat, the other thing that I will bring up in, in having these conversations with neighbors and with family members and people at my church, frankly, on this topic and having conversations, you know, it's an, if it were a ban here, we would have our two locations here. But to know that there are other sources, it's not an outright ban countywide, like it's a state, you know, shut down. 27 others in the. Right. And with delivery options. One county. You're right. With delivery options, you know, straight to the house, that, again, I know that that relief for them is still there. They have the benefit of that. They're able to access it. It's, I'm not taking something away from them. That's where I'm at. So the options are still there for those that need it, you know. Yeah. We'll go to Member Northey and then we'll go to Member Laurie and then maybe we can look for a motion. I'll tell you that there is an issue with in-home delivery going on. They're not able to get people to deliver. They're having a personal issue. But I just have a question on this. This ordinance here, this is the one that is current, was currently adopted, correct? I can't see from that far. Pardon me? I can't see from that far. Well, it was the one that was in the book. It's in the Code of Ordinances? It says Code of, Code of Ordinances. Article 14. It doesn't say adopted. It says created. 1-6-20-25. The Beltona, Florida Code of Ordinances. So I just. Yes, Member Northey, the. It's Chapter 110, Part 2. It's the one that we had in our book. Yes, that is the currently adopted by Ordinance 10-2014. Yes. Yes. And that's been adopted. Well, we adopted a separation distance of 500 feet. So what is. If that is the issue, then it sounds to me as if we just want to kill the dispensaries. It says a medical marijuana dispensary shall not operate within 500 feet of any school. It doesn't say 1,500 feet. It says 500 feet. So isn't that already in effect what the state is saying? That's the issue. So, Member Northey. The issue is that we're thinking it's too close. Right. But they adopted it already. Member Northey, the reason this came to the PNZ back in February, back in March, and then April is our current ordinance was out of regulations with the state because we cannot request a medical marijuana dispensary to apply for conditional use. You can, you have three options or two options. You can either ban them or you can treat them the same as pharmacies. But haven't we said that here, 500 feet? 500 feet's in there, but we had to make the modification to take out the conditional use. The current ordinance is out of date with state regulations. Okay. I get that. I understand that part. But what I'm saying is the original ordinance, when it wasn't, when the state had not weighed in, this ordinance says 500 feet. Correct. Which is what I thought we were arguing about here. The commission said they wanted to be, I guess, they wanted to be further than 500 feet. But they adopted 500 feet already. So is this, is this ordinance, is this ordinance, the current ordinance was adopted. Hold on, hold on, let's, is this ordinance in effect and is this being followed today? That's what I'm trying to find out. So the code as it is currently enacted is being followed for location requirements. The unfortunate circumstance is that by state statute, this, the requirement of a conditional use is preempted because you cannot, because we do not require a conditional use. It's all or nothing for this, from what the state says, right? Correct. That's what I'm saying. That's correct. Well, but, but I'm just pointing out, it isn't 1,500 feet already, it's still, it's 500 feet. So I don't know what the argument is then with, with the, with the commission. So that's all I'm saying. That makes me even more crazy. And I'm crazy, I know. Well, that's my question is, can we get back to like, what, what is being asked of us? To just give an opinion? To, what is the, why do we have it? To recommend it to the commission, right? Right. That's what we, we just need to recommend. Right. Okay. Exactly. Yes. So are we, are, do we, entertaining a motion if anyone? Oh, did you have something else? We're sorry. This is going to be my final say. Um, people with medical marijuana cards have other options. We have two dispensaries now. Sounds like there's 20 in the county. We cannot let emotions get in the way. We need to make a decision based on, do we think we have the right ratio for our town? Yes or no? And that's pretty much it. Thank you. Okay. I make a motion that the city commission approve ordinance number 21-2025. I'll second it. All right. We have a motion by member Amoroso and a second by member Wernicke. Member Gonzalez. Yes. It goes back to the commission. Madam Vice, too. Yes, sir. If you can just open it up for public comment. Oh, I'm sorry. Please. Even though. I appreciate that. Thank you. Would anyone like to speak? Al, you want to come on up and speak, Al? Come on. Any public comment. No public comment. We will call for the vote. I'm sorry. Thank you for keeping me on, Jordan. All right. Member Gonzalez. Yes. Member Northey. No. Member Stewart. Yes. Alternate Nair. Yes. Alternate Wernicke. Yes. Secretary Amoroso. Yes. And Vice Chair Diego. Yes. Motion passes. Six to one. Okay. Moving