Good evening. Call to order the Planning and Zoning Board meeting of Monday, June 23rd. May we start with staff calling the roll. Member Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Member Northey. Member Stewart. Here. Member Chordanoski. Here. Secretary Amoroso. Vice Chair Diarico. Here. Alternate French. Alternate Nair. Alternate Warnicke. And alternate Zaltos. Here. Thank you. Looking for a motion for the approval of the minutes? We don't have any minutes. We don't have any minutes from the – oh, that's true, because we were just here. See? There you go. Okay. We'll check that one off the list. Assuming you want to withdraw your motion. All right. Do we have any presentations and awards? No presentations and awards. Thank you so much. Any public forum to kick us off? No, ma'am. Thank you. And any old business? No old business. Okay. All right. So now let's get down to new business. We'll go ahead and we'll discuss item A, public hearing ordinance number 29-2025. And I think, Zach, did you want to read that fully now? Get to practicing? Yes, Madam Vice Chair. This is ordinance number 29-2025, an ordinance of the City of Deltona, Florida, providing for imposition of a temporary moratorium on issuance of development orders and permits, and on the processing of development applications, city code text amendments, rezonings, comprehensive plan text, and land use plan amendments for development of residential dwelling units within the city, exempting specified development, providing for waivers, providing for vested rights, providing for appeals, providing for exhaustion of administrative remedies, providing for a term not to exceed nine months unless extended by the City Commission as provided by law, providing for conflicts, severability, and an effective date. Thank you. And Jordan, I believe we have a presentation. Yes, ma'am. Good evening, Vice Chair, Planning and Zoning Board members. First, I'd like to thank you all for accommodating and attending this meeting this afternoon. So, this afternoon, we're going to talk about representing Ordinance 29-2025, which proposes a temporary moratorium on certain residential development activities within the City of Deltona. The proposed duration is up to nine months and is intended to the City time to evaluate and address infrastructure and policy concerns related to continued growth. This slide frames the approach. What is the problem that we're trying to address? How is the moratorium connected to it? And what do we hope to solve during this pause? Now, for a moratorium to be legally defensible, it must serve two purposes. First, it should serve as legitimate public interest, such as protecting the infrastructure. And number two, be proportional, which is limited in scope and time. And I'm going to turn it over to Zach, who's going to talk about our pertinent laws and judicial decisions. Thank you, Mr. Smith. So, this is just a brief overview of some relevant judicial decisions and statute that you may hear discussed this evening. The first is the Burt J. Harris Private Property Rights Protection Act. Most people call this the Burt Harris Act. So, this is a statutory scheme that provides a right for recovery and compensation to any property owner damaged by a specific action of a governmental entity that has inordinately burdened an existing use of real property or a vested right to a specific use of real property. So, inordinate burden and inordinately burdened mean that an action of one or more governmental entities has restricted or limited the use of a real property such that the property owner is permanently unable to attain the reasonable investment-backed expectation for the existing use of the real property or a vested right to a specific use of the real property with respect to the real property as a whole or that the property owner is left with existing or vested uses that are unreasonable such that the property owner bears permanently a disproportionate share of a burden imposed for the public good. The Act further provides that a temporary burden, a temporary impact to rip property in effect for less than one year do not constitute an inordinate burden on property. However, a temporary impact on development that is in effect for longer than one year may, depending on the circumstances, constitute an inordinate burden. So, you may hear folks talk about the Burr-Harris Act and Burr-Harris Act claims in the context of this moratorium. So, for that reason, the scope has been limited to that nine-month duration, nine months or less. Moving on to First English Evangelical Lutheran Church versus Los Angeles County. This is a Supreme Court case out of California that provides guidance as to takings when it comes to the temporary deprivation of rights to property use. So, just quickly, this, in 1957, a church purchased and operated a campground retreat for handicapped children that they called Luther Glen. The land is located along a canyon which functioned as a natural drainage channel. In 1978, a catastrophic storm dumped 11 inches of water into the watershed area and caused a raging river that swept through the area and caused extensive damage to this property and others throughout the region. As a result of that flood, Los Angeles County adopted an interim ordinance prohibiting the construction of any building in interim flood protection areas, which included the church's property. The church filed suit and the Supreme Court held that the owners were entitled to damages for that temporary taking. So, this case stands for the proposition that a temporary taking could entitle a property owner to compensation under certain circumstances. And, again, that's