Member French? Here. Member Gonzalez? Here. Member Northey? Here. Member Stewart? Secretary Amoroso? Here. Vice Chair Diarico? Here. Chair Cardo? Here. Alternate Nair? Alternate Warnecke? Here. Alternate Zaltos? Next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes and the agenda from the August 20, 2025 hearing. Do we have any comments or corrections that are needed? Member Northey? Yeah, I'm not sure how this, but this is written. Let me find it. Page four, it says, there was a motion made by Tara Diarico, seconded by Pat Northey, to recommend the city commission to deny ordinance number, amending the official zoning map to rezone approximately, and it goes into what the motion was. The motion failed by the following vote. The motion didn't fail, we passed the motion, and it was four that were four and three that were against. So I'm not sure why we used the word failed there, because the motion did not fail, it passed. I think staff is making that notation to make that correction in the minutes. So given that the last sentence in that paragraph gets changed, to state that the motion passed, do we have a motion to pass the minutes? I will pass the minutes with the correction noted. Seconded. Seconded by Vice Chair. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Passes. Next item, presentations, awards, and reports. Staff, do we have any? No. Public forum. Do we have anyone from the public who'd like to speak? No, only for an item that's up later. Very good. Moving on. No old business. Moving on to new business. Council, will you read the item into the agenda, please, or into the minutes? Thank you. This is resolution number 2025-116, a resolution of the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Deltona, Florida, granting a major variance to reduce the required street frontage from 150 feet to 100 feet for a quick service oil change facility within the C1 Retail Commercial District for a property located at 3150 Howland Boulevard, Deltona, Florida, providing for recording, conflicts, severability, and an effective date. Thank you, Council. Council, staff, do you have a report or a presentation on the application? Yes, ma'am. Please go ahead. Sorry, that was really loud. That's okay. All right. Good evening, Planning and Zoning Board. Brandon Hatch, Planner 1 for the record. Thank you all for being here this evening. Tonight, we are here to discuss resolution number 2025-116 for variance application VAR25-0001. So, the variance request, as stated, is to allow a reduction of the required 150-foot frontage for a quick service oil change facility type A to be reduced to 100 feet. To give you some background on the property, the property is located at 3150 Howland Boulevard with a rough current size of 1.37 acres. The zoning district for the property is C1 Retail Commercial, and this was done through ordinance number 03-2024. Additionally, the additional use was approved for the oil change facility, and that happened through resolution number 2024-42. So, this is a current area of the property at 3150 Howland Boulevard. As you can see, it is not currently developed. It is just wooded at the time. And then, this is the concept plan that was approved with the conditional use for the property. So, some matters of consideration to highlight. First and foremost, it does conform within LDC Section 110-315, as well as 110-817. The access to the property is planned to be the same as what was approved for in the conditional use, and I did speak with Volusia County yesterday, and they verified that no matter what the development is on that property, it would likely remain the same in terms of where the access is. The development will have to conform to the conditions of the approved conditional use, and additionally, a final site plan shall be required for any development on that property. So, with this, our staff recommendation, based on decision-making criteria, staff supports the Planning and Zoning Board, approving Resolution No. 2025-116, granting a major variance to allow a reduction of the required 150-foot frontage for a quick-service oil change facility type A to be reduced to 100 feet. And I thank you all for your time, and at this time, I would like to invite the applicant who is here with us to answer any questions that you guys may have on this application. If I may briefly, it is important that the board should give due consideration to staff's recommendation and their professional judgment, but the question of whether the variance should be granted is one that ultimately this board must make. Thank you, counsel. And the applicant, please go ahead with your presentation. Yes, my name is Bill Barfield. I'm with William E. Barfield, PA, 225 South Westmont Avenue, Suite 2040, Altamont Springs, Florida. The property is, as indicated by Brandon, it was approved for C1 zoning, which typically has a 100-foot-wide minimum. However, for auto service centers, the zoning ordinance requires 150, which, frankly, if you consider a tire change facility or an automotive repair facility where there's multiple bays and there's people staying there while their car is getting fixed or repaired or they're dropping their car off and leaving at 150 feet makes sense because you need the additional parking. This is a quick-change oil facility which has two or three bays. Nobody parks their car there. They stay in their car. They merely service, run through, and run out. So the requirement for 150 feet really shouldn't be the same from our perspective for a quick-service oil facility as opposed to a Firestone, a Goodyear, or something like that. So we're asking to reduce it for the quick-service to 100 feet, which is still consistent with general C1 zoning to allow just a smaller footprint because the circulation doesn't require a bigger footprint. Thank you. We'll start with questions from the