on to new business item B, Ordinance Number 19-2025, Non-Conforming Lots. Yes, up here. How are you? Oh, hi. Yes. I'm Matthew West. I'm the planning manager. Just recently started here with Deltona, and I'm trying to get the PowerPoint up. Welcome, Matthew. Nice to meet you. I'm glad to be here, if I can figure out where the PowerPoint is. And if you wouldn't mind turning, I don't think your mic's on, Matthew, if you wouldn't mind turning that up. Hello? Can you hear me now? I don't see it down here. Down here? Yeah. Where is slideshow? Right there. Perfect. And there's the clicker. There is the clicker. Right on the phone. All right. Yep. Thank you, Jordan. He's the AV guy, too. My name is Matt. Again, my name is Matthew West. I just recently started with the city, and this is my first opportunity. Matthew, I'm sorry. Can you double check your microphone? I don't know if it went off or if it's... Is it on? Can you hear me? No. Yeah, I think maybe if you move it a little closer. Okay. I'll lean a little bit. Thank you. It's my pleasure to present to you this item tonight. It's the first one I've worked on, and I have a major clarification I'd like to get to at the end of this presentation, with a little bit of an apology. But first of all, what we're here to discuss, if it clicks, I'm going to do this. There you go. This ordinance intends to update the land development code regarding the development of residential non-conforming lots. And in that regard, what that means is existing lots that don't meet the area requirement of the zoning they're in or the lot width requirement. This ordinance also aims to enhance the flexibility for development of substandard single-family lots of record in the city. This would support the infill of existing lots in the city, and it's also supporting one of the policies of the comprehensive plan about encouraging infill rather than sprawl. Rather than building on the edge of the city, fill in what you have available. So in 2013, the city established regulations for non-conforming lots. And I guess your first question is, how does a lot become non-conforming? As an example, the city incorporated December 31st, 1995. So prior to that date, the county zoning and the county applied zoning to what was soon to be the incorporated city of Deltona. So their standards of their zoning code may be different from what Deltona's had adopted. But the lots were in existence prior to the Deltona incorporating. And even since then, it was not until 1998 that Deltona adopted its own land development code with its own set of rules about zoning, which may have made other previously existing lots non-conforming as to area or width. The part of this I'm going to want to talk about and apologize for is I made a misinterpretation of this map you have attached to my report. I call it the Deltona snow globe. That actually, I believe, is all the vacant lots in the city that are zoned residential. And in actuality, there are probably a far few, about 1,584 vacant lots. But there are far fewer than that that are non-conforming. And I need to confirm that with the GIS planner that put this together for me. And it's my responsibility. I should have double-checked this to give you that accurate information. Because I know this is a magnitude issue with you, whether it's 1,500 lots or only 100 lots that are non-conforming. But in either case, if you're the owner of a non-conforming lot, you have the issue that if I want to build on my non-conforming single-family lot, because it doesn't meet lot area, I have to, at this time, apply for variances and go through the variance process in the city. And so that's two variances you have to apply for to try to, currently, to try to get your lot conforming so you can actually build on it. And as an example, right now we charge $400 application fee for each variance. So that's $800 of an expense of a vacant lot owner to go through the process. Plus, there's additional fees that might, if legal is involved, and additional staff time. So this ordinance is intended to kind of, you know, make it easier, less restrictive on these non-conformities as to lot width and lot area. What it doesn't do is relieve the rest of the zoning requirements of a single-family lot, like building setbacks, or impervious surface, maximum impervious surface, or building height. It doesn't allow or relax all those. It's just for lot area and lot width. If you can fit a house on there and meet the setbacks of that zoning, that's at least two variances you didn't need to get to do this. Now, to define a lot of record, that's in the ordinance, the draft ordinance you have in front of you. A lot of record is a legally recorded and plaited lot, or a legally recorded meets and bounds description of a lot that existed prior to November 16th, 1998. And that's the significant date of when the city adopted its own land development code. So by adopting that, it may have rendered some of these vacant lots non-conforming as to width or area. And part of the exercise here is we would demonstrate whether or not this lot of record was legal or not on or before that date. There's no—basically what this is going to do, and I already went over this, is it's not going to waive all the other requirements of zoning. And the