why Mr. Smith alluded to this idea of not inordinately burdening and the moratorium being proportional to the harm it is seeking to prevent. The final piece here is a June 2002 informal Attorney General opinion issued by Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Wilson. This arises from an inquiry by the City of Cape Coral, where they were in the process of implementing a moratorium as provided by statute going through the process just as we're going through tonight of public hearing. And the City was seeking to limit and limit the acceptance of applications during the implementation time, essentially, between the public notice and having the first and second readings of that ordinance. That was not permitted. So, we are not engaging in that activity, but just wanted to provide that guidance for you all as a board so that you are aware, which leads us into Deltona's proposed moratorium. Thank you, Zach. So, now we're going to talk about the purpose and scope of this moratorium. The moratorium targets new residential development applications, including rezonings and plan amendments for residential uses. And this pause will allow the City to analyze capacity and service impacts from growth and recommend adjustments where needed. In terms of legal authority, the action is fully within the City's authority under the Florida Constitution, Chapters 163 and 166, which allow municipalities to regulate land use in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare. The City has seen significant residential development pressure in recent years. Public infrastructure, such as roads, utilities, and emergency services, are struggling to keep pace. And this moratorium will provide time to evaluate and ensure that development aligns with community needs and infrastructure capacity. What are the goals during this moratorium? Staff will conduct a citywide infrastructure assessment. We will update land use policies and zoning to ensure smart and sustainable growth. And we will explore policies for infill development, infrastructure, funding, and future growth management. Now, this moratorium does include exemptions. So, this moratorium will not apply to commercial, industrial, office, or school projects. It will not apply to projects on city-owned or CRA-owned land. It will not apply to projects with approved site plans or plans prior or plots prior to June 30th. And any final approvals or permits related to prior entitlements. And lastly, specific projects identified in Exhibit A of the ordinance. The Commission takes this up this evening. The Commission may adjust the nine-month duration. It can also consider exemptions for infill residential or mixed-use projects. And it can also provide direction for any changes or clarifications before second reading. So, the Planning and Zoning Board can give the recommendations to the City Commission. And so, here we are at the Planning and Zoning Board. You all are reviewing the proposed ordinance this evening. And you will provide a formal recommendation to the City Commission for consideration. Senate Bill 180. The Senate Bill 180 has passed the legislature and awaits the governor's signature. And I'm going to turn it over to Zach for some more legal guidance. So, as Mr. Smith stated, Senate Bill 180 is a broad-reaching bill that passed the legislature and is now pending action by the governor. In the event that SB 180 passes and is signed into law, it will have a statewide impact, including Deltona. And the effect of the bill will be to prohibit new local development restrictions, including moratoria, between August 1st of 2024 until August 1st of 2027. The bill states that any restriction enacted during this time period will be considered invalid ab initio, invalid from the beginning. So, it will be immediately considered to be unenforceable. The risk to the City, if this does pass, and the City's moratorium is also passed, is that impacted parties can seek to invalidate local ordinance that are contrary to the intent. And if successful, they may recover attorney's fees and costs. So, that would pose a challenge for the City if the City were to attempt to continue enacting its moratorium and despite SB 180 being signed into law, this is, of course, at this point, hypothetical because we do not know if SB 180 will be signed into law. This is just a legislative and legal risk that we need to inform the Planning and Zoning Board and the Commission of as you enter into this and consider this item before you. And finally, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board hold a public hearing on Ordinance No. 29-2025 and provide any direction for changes prior to second reading. And this evening, staff will present the recommendation to the City Commission. Thank you. Thank you very much, Jordan. Thank you, Zach. So, I think in the interest of time, and what we'll do is we'll start to my right and we'll give everybody five minutes this first pass round because I think the Commission meetings are the workshops because it's at 5.30. We'll give everybody five minutes to talk about their concerns, and then if there's still time left, we could circle back. This way it gives everybody the opportunity to speak. So, go ahead. You want to kick us off? I don't have anything in particular to talk about right now or ask about. I'm still getting my arms around all of this in order to get some specific questions. All right. We will come back to you. No worries. Thanks. All right. Member Trojanowski. Yes. I actually have quite a few comments on this. Just so you know, I'm also the HOA president for Hampton Oaks. One of the biggest ticket items that we have right now is the stormwater