board members. Member Gonzalez, do you have any questions for the applicant or staff? Not at the moment. Alternate Warnicke? Can he say what the quick-change place is called? Yeah, the one that we're dealing with right now is, I believe it's called 5-Minute Quick Change. Okay, that's all I have. Thank you. Member Amoroso, do you have any questions? Nope. Vice Chair? Yes, thank you. So a conditional use was already approved, and if I recall correctly, the conditional use was requested because there was a concern about the lack of queuing area or where enough cars could stack up for the two- to three bays? That's not my understanding. The C1 zoning auto service centers are conditional use that has to be approved. That's why we had to do the conditional use. Okay. And maybe this is a question for staff. I might be remembering incorrectly, but was there a concern about the queuing up and the having adequate space for any additional car overflow that may be waiting for an oil change? It was one of the conditions within the conditional use that they could have a smaller amount of queuing for their project. All right. That's what it was. Okay. Thank you. All right. And then are there – well, the rest of my questions may be more geared towards staff, so maybe I should wait. Okay. No, go ahead. Oh, you want me to keep rolling? Yeah. Okay. We didn't separate the questions. All right. No, I just didn't want this poor gentleman standing up there while I'm looking either way. No. So next is, is there anything unique on this land right now that prevents it from being built on as it is? I don't – I'm not sure which way to look for an answer. It looks like it's you, Jordan. You're on the hot seat. I believe that that should be directed to the applicant. Okay. They represent the property owner. Okay. Would you like me to repeat the question, sir? Okay. Can you check and see if your mic is on? It's hard to hear you. Thank you. I thought it was just me. All right. I think the analogy would be a small coffee shop like it's going in down at Halifax. You wouldn't put that on five acres. You'd put it on what was a smaller parcel that would service that. So 100 feet for a quick change, oil change facility provides sufficient stacking. It allows for the traffic to come in and out, and it's just more efficient use of the property. Okay. And would part of efficiently using that property be to subdivide it to try to get another building or another tenant or another business in? The other 100 feet would be developed in some fashion. Okay. And it's currently, I believe, planned for a 5,000-foot retail space. Okay. All right. Thank you. Member Northey, do you have questions for either staff or the applicant? For staff, could we talk about the traffic pattern, how they're getting in and out? I mean, I'm very familiar with that Dunkin' Donuts, which is right to the right of it, if I'm looking at my map correctly. And that is quite difficult to get in and out, how this is going to be handled. We would direct this to the applicant as well. Again, it's their site plan, and it's their property. So we're happy to assist. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but didn't our staff look at all this? Why would I not? I'm just trying to understand why I would direct it to the applicant, not to the staff, who's recommending that we approve it. Staff doesn't review traffic until the final site plan. There won't be a full traffic study until the final site plan comes before staff. Please. Well, I believe at that particular location, there's not a curb cut, so it's a right in, right out. That would, I believe, what will have to happen. Again, before we can develop, we have to go through site plan approval. There has to be a traffic analysis done, and if there's any off-site improvements, like additional turn lanes or anything like that, we'd have to satisfy that in order to develop. Right. I understand that. Thank you. Member French, do you have any questions for the applicant or for staff? Yes, for staff. Is a decision on this, would it be used as a precedent for other changes and future decisions that will come up, the variance of this? I want to understand what you're asking. You're asking if this variance is granted, if that would establish a precedent, or if this would be something that others would utilize for their basis. Yes, my question is couched in, again, along with what Member Northey was asking about what traffic kind of impacts we're going to have here. It's near a curve. I think there's a median there. Entrances and exits from businesses along there are going to be coming more complex than they already are, and what my concern is, or my question is, allowing this, is it going to make it easier to approve access like this in future proposed projects along here? So, Member French, if I may, and I apologize, I'm virtual this evening. Okay, so the variance criteria as set out in your code are to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, on an application-for-application basis. So, while there may be other properties in this same area with analogous fact patterns that may be able to avail themselves of a variance, this variance does not guarantee or create a precedent that would prevent staff from, and the board, from evaluating each of those variances on an individual basis. Thank you. Can I make a comment regarding that, please? I'd just like to point out that this particular, the only thing we're asking for is a smaller footprint for the quick change oil change. If it's denied, we can still develop the same footprint the way it is, but we wouldn't be able to divide the property into two separate uses. That's the only difference. So, the same site plan could be developed based on the approval we already have, subject to traffic and other things during the review process. Member Alternate Ornicki, I think