other thing is a lot of record to qualify for this kind of waiver of those two variance criteria of lot width and lot area. That lot has to be in single ownership. I can't own three lots in a row and say, oh, I can't meet lot area because I've got two next to me. So it has to be in a single ownership and not with any adjoining or continuous properties. This reduces the number of variances to make a substandard single-family lot legal. It simplifies the process. There's less paperwork and less processes to have to go through. It's good for infill development. You're utilizing vacant existing single-family lots that you're also relying on infrastructure that's already in place. You're building where there is roads and where there's utilities. So you're building in place and filling in places rather than having to extend utilities out further and further and create sprawl. And this supports the housing needs of additional property owners. One of the things I will do is I will clarify how many existing non-conforming lots there are and clarify that. But I don't believe it's the 1,584 quoted in here. It's significantly fewer. And at this point, staff is recommending approval of this ordinance so that we can relieve the burden of existing single-family lot owners with non-conforming lots of record. And I'm available for any questions. Thank you, Matthew. Any questions? Yes, Madam Northey. Or I'm sorry, Member Northey. Madam, we'll go to Member Stewart. Just a couple of questions. You talked about maybe like three lots in a row. Yeah. And that would not qualify. Could they combine those lots and make one lot? That's what they would have to do. They could probably do a recombination. Okay. Yeah, that's what they would do. And then what happens? I'm sure there are lots in the substandard list that even when you put a house on, they would still not be conforming to the requirements to build a house. We looked at that. And what happens to those lots? And that could be a difficult situation. Let's say you have an existing lot that's only 30 feet wide. You might not be able to meet side setbacks or what have you, or put a reasonably sized house. Because also I believe, and Jordan correct me if I'm wrong, we have minimum lot, minimum house sizes in our zoning district. And the lot may not be big enough to accommodate that minimum house size, and they would have to be addressed through variances. I think the aim of a city or a county local government is not to render the property valueless by not giving it at least a minimum type of use. Okay, so they would still have the option of coming in with the variance. Okay, thank you. Member Stewart, and then we'll go to Member Ward. So I'm just curious if we have a number. If not, that's okay. But how many variance requests for these non-conforming lot sizes have been submitted in the last year or two? And the reason I ask before, let me preface this. Are we expecting, like, just a rush, you know, to come in? Or is this kind of preemptive, set us up for the opportunity or giving landowners the opportunity to develop on their properties? So in the last few years, I believe we've had four. Okay. I want to say only two have been approved, two were denied. Okay. Say that last part again. Two were approved and two were denied. Oh. Okay. Okay. Perfect. And then my second question, I saw on the memorandum line item number two, developmental flexibility. I love flexibility. It's a great thing. My question is this. Are we looking at, and you kind of answered it or led into that with your presentation. Your presentation answered a lot of questions I already had, so thank you for that. But in developmental flexibility, you mentioned we have requirements on the books already for house sizing. I wanted to touch base and basically ask about tiny homes, modular or manufactured homes, space or homes not on a permanent foundation. Would those be permitted on these non-conforming lots, or is that something that other areas of code would prevent those from being in? We don't have a tiny house ordinance, but it would seem to me if somebody came in with one on one of these non-conforming lots, you would just be asking for a variance to the minimum house size to conform to whatever the tiny house is. Okay. So by approving this, the commission approves this. Let's say they approve this and they follow all the setbacks. You know, they do all the different things that they're supposed to. Technically, as long as it meets the minimum house size according to what's on the books right now, they can build it if it's a tiny, you know, I'm using air quotes, a tiny house or something smaller with that developmental flexibility. And the reason why I'm asking is we're coming into storm season, there's concerns with flooding and all that and the other. Are we, are we allowing, and that flexibility allowing, how do I say it, are we, basically are we allowing modular manufactured trailer homes to move into a community where you've got either what I would call a stick house or a brick and mortar house? No, our new zoning code does not allow that. You're only allowed to have a modular home in mobile home zoning districts. Okay, perfect. I just didn't know if this opened it up for that. So thank you. Thank you. Member Ornicki. I have a question for Jordan. What's, I know that RE1, the smallest house is 1,400 square feet, I believe. The requirements, you have to build a 1,400 square foot or largest. What's the smallest house that can be built legally in Deltona? That's one second. We're going to look that up right now. No pressure while we all stare at you. Smallest single family house or smallest residential unit? Like an apartment would be different than. Well, apartments wouldn't apply to any of these. Correct? So just single family. It'd be single, like a small. Single family. Single family. 