issues in our community. Whereas the builder has not constructed the stormwater retention ponds to engineering specs, they have put in floor drains when they did not call for floor drains. It is continuously, every single day, dumping water down into Fort Smith. And no other words to say that it possibly could contribute to flooding. It's an issue. And with no controls right now, the builder has not responded to the city. They have not responded to the HOA about any updates, inspections, anything that has to do with this retention pond and how they're going to fix it. The builder told me they had a date of 531 that they had to pull out no matter what. And they did. They left all their signs, their trash on our streets, and they left it there for us to clean up. The cones, everything. They've had a breach of the hydraulic wall on one side two years ago. They've had the weir system failed and overfilled and flooding down the sides of neighbor's homes. Then they had another pond that filled up, and they had to actually dig into the street to clear the pipes. This affects everybody. It's not just Hampton Oaks. It actually affected, obviously, Fort Smith most definitely. This is one of four that the same engineering company has designed. There's another one that's actually in lawsuit right now as well, too. So, again, for me personally, we need to stop, take a breath, look at what we're doing, because if you look at social media, you talk to any citizens right now, what's their main complaints? Crime, flooding, and taxes. This takes care of two of them, right? One of them we're talking about flooding. We need to find ways to take developers and make sure and hold them accountable, for one. But for two also, let's finish, you know, what did you say, forgive me if I'm wrong, was it 10 years that we haven't updated impact fees? 2015. 2015. So, yeah, 10 years. I know it's been being worked on for a while, but let's fix it. There's no more time to play around, right? And this is, I believe, what this is moratorium will do is put the pressure on the city enough to say, hey, this is important to the commission that we need to enact this to take these steps to finish this and charge the correct fees so we don't have to, you know, enforce more taxes on the citizens of the city. But then also, we need to find out what's going on, because we have a lot of residential building right now. And I've worked in environmental for a long time, not just insurance. I worked in environmental stormwater, and I can tell you there's a lot more problems coming down the roads. And if we listen to the citizens who are already complaining, this is one way for us to pause and be able to address their concerns. So I do believe that we should, you know, put a moratorium in. And I've heard quite a bit, you know, that let's think about what we're doing because we have the possibility of being sued. You have that possibility every single day. Look at the Halifax project, right? You're already being sued, and you didn't even do anything before you even had a chance to judge on whether you're going to change from A to B. You always are in the possibility of being sued. So you can't use that as judgment to say, hey, I'm not going to do this today because I'm going to be sued. And to be quite honest, yes, you know, there will be lawsuits. If the governor signs this bill into act, there's going to be lawsuits up and down the whole entire state because this affects every single city in the state, not just here. So, you know, in my eyes, you know, the cities should band together, obviously, and let the state know. And when you do have bills that kind of get signed like that, there usually is a period just afterwards where you're going to see a slew of lawsuits that come in. And it will take time for that to get weeded out before full action comes about after that. And that's it. Thank you very much. Member, let the record reflect that alternate French is on the dice. And Member French, would you like to speak now or do you want a couple minutes to compose? Okay, go ahead. I had composed some notes on this. I am not deterred by the legalese that is kind of scaring us or attempting to scare us to not do a moratorium. Something like this, I feel, has been needed for a long time. I'm for a moratorium if it stops development. But we also have to understand, as our other member was mentioning, that it does not impact a lot of projects that are already in the works. So the moratorium itself is not going to solve the problems. But the phases that are talked about in that are supposed to take place from the moratorium is possibly our one best last chance to actually try to fix our flawed development process. We have got things in our code that are not addressed, and engineering design and planning that don't address or utilize our proven ecological designs and development practices that have been used in other communities for decades. It's the designs, the plans, the land clearing, and the landscaping concepts that have to be changed. And if those are going to be addressed during a moratorium by our staff, which is very capable of doing that, because the information is out there, it's not rocket science. I am all for a moratorium to get those things done, because the only way we are going to change these things is to revise our comp plan and our land use codes that allow these developers for decades to do the slash-and-burn techniques, the environmental cookie-cutter designs that don't take into account any of the natural assets of our community. We have trees that are completely destroyed and eliminated, and small little trees, token trees, put in their places. You can