you had another question you wanted to ask? Just real quick. So, that's the layout right there. With either you or staff, how many exterior parking spots are there roughly? It looks like 28 to me. Okay. Because if you, if you, so apparently the way that's drawn out, there's three cars getting oil changes, there's three cars waiting, and possibly three more cars waiting. So, that's nine parking spaces. I don't know any quick changes that go through that many that often, correct? That's, that's correct. And actually, I did not count those. So, if you counted those, it would be 37. Okay. The only thing I would have an issue is, which it's in the future, obviously, but, and the city already has ordinances that retain two parking per building. So, that's pretty much all I wanted to know. But you're talking nine cars sitting there waiting to get oil changes is nine parking spots. So, thank you. What is the dimensional length of the frontage of the property? 200 feet. And Commissioner, Member Mornick, it's actually nine there and eight behind. So, it's 15. Correct. But if the, if something goes in the retail spot in the future, my question is, are they going to obtain, those all would be parking accessibility to the future building, too? They would. Right. Okay. We would give them cross easements. Thank you. So, if the dimension of the frontage of the property is 200 feet, and that is greater than the 150 feet that's required, why do we need to do a variance? What am I missing? If we do a, quite frankly, the variance allows us to subdivide the property. Oh, I see. So, you're planning on doing, you're planning on replatting or a ground lease? A lease line or a purchase line? We're talking about a purchase line right now. Okay. Understood. So, that means that you're either going to have to do a retail that would generate or require less than 14 parking spaces, or you'd need to do a shared parking agreement, correct? That's correct. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Do I hear, is there a motion? Madam Chair, if you can please open it to the public. I was going to do the motion, then open it to the public. Okay. Is that okay, or should I do it the other way? It's fine that way? Okay, cool. Let's do the motion, and then I'll open it to the public. Do I hear a motion? Are we motioning to pass for the variance? We're putting forward a motion based on whether you think that we should approve this or we should deny it. I make a motion that we approve this variance. I second. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this matter? Yes, ma'am. Eric Sewell. Mr. Sewell, if you'll state your name and address for the record, please. And also, if you can push the little button that turns the mic on, that'd be great. There we go. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Eric Sewell. I own the property at 3125 Howland Boulevard, which is about diagonal from the property in question. I certainly oppose the variance. Is this a major variance? And I disagree with the assertion that this 150-foot rule should not apply to this business. If anything, it definitely applies to it for multiple reasons. First, this will be a high turnover business. They're projecting cars to go in every five to ten minutes. So that's going to end and exit. So there's going to be a constant cycle of cars going in and out of this business, as well as whatever second operation that they look to include. The 150-foot frontage requirement exists for a reason. It provides safe parking, safe spacing for heavy turning movements. Cutting it to 100 feet, 33% reduction. Lightens, increases accident risk, one of the Deltona's busiest corridors. The spacing requirements is a safeguard that shouldn't be weakened. The city has consistently enforced the 150-foot rule for similar businesses. And I'm going to say thank you for that. Granting this variance gives one applicant special treatment, undermining fairness and weakening the code. The applicant's hardship is self-created. It comes from their choice to subdivide the lot. It was not part of their original planning that they presented to you. Florida law is clear. Self-created hardships are not valid grounds for a variance. So I respectfully ask the board to protect safety, protect the fairness, and deny the variance. Thank you. Thank you. If the applicant could step up, I have a question for the applicant. Is there a median on Howland Boulevard in front of your proposed curb cut? I believe there is. Is your curb cut proposed to be right in, right out only? Yes. Okay. Does any of the other board members have any other questions for the applicant? I would like to point one thing out. I've seen no data that says that this business will generate cars coming in and out every five or ten minutes. I don't think that is an accurate statement of what we presented. Okay. Thank you for your input. Do we have any other comments or questions from any of the board members? I may? Yes, you may. Jim, I do think this might be an actual question for you. May I ask you to repeat your statement that you made when we first started with this topic about needing to consider the conditional use permit? You mean about this variance? Yes. So this board should give due weight to the professional opinion of staff, but you are not bound by that opinion. You all are independent and can make your own decision as a board regardless of whether staff recommends or does not recommend approval of a variance. So I just want to make very clear that the staff obviously has professional judgment. They use their professional judgment to make recommendations, but the board's decision is and should be independent. All right. Thank you. Madam Chair, we have one more public speaker. Oh, we do. I'm sorry. My apologies. If you'd like to call them to the podium, that'd be great. Yes, ma'am. I call Michael Luchiavo. And