1,200 square feet. 1,200 square feet. So 1,200 as small as you can build. And what's the, what would, what's the zoning? R1, it's a zoning classification. Okay, so no one can build anything smaller than that legally in the city of Deltona, in the city limits. Without a variance. Without a variance. Without, correct. That's what I'm saying. Okay, so if someone wants to build a 1,200 square foot house that fits on their property with the setbacks, this is going to alleviate a lot of the red tape that people have to go through, correct? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Okay, I just had a couple questions, too, for clarification, please. I heard, Dave, I saw you bring up development flexibility like that. Just want to confirm, right? So when I read, no minimum area or width requirements as long as all other dimensional standards, setbacks and heights are meant, work, this does not include, like, subdividing. If, if the lot is big enough, would we have been, okay, so it would still have to be the one individual lot, one individual single family home. Yeah, because you couldn't subdivide and then have two adjacent parcels and claim that you have a lot area or a lot width problem. So, yeah. Okay. And I think, Pat, you already clarified that it's a single lot, not, you can't, you can't combine. Okay. That was all I had. All right. Thank you. Any other questions or points of clarification needed? Motion. Yes, ma'am. Pop your mic on. Okay. I recommend the city commission approve board in December 19-2025. Let's PZ forward their recommendation. All right. We have a motion made by Member Northey and seconded by Member Nair. Thank you. Will you open it for the public? Oh, yes. Are there any public comments? Seeing no public comments, we can move on to the vote. Member Gonzalez. Yes. We have adoption. Member Northey. Yes. Member Stewart. Yes. Alternate Nair. Yes. Alternate Warnke. Yes. Secretary Amoroso. Yes. And Vice Chair Diarco. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Fantastic. Thank you, Matthew. All right. Moving on to new business topic C, resolution number 2025-55, amending the Deltona Planning and Zoning Board bylaws. All right. Good evening. As you stated, we're going to be going over the bylaws update. This is resolution number 2025-55. The purpose of the bylaws update is to modernize the bylaws that were adopted in 2011, aligned with the amended land development code, which was updated in 2020, clarify board roles and responsibilities, improve efficiency and accountability, and strengthen coordination among the board, staff, and city commission. Current bylaws have been in place since November 7, 2011. There have been no amendments since then. Operational and legal inconsistencies have been emerged over time, and this is currently governed under Article 12 of the Land Development Code. Key revisions, code alignment, updates to reflect Article 12 of the Land Development Code, communication protocol, direct board staff communication now authorized for agenda items. Alternate members, we are allowed to have up to five alternate members that are now showing in the bylaws, rotating attendance system, and we define term limits and participation guidelines, as well as staggered term removed. Right now, there is a lot of staggering, so now that's all done in March, and then everyone will serve a full direct appointment. Officer elections move to March. That aligns with the appointment cycles. Secretary is added as a backup presiding officer to ensure leadership continues when chair or vice chair are absent, and the agenda format has been updated to follow our current agenda. Benefits of the revision, enhanced legal and procedural clarity, increased operational efficiency, improved collaboration between the board and staff, greater flexibility with alternate members, and more transparent and consistent governance. And staff does recommend, the Planning and Zoning Board recommend the city commission approve resolution 2025-55, and if there's any questions. All right, we've got a couple people, so let me go to Member Northee, we'll go to Member Amorosa, anyone else steps up, and then I also have a few questions. Okay, first of all, thank you for doing this. It clarifies a lot that was, I think, old stuff, and it doesn't modernize this. However, I did not hear you say, and I did not see it in the PowerPoint, the issue of allowing membership by a person who had business here but lived out of the city. I personally don't agree with that at all, but I'm curious where that came from and why staff would think that was appropriate to, even though they have a business but they don't live here, to weigh in on planning and zoning issues when