look through some of these massive developments, and you can see how what was there does not exist. It'll take over 40 to 50 or more years for that kind of foliage to come back, not to mention the wildlife that's been displaced. So if we are going to do development, we need to do it that doesn't result in the sterile, treeless wasteland that invites the flooding and the poor quality of life that we're actually developing in Deltona. These are issues that we've had previous administrations that didn't deal with, they didn't want to address them, but it's something that communities have tackled before, and we can do it too. And I don't think we should be scared by these kinds of tactics about possible suits, because what's been going on now has been a laissez-faire development process that for decades has been using a technique that just completely destroys anything natural. And you can go around our area, you can go into Lake Helen and see where they built nice houses in sections along their main drive, but the forest is still there. They made sure that when they put that stuff in, it wasn't destroyed. Other people can do this, and developers, if they want to do a design plan and put into the engineering to do it, they can create a community that's going to be appealing, and it's not going to destroy the environment. I say we've got to revise the code, we've got to require design planning that's shaped by the land and not some blueprint that puts houses cookie-cutter style all across the property and eliminates anything that was there. We shouldn't be transforming property anymore, we should be trying to blend in with it. And I have seen communities, again, that have done this, and it makes them appealing, it adds to property values, and it's something that Deltona has had been needing for a long time. So I say yes to a moratorium. All set? All right, thank you, sir. Member Northey. Thank you. I have some questions about the presentation. The solutions create actionable goals to be accomplished during the moratorium that address the identified problems. Do we have a timetable on that? Are we not doing that already? I mean, have we not been given? Staff is continuing to work on updating the code, and we're currently updating the conference plan as we speak. The conference plan should come to the P&Z in October slash November, and then see commission for adoption. Okay, so how many times do we get a bite of the apple on this? We've done this before. At least once I know, I was sitting as chair when the P&Z, when we did the moratorium, sent it off to the county commission, city commission, and nothing happened, because the city commission had not given direction. I think I heard you say you've been given direction. Is that correct? We received direction from the city commission, and then at the last planning and zoning board meeting, this board gave direction to the city board. We did. Requested direction to be given to the city commission to direct staff to make some additional updates as well. And I'd just like to also let you know that at the June 16th city commission meeting, there was an extension for the zoning in progress for stormwater regulations, which staff is working on as well. Okay. I can remember being told at the time, at my first time on P&Z, that you only got one bite of the apple. You had to get it done then, or you didn't get another chance. What's a legal discussion on that? Okay, so generally a moratorium should not be longer than 12 months as an additional term. We did six. And so this right here is nine. If the commission were to want to extend this for an additional time period, they could. But that's unanswered to my question. I thought we were only allowed to do a moratorium one time. That was it. Once you did it, you didn't do it again. I mean, six and nine don't make 12. Right. So a moratorium can be an act. You can enact a moratorium multiple times for various reasons. It would not be permissible, for instance, to enact a moratorium for one year and then immediately enact another moratorium for another year for the exact same purposes, because you would be, number one, moving beyond that 12-month threshold, which is generally considered as reasonable. And you should have reasonably addressed at least some of the goals of the moratorium within those 12 months. You could enact a moratorium for a different problem, a different reason, right, consecutive with another moratorium. We're moving a little bit into hypotheticals. But this moratorium on its face is permissible. It is for a permissible purpose, and it is not too close in time to the previous moratorium where it would be considered unreasonable. Okay. So we say new residential development applications. Please, can you define residential applications? And would that include apartments? Yes, ma'am. That would be... It would include apartments? Yes, ma'am. So this would be an application for, as currently drafted, it is any application that includes residential development units, whether that be single-family townhouse, cluster... Or commercial. Or, yeah, or multifamily, and any of those iterations. Just to correct the record for a second, I'm sorry, Zach, all our multifamily in the city of Deltona is required to be mixed-use now. Okay. So any... The moratorium would include the mixed-use of the residential. Okay. Here we have goals during the moratorium. We've listed our goals. So tell me why we couldn't do these without doing a moratorium. Aren't we already... I think I talked about that earlier, but we're already working on them, correct? These goals? That is correct, yes, ma'am. So these goals have already been approved by the commission? Correct. We're working on the... We are working on the comprehensive plan. Once the comprehensive plan is updated, we hope to do an overhaul on our land of M code as well. And then we're in the process of getting the impact these studies underway. And you're going to bring this stuff back as you complete it, if I understood that correctly? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Member Northey, would you mind, in the interest of time, if we went to Member Stewart and then came back with you? I'm sorry. Thank you. No, you're fine. Member Stewart. Staff, thank you for your presentation and getting everything together for us so quickly. I do want to go off of Member Northey's question here. So this is our goals that are set here on paper, on purpose. We have a plan on paper, on purpose. We're already working towards accomplishing these goals right now. Yes. Okay. Do we have a timeline on the impact study fees and when those changes could potentially be implemented? What's worst-case scenario, best-case scenario? There is an RFP currently open for the impact fee study. Per statute, impact fee studies have to be special purpose by a dedicated consultant for that scope. Generally, it may take, depending, of course, on various factors, it may take between three to six months or longer for a consultant to complete their scope of work. This depends highly on what data is available and exactly what they are evaluating. By statute, impact fees have to have a 90-day phase-in. So from the day that commission hits the gavel on second reading, there has to be a 90-day period before the new fees are activated. So, I mean, we could potentially be within that nine months. That's, of course, not a guarantee and it depends very much on the factors, as I mentioned before. So hypothetically, again, completely hypothetically, I'm not holding anyone to this. By the end of the year or Q1 of 2026, we could have an impact fee study done and already be following those new guidelines. It is possible. I would not want to commit under the city manager's purview, so I would not want to commit him to that. Understood. Very good. So while I do agree with some of my members that in leadership, you don't want to lead from a place of fear, I think leading from a position of fear is not a good position to lead from. I think a healthy respect is important to know that this could potentially open us up to litigation and listening to the last few meetings, you know, quite a few dollars in legal fees and getting that done. And the difficulty I'm having, while I do agree, that we need to hold builders accountable, that we need to restrengthen our infrastructure, stormwater, fire response times, law enforcement response times. I think I've almost every meeting, almost every meeting I've highlighted this. I know this is a county issue, but I have a child in high school, middle school, and elementary school, and our schools are understaffed and full, overflowing with kids, and I think that's something that also needs to be addressed. Traffic, of course, impact fees, making sure people are paying their fair share, and to your point, builder accountability when they're in their communities, making sure things are right. But I find it difficult to enact a moratorium when we're already taking steps and we're already taking strides to kind of, I guess, put the thumb down on it and say, hey, this needs to get done now, when new relationships are already being established and things are already getting done. I listened to our last commission meeting, and I had a really difficult time listening to that meeting. I listened to it three times. That is four and a half hours of fun three times because I wanted to get things right. I made sure I heard what I heard. My concern is enacting a moratorium to hold a city manager accountable or to hold staff accountable at the risk of costing the city hundreds of thousands, a million-plus dollars, and potential legal fees. Again, not from a place of fear, but from a place of wisdom and holding people accountable. That's what I have to juggle. That's what I have to struggle with as I'm going back and forth. I'm all for builder accountability. I'm all for restrengthening infrastructure. Sure, I'm all for increasing impact fees to be similar to other areas around it, but I don't want to proverbial jump the gun here and enforce a situation that's going to put us in bad graces with developers. I hear what our community is saying. I hear what our people are saying, and I understand that. I just don't know necessarily that this is 100% the way, and I don't want to do anything that's rushed that could cause potential harm to our city. While I understand the benefits, I also understand and realize there are negative impacts as well, and I have to weigh all of that. Thank you, Member Stewart. Member Gonzalez? Just a quick question for you. Is there any idea of when this will hit the governor's desk, the Senate Bill 180? It's on his desk right now. Okay, so we just don't know when he's going to look at it? Correct. Because I have pretty much the same concerns, you know, if we go ahead and do this, and then he signs 180, the lawsuits that could potentially hit us. And it's not a fear. It's a taxpayer-funded issue because the taxpayers here in Deltona are the ones who wind up having to foot the bill if the city sued over this. You know, to be able to table this until we know what's going on with Senate Bill 180 would be ideal, or to push this to the commission that if this is signed into a state bill, 180 signed into a law, that we relook at this moratorium to prevent us as a city and as taxpayers from being sued and footing