if you could state your name and address and turn the mic on for us, that'd be wonderful. Thank you so much. Good afternoon. My name is Mike Luchiavo, representing 3174 Howland Boulevard. It's two parcels due west of the parcel that's submitted today. If I could approach the panel, I have a set of drawings I wouldn't mind sharing with you guys. Is there a way to get that on the big screen? No? Okay. Yes, please. Thank you. I appreciate your consideration. Absolutely. And so I am not here to object the approach that's being submitted by the applicant. I'm actually here to request a consideration for a frontage road to the stoplight at Wolfpack Run. Wolfpack Run, that is correct. And representing the property on the west side of Wolfpack Run, but on the north side of Howland Boulevard there, we would like to consider a frontage road that will allow us to consider a new urbanist approach to remove curb cuts every 50 feet down Howland Boulevard and design that area with traffic engineering to, whether it's improve the intersection, whether it's allow the variance or not, but my request would be to not allow a curb cut, an additional curb cut, but to actually look at a traffic improvement of that area. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate your comments. Yes, do we have any other comments or questions from the board? I'm sorry, just a second. Vice Chair Dierko, did you want to ask the question? I did. Is that, is what this gentleman just proposed, is that something that staff considered, or would that come with the final site plan as well? Okay. I asked and answered my own question. Alternate Warnicke, I think he's had a, raised a question. Did you want to ask? The gentleman that spoke first, did you say you were at 3125? Okay, thank you. So that's the opposite side of the street, is that correct? Access road? Certainly. I believe that all of the property that is along there goes out to the current right-of-way. In order to do an access road, you'd have to take the property and landward of the right-of-way in order to develop that road, and we certainly don't have the ability to do that, or does any interest the property owner. Staff, can you put the site plan back up on the screen for us? I believe you're already stubbing it out for a frontage road. Yeah, so you've already got a stub out into the Dunkin' Donuts parking lot. That's a current connection that's just waiting for the infrastructure to be built. And then you're already proposing a stub out on the left side of plan left on the Grace Baptist Church side. So you've already got proposed connection points there. I don't believe that, and staff can correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe that we can mandate that the church, Grace Baptist, build a frontage road to connect across 3150 to 3174 until such time as the church decides to submit an application and go through a development process. Is that correct? That is correct. So while it's a great idea, and I like where your thought process is going, it looks like we've already made some accommodations for creating our part, or the concept plan in front of us is part of the connection road is already being proposed as part of this site plan. Madam Chair, just for clarification, the cross-axis is also a requirement from Volusia County. The cross-axis you're seeing on the site plan currently? One more time because I'm not following you. The cross-axis is a requirement from Volusia County to try to eliminate some of the curb cuts along Hall and Boulevard. Oh, 100%. Right, exactly. So they're requiring that we tie in on both sides of the property to allow for traffic to flow across the front in a frontage road manner. Yes, absolutely, which minimizes curb cuts. Understood. Anybody else have any questions or comments on the board? No, I believe we have a motion in front of us to approve this request for a variance. Staff, do you want to call the roll? It was already seconded. Member French? Yes. Member Gonzalez? Yes. Member Northey? Alternate Warnicke? Yes. Secretary Amoroso? Yes. Vice Chair Diarico? No. Chair Ricardo? Yes. Motion passes 5-2. Thank you all. Moving on to the next item on the agenda, item B. Will Council please read the item into the record? Thank you so much, Madam Chair. This is Ordinance No. 30-2025, an Ordinance of the City of Deltona, Florida, amending Section 70-30, Definitions of Chapter 70, General Provisions, and Chapter 74, Administration of the Land Development Code of the City of Deltona, Florida, to include procedures that encourage the development and redevelopment of urban infill properties, providing for conflicts, codification, severability, and an effective date. Wait, that's just the wrong one? I have to apologize, guys. I have Jessica very generously gave me her book, and I think I marked it up incorrectly. Do we need a do-over? No, I'll read the correct one. So this is Ordinance No. 33-2025, an Ordinance of the City of Deltona, Florida, amending Chapter 82, Communication, Antennas, and Towers, of the Land Development Code to align with previously approved updates to regulations contained within Chapter 110, zoning, providing for conflicts, codification, severability, and an effective date. Well, thank you, Counsel. And Mr. Smith, do you have a presentation for us? Yes, ma'am. Good evening, Madam Chair, fellow Planning and Zoning Board members. Tonight, staff is presenting proposed Ordinance No. 33-2025, which updates Chapter 82, Communication, Antennas, and Towers of the Land Development Code. Chapter 82 was originally adopted in 1997 to regulate antennas and towers. Since then, our zoning code has been updated, and some of the Chapter 82 language has been outdated. Much of it still references a tower map and the old Deltona Lakes Community Development Plan regulations, which are no longer used. This ordinance is intended