they don't live in the city. I believe it's because they're doing business within the city. I understand they're doing business, but there must be more to it than just that, that the business gives them rights, same rights of responsibility as the people who live here. So is that it, because they own a business? So we see in communities across the state, you know, whatever is the right fit for that community is how they choose to compose their local planning board. Many communities do want to include the ability for a business owner who does not necessarily live in the city to participate in the planning and zoning process, because they do have a vested interest in a brick-and-mortar location within the city, you know, and planning and zoning decisions affect commercial interests as well. But that is certainly up to the pleasure of the board and the commission if you do not feel that it's the right fit for the city. So let me ask you that then, because the staff recommendation, we would adopt all of that. If we don't want to adopt that piece of it, can we as a board make a recommendation to not to adopt it without the business component? Yes, ma'am. Yes, you may. And that is what would go before the city commission? Yes. Okay. Yes. That's it. Thank you. All right. And thank you for doing this, really. This really helps. And I think it was, let's go to Lori first, then we'll come to you. I said you first. Okay, I'm sorry. We'll go to Emma Rosa first, then Lori. I, too, have the same issue as Pat with the owner business. But I do have a suggestion, possibly, to not eliminate that, is that when we can establish a subcommittee, instead of that being reside within the city, maybe we can add or own a business. So if there was ever a case where we wanted, where, I mean, not that we've ever done a subcommittee, but there would be the option there to involve business owners if the board so desired, in my opinion. That's just me. The other thing is, I just noticed something different, but on the red line and on the actual printed one, the order of business was a little bit different. So, you know, you have call to order, roll call, approve of minutes, but on the other one was call to order, roll call, additions, deletions. There was just a couple things missing. So I have both. I just don't know which one was right. So the one that does not have additions and deletions is the right one. Okay. That one we accidentally took from commission agenda, not our agenda. Okay. So the red line, it wasn't deleted though, is it? No, I know. You're deleted. Okay. And that was the only two things that I got. All right. Very good. Number Warnieke. I just want to clarify something. So in the information, someone could sit on the board that didn't live in the city, but worked in the city. Is that what I'm understanding? If it owns a business. It owns a business. That's right. If they own a business in the city, but they don't live in the city. The only thing, and I realize we're appointed, but if you have a business in the city and you don't live in the city, you can't vote in the city. And I think that probably speaks for itself. Thank you. Yep. Before I jump in, so I will just also get on the bandwagon of owning a business. I will just say I would not support this going in front of the commission. With that in here, I just think that allowing non-residents to serve on any board could really limit residential input and best interests, and it potentially introduced the risks of decisions being influenced by external factors or special interests. That's my own personal opinion. I did have just two other quick things that I think, Dave, I'm sorry, I think you wanted to speak to, is for article, I'm looking at the red button copy, article four, so page two, article four, section two. There's talking about terminating unexcused, excused absences. I do really appreciate that this is in here where we have, if there are three consecutive unexcused absences or two consecutive unexcused, I'm sorry, three consecutive excused absences or two consecutive unexcused. It reads, the board shall terminate. Would anybody have an objection if we change that to the board may terminate? And the only reason why I say that is because, Jessica, I'll harken back to when I was first appointed, I had knee surgery and I had to miss the first two meetings, right? Under these rules, I would be kicked off and reappointed. I just think I'd almost rather see the board be able to weigh in on that if there is an extenuating circumstance. So, we have this issue during COVID, and if it's something like that, we normally will, it'll be discussed and the board will decide. That's how we've done it in the past. So, we could change it if that's something that you guys all agree on. Okay. I don't want to speak for the rest of the board, but that was just my thought on that. And then there was, I believe I had one more, sorry. Oh, I did. I had one more. There was, and I can't remember where it was, but there was a, along that same line, it was conduct bringing discredit to the city of Deltona or board. That is when a member could be replaced. Who decides what that conduct is? Give me one second. I'm trying to find out. The majority of the board, maybe? Yeah. Well, that just wasn't