the bill because, like you said, there will be lawsuits that come down. You know, I know you guys have to make your money as lawyers, but, you know, I just don't feel it's necessary to put that burden on a taxpayer and residents of the city of Deltona. I agree with everything that's in here. This is stuff that, you know, the last couple of years that we've been pushing for, you know, to readdress and readdress. But, you know, this, I wouldn't say scares me, but concerns me that there's a potential for that. Thank you. Thank you, Member Gonzalez. Members Lados, did you want a few minutes before I move forward? Well, after listening to all the members up here, I've heard a lot of good insights into this, and I'm not going to add to that. But now I am starving a little bit, too, with the rushing into it. But to do it for the right reasons, but the right reasons is there's always something around a corner that you can't think of that we might regret. So I'm just a little bit more measured in this topic tonight and be thoughtful about it. So I'm not really got my arms around how long we have to make a decision besides this evening. Is there going to be enough chance to talk about this and get together on a decision? I believe for the commission, but I believe this is the way the timeline currently stands. This is the Planning and Zoning Board's only opportunity? That is correct. This goes, the Planning and Zoning Board will make a recommendation to the City Commission. And the City Commission will hear it for first reading tonight and then possible second reading on June 30th. Thank you. All right. I won't add. Everybody brought up great points. And the benefit of going last is I don't need to repeat all the great questions and comments that everybody already made. I do have, I think, what might be some different questions is. So let's just say moratorium passes, SB 180 is signed. Can we, is there a way that we can word the ordinance to say that if SB 180 is signed, then we will nullify our moratorium? Or how would that be an option? Because then if it doesn't sign, then we've got our moratorium in place, we can move forward. If it does sign, we could take a further pause and evaluate now what the next best steps are. Yes, that could be part of the Board's recommendation to the Commission is that they make the moratorium contingent upon SB 180. We can think of some better language to that. Yeah, please do. Don't use my language. But, yeah, that could certainly be part of your recommendation tonight. Okay, and then I also wanted to clarify, Jordan, I think I heard you say if it's, if there's any residential, so if it's mixed use, that would also be included in the moratorium? Correct. Okay. Would, would we want to consider looking at that differently? So if the ratio of commercial is much more significant than the ratio of residential, would, would there be an option? Like, would that still be able to go up to the Commission to let them look at it individually to decide how to move forward with that individual? Or does it, does it? That would be a recommendation that this Board would need to bring to the City Commission. Okay. All right. And then I think I had one more. Excuse me. I'm sorry. I'm holding myself accountable to the same five minutes, y'all, I promise. Um, infill lots. I don't know that I heard, where are we at with infill lots? At the, at the last City Commission meeting on June 16th, there was not a consensus whether to exempt infill lots or not. Okay. So I, I, I want, I would wonder if that would be a consideration and where, where my head is with that is, you, you know, you have, um, Tara and Dave, sorry, Dave, you were the first person I looked at. Tara and Fred will say that, you know, bought a piece of property six months ago and now want to build their dream home. Or are we going to now make, you know, do they now need to delay or do they have a recourse that they could continue to move forward with that? So my recommendation to the Board is to have a discussion and then come up with the recommendation that, um, you can, we can provide to the City Commission this evening. Right. And then ultimately the City Commission could still adjust that however they see fit. 100% correct, yes. Okay. All right. I'm pretty sure in my minute and 55 seconds left, um, those are all my questions. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Okay. Do we want to, any additional, Jordan, any, anything additional you want to add before we go to public comment? If you can open up the public comment. Yes, sir. Jessica, do we have any public comment? No, we have all these people. Nobody wants to get up and talk. All right. All right. Any further comments from staff? Was there any? We've got probably about 10 minutes left that we could still open it up to the dais for additional comments. Yep. Go ahead. Um, yeah, I just want to add a couple things. Um, you know, here's the other side of it, too. If we don't enact a moratorium, you still have the possibility of being sued of every single person that's being affected from flooding as well, too. So you have, you know, both sides of this. It doesn't matter. You can get sued one way or probably will be one way or the other. But, um, you know, you ask about what's the end result if we don't pass this. The end result is I'm looking at exhibit A, 24 projects ongoing right now with 4,250 units that are uncontrolled and the excess, um, revenue from paying their fair. I shouldn't even call it revenue. It's paying. That's the problem. We need to have clear, concise goals and policies right now to collect our fair share and fees for these because we're going to, the city's going to