defined. That was so I just, maybe if we could just more clearly spell that out, I would agree with that, right? It would be, it would be the, you know, the majority of the board. I don't know where that is yet. I know. I did. I circled it in here in the copy I had at home, and then I, if you give me one second, I'll go, you know, I think this is it. Yes. Okay. So page two, article four, section one, last sentence. Members of the office may be declared vacant by reasons of death, resignation, mental or physical incapacity, et cetera, or for conduct bringing discredit to the city of Deltona or the board. So that was just my only thought, is maybe just putting who decides that. Okay. That's all I had personally. And I believe members do, I'm sorry, did I just talk over somebody? So just for clarification purposes, and so as we move forward towards the motion, would your proposal on that be conduct bringing discredit to the city of Deltona or the board as defined, as determined by the planning and zoning board or the city commission? Um, yeah, I would say the city, I mean, at the end of the day, I would say it's the city, because it's at the will of the city commission. So I would, if no one objects, I would say city commission. Yeah. Or, or what code of ethics is currently in place for commission or city employees that it would, we would be measured against. Okay. And yeah, we can reference the Florida ethics statute. Yeah. So it's consistent. Great. Thank you, Zach. And I think members knew where you had some. Yes, I did. Um, so thank you for bringing up the shell. That was definitely, uh, you know, it kind of like, it almost sounds like, okay, we're forcing the hand and now we have to do this because they missed two and they're out. Um, there are extenuating circumstances. So maybe spelling that out, um, unpopular opinion. Uh, I think it's important, uh, for the citizens that live in a city to have a voice and by serving on a volunteer board like this, I think it's important. But I also see the value, all the, there are concerns, valid concerns about having somebody who owns a business, but doesn't listen, live in the city. And I hear that and I 100% understand that. Um, I'm a business owner in the city of Deltona. I also live in the city of Deltona. So this doesn't apply to me, but, uh, for someone to have a business here, uh, to pay taxes here, to employ potential residents here, um, and to have a voice, uh, as it relates to commercial, uh, planning and zoning. I think it's nice to have that. I think it's important to have that. Um, and so I say unpopular opinion because, you know, everyone has kind of expressed or those that have spoken have spoken out against it. I don't really get caught up on that because I see the value in having that voice. And then as I backtrack and trace it back, I understand the opportunity for, you know, somebody getting into a position and utilizing that inappropriately. But I, I trace that back and think through the selection process. There's, there's processes in place that I think would weed that out. The application process, the appointing process, you know, those, I feel like those, um, uh, ulterior motives would hopefully come out during that selection process, application process, and before it goes before the commission. Um, so I, I'm not too hung up on that. I understand the value in having that voice to be heard. Um, you know, but I also, you know, if you have an entire board of nobody lives here and it's all businesses, there's that too. So maybe my suggestion, maybe limiting that, having one or two, you know, one appointment or something like that, that would give that ability to have somebody who lives outside, but has a business here. Or what one member and one alternate. Right. So you do have. But then you have, who's going to make that decision, which member of the, of the commission has to make that decision. So. Yeah. So it's, it's, it's a gray area and I don't like gray areas. So it's tough, but to be the unpopular opinion or unpopular voice on that, I, uh, you know, I see the value in hearing that voice. So I just wanted to put that out there. Thank you. I think member Northy. Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Jordan. Madam vice chair, just to chime in. Um, so what I've seen in other cities is if there's not enough city residents to fill a board, um, they, um, do have the, um, option to put a business owner on. So I don't know if you want to consider that as well. I don't, yeah, I think that's a good point, but I don't, I don't know that we've ever had an issue with the dealt with the P and Z board here. There being a lack of, of can of candidates. Um, but thank you for, for bringing that up. Appreciate it. And member Northy. Yeah, I just wanted to talk about attendance and I'm okay with the way this is written because it's three consecutive absences or two consecutive unexcused absences that follows the same protocol that the county uses on all their boards. So I, I, and I can tell you that their PLDRC just went through a, um, replaced a couple of board members because they had unexcused absences. I think that's the key. As long as you have the, the, the consecutive, the, it says consecutive absences, that would, I think that we would call for someone being removed if they had three consecutive absences, even if they were excused, if there's, that's three months, so. That's true. No, I'm okay with what, that would be what they have. Clarifying question on excused versus unexcused. An excused absence would be an absence where, uh, staff was notified within 48 hours before the meeting. Yes. Okay. Got it. I was going to make sure. You got to bring a note from your mom. Yes. All right. Very good. Was there any, any other comments, concerns? But we are seeing that the other cities are having the option of, um, having a business owner, right? That's, that is the norm now in other running cities. Yeah. So, I mean, you see, again, each community chooses what's right for that community. Um, you know, some communities have very prescriptive, uh, membership requirements. Um, you know, we have done work in another city where they required. One member who was a landscape architect, one member who was, uh, a business owner, and they, it was very prescriptive. Um, they sometimes had challenges with membership because it was hard to find people with those exact qualifications. Um, but it, it really varies across the state. And again, it's up to what is the correct fit for your community. Anyone like to make a motion? Yes, ma'am. Make a motion that we recommend the Planning and Zoning Board, uh, Commission approved resolution. The 2025 dash 55, but let's see item on the, um, business, uh, business out of, out of city business owner membership. Does that make sense? So each member of the board shall reside within city limits? Yes. Is how we like it to be. No worries. It's a team. I'll make that as a motion. But we want to change the mage to shall we? That's off the table. I would leave that to the, to the rest of the board. Yeah. I think, I think member Northey made a, well, you know, let's, let's finish the motion first or not. Do we need to? So you all can, there's a motion, there's a motion on the floor, um, and it has not been seconded. Right. Okay. So you all. We can talk. You can talk. Or if someone wants to second and then amend the motion and amend the motion. So I'm, I, after Pat made a compelling counterpoint of it's three consecutive excused absences, which would be three meetings. So then at that point, yeah, I would question. Do they, but thank you for bringing that up. So I'm good with your motion as. Okay. Motion made by member Northey, seconded by member Amoroso, secretary Amoroso. Sorry, Rachel. Um, and would the motion also include the addition to article four, section one, clarifying that conduct bringing discredit to the city of Deltona or the board as determined by the city commission and the Florida statutes regulating ethics? Yeah. I include everything except that issue with the business. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you, Jerry. All right. Thank you. So the motion is that we agree with both of those amendments or? Yes. We have to agree with both? Well, one's an amendment. One's already in there. Yeah. As a, I mean, it's a change, but it's. But yeah, it's a change. So it's approving with all board members must be residents and that, what was the last one, Zach? Justifying. The code of conduct. Determining, yes. What is credit, discredit to the city? We would continue to second your vote. All right. So we'll come maybe, maybe call the vote. Public. Oh, public comment, please. None? Okay. Let's call the vote. Member Gonzalez. Yes, with the noted modifications. Member Nordy. Yes, with a thank you to staff for getting this done. Member Stewart. While I see the value in having a business represented, I can also agree with the overall topic. So yes. Yeah. Alternate Nair. No, I do not agree. I think a business owner should be allowed. Alternate Warnicky. Yes. Secretary Amoroso. Yes. And Vice Chair De'Erico. Yes. Motion passes 6-1. All right. Very good. So those are all the new business agenda topics. So do we have any staff comments? Just for the record, Chair Cardo and Member, I'm going to butcher his name, I'm sorry, John Zwoski, they contacted us prior to the meeting and made prior applications work in. So just wanted to let the board know, other than that, staff does not have any comments except have a safe and happy holiday. Thank you. Very good. We wish the same to you all. Any board comments? Would anyone like to comment, update? No? We're all good? All right, well, I would like to see any of you guys at the DRC meeting tomorrow morning? Unfortunately, not. Not for me. No, I'm sorry. I will definitely be there in spirit. That's for sure. Before I just wish everyone an adjournment, I just echo wishing everyone a nice weekend. And remember, there is, Rachel, you want to give a little plug for the VMA event on Saturday? I know Rachel will be there. Saturday VMA is having their second annual motorcycle ride, benefiting, I believe they have three veterans, and the registration is at 9 a.m., kickstands up at 11 a.m. Here at City Hall. And there will be other vendors, I believe, that are going to offer free services to vendors and stuff like that. Very good. And I think... Yeah, Matt, could we get an updated map? Yeah. Okay, thank you. All right, very good. All right, thank you, everyone. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.