incur the cost anyway. And this is getting, so the compounding of this issue, if we don't have the moratorium, it's going to be this. Thank you. Mr. Member French. Yes, sir. My additional comment is, as you shared with us, supposedly we are working on making these changes to our code and so forth. You mentioned it's going to take three to six months. In the meantime, the same practices of clearing and denuding all the property as something is developed are going to continue until it's actually changed. So that's one of my biggest contingents about getting something done. Thank you. Um, I did have one final comment, but I do want to be respectful to anyone else on the, the board before I speak. Anyone else? Madam chair. I'm sorry. Sorry. Um, so staff just handed out a revised exhibit A. Um, and the only change on that is there's an asterisk down at the bottom for option B for Halifax, which is contingent upon the second reading and adoption of ordinance number 14, 2025. And I think, Jordan, that the number of units for that, did it go down with that last meeting? Okay. Option B would be 575 multifamily. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I, I also looked at, um, exhibit A and what I found interesting too, just to put out there was that the majority of are, are the, the high density, right? The RPUDs there's nine out of this list of 24, there's 19 RPUDs that total over 3000 residential units. So just, there is some validity there that that definitely needs to, should be looked at. Um, any additional comments, Zach? I do just want to clarify based off a few of the comments that just went back and forth. The projects in exhibit A would be exempt. They would still get to move forward under the moratorium because they have been vested by virtue of their application. Just wanted to make sure that it was clear. Oh, no, I, yeah, I understand. And that's, I think that's where I'm at is that it's, it's, yeah, yeah, set, unfortunately. But, you know, perhaps if, for, for those that may not be considering a moratorium, they can at least maybe, um, look at this and realize where, where some attention and some focus needs to be in the future. Any other comments from staff? All right. Looking for potentially a motion. I turn to my fellow board members. Yes, ma'am. Okay, my understanding, under old rules, when Marsha was here, she always wanted a motion in the positive, and then you could vote yes or no. Are we operating under those rules? I would defer to our city attorneys. Yeah, thank you. No, you can make the motion as you see fit. I mean, you're, I make a motion to deny the moratorium. Is there a second? I'll second it. Okay, so we have a motion to deny the moratorium made by Member Northey and seconded by Member Stewart. Member Gonzalez? Yes. So, I'm so sorry. So, it's yes to deny the moratorium. All right, just, I started thinking about what you were saying and I got caught up in my head. Member Northey? Yes. Member Stewart? Yes. Member Trojanowski? No. Alternate French? No. Alternate Zaltos? No. And Vice Chair Diarico? No. Motion fails, 4-3. Right, so looking for potentially an alternate motion. If, if, are you going to make a motion before I ask if I need to turn the gavel to, and who I turn it to, because the Secretary and the Chair are not here. Absolutely. I'd like to make a motion that we present the provision for having a moratorium under the provision that it could be pulled, as we discussed, dependent upon the decision of the Governor to possibly exempt us or avoid legal actions. Do we have a second? I second that. Okay. Can I clarify the motion? This motion is to recommend to the Commission that the moratorium be passed, however you want it to include language, that if Senate Bill 180 is signed by the Governor and made into law, that our moratorium would sunset immediately upon that? That's correct. Thank you. May I ask, would you consider some of the other conditions that were brought up in regards to the infill lots and the MPUDs? Definitely. And I, I'm sorry, was that Member Gonzalez, that you that seconded that? Oh, I'm sorry, who, Member Zaltos, would you still second your motion with those conditions? Yes, I would. And if I could further clarify, the discussion regarding infill lots would be to have infill exempted from the moratorium. Correct. That was my intent. And then on the mixed use, is there a, is it all mixed use or is there a threshold that we are looking for as far as percentage of residential versus non-residential components? I did have a threshold. Um, so if it's, what I would like to see, um, is if, if it's density at six residential units or less per acre and less than 30% residential. So the majority would need to be commercial. Did I say that? If that, if that, if the maker of the motion and the second. I like that. It's acceptable. Would you, would you still second that Member Zaltos? Thank you. All right. So I think we are looking for a roll call or a vote. I'm sorry. Member Gonzalez. Yes. This one I'll vote for. No. No. Member Trojanowski. No. Alternate French. Yes. Alternate Zaltos. Yes. Vice Chair D'Erico. Yes. Motion passes 43. Okay. So flip back to my, uh, I believe. Any final staff comments? No other final staff comments. But once again, staff, I'd like to thank everyone for coming here. Um, we, we all know you guys have busy live-sectic schedules. So thank you very much for accommodating our schedules. Thank you to staff for, for pulling this together as fast as you did and, um, for being readily available. We'll be able to answer any of our questions. Um, any final comments, board committee comments. All right. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.