to modernize Chapter 82, eliminate conflicts, and defer entirely to the current zoning framework in Chapter 110. The key updates of this amendment, the proposed changes, focus on four main areas. Number one, tower locations are now determined by the permitted use table in Chapter 110, rather than a separate tower map. All references to the tower map are deleted, and references to the Deltona Lake plans are replaced with the City of Deltona Land Development Code. And fourth, new design standards for osprey nesting platforms are added to provide clarity for these installations. Here are a few section-specific examples of the changes. Section 82-36, Tower Siting, now defers to Table 1 in the Zoning Code. Section 82-37, Application Requirements, has been updated to match current LDC standards. Section 82-62, Setbacks, removes tower map language and defers to zoning standards. Section 82-71, Colocation, now relies on the zoning table requirements. Section 82-36 clarifies that antennas may be placed on utility poles in permitted districts. And finally, Section 82-21 now includes design standards for osprey nesting platforms. These updates are consistent with the City's comprehensive plan, particularly the future land use element. They resolve conflicts within the zoning code and provide clarity for both development applicants and the City in administering tower and antenna regulations. The osprey platform standards also support environmental and wildlife goals. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board find Ordinance No. 33-2025 consistent with the comprehensive plan and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission. And if recommended tonight, the ordinance will go before the City Commission for first reading on November 3rd. Thank you. Thank you. Member French, do you have any questions for staff? Yes, I do. I'm looking at the Section 82-89 environmental assets and curious as to whether or not we can also include in their possible inclusion of reference to some of the information provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommendations for practices of towers, construction, operation, maintenance, and so forth. I can reference and send this information to you so you can look into it further. Also, the American Bird Conservancy and also the Federal Communications Commission that has information for tower owners, information that will include how our tower placement, which would affect the location decisions you mentioned, with reference to any kind of bird flight patterns, which can sometimes be a real big environmental concern that may not be thought of in this reference here but somehow can be written in. I'd be glad to send all that stuff to your department. Staff can definitely look at to see how we can update that particular section. Great. I do want to flag that Senate Bill 180, which is now law, and it's Florida Statute 252, Spot 422, does provide some pretty tight restrictions here. And that particular recommendation, we would have to analyze it just based on your statement. It might be in conflict. I will say the very good thing about this section is that it requires them to submit reports that are required by all regional, state, or federal agencies. So if any of those agencies have requirements for reports and studies, they have to complete them and then submit a copy to the city. Thank you. Member Northey, do you have any questions for staff? I do. So just this appears to be cleanup language as opposed to any fundamental change to this. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Vice Chair, questions for staff? No, Madam Chair. Thank you. You're welcome. Member Amoroso, do you have questions? Nothing. Alternate Warnke? No questions for me. Thank you. Sure. Member Gonzalez? None at this time. Thank you. Very good. I don't have any either. So do I have them? Oh, yeah, there's nobody in the public. Good try, Jordan. Good try. Trying to throw me. Do I have, do I hear a motion? I'll make a motion to approve as presented. And help me out, Gemma, on this one, because I think Larry's comments are valid. How we, I know we can't get that done before. This goes to the commission. But could we get an answer as part of the agenda for him, whether or not we can consider that? Does that, or should they be two separate, two separate motions? Are you talking about, are you talking about what member? Yeah. What Larry was talking about? Member Northe, I would say, oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I think Jordan is probably heading the exact way that I was, but I think your motion could include direction to staff to evaluate the inclusion of additional references in the environmental matters section that can be presented either at the first reading or the second reading of this ordinance. Go ahead and make that motion. I'll make that motion. Sorry. Sorry. I hate to interrupt. I'm sorry. One more time. Apologies. So in the past, when we've made recommendations to staff for the city commission to look at rewriting of code, it's always required a separate motion. Why is this one different? This is different because it is a matter that is already before you. So this is part of your recommendation to the commission is that they approve subject to staff evaluating these additional references. Okay. Understood. Member Northe, my apologies for interrupting you. Please go ahead with your motion. I'll make the motion to accept the changes and direct staff to review the information that Commissioner French is going to present to them for review. I second. Do we need to just, we just need to clarify that it's a motion to approve the, approve the, the matter, correct? Staff, would you like to call the roll? If I, if I may, I understand there's no one here in the audience, but if you could still open for public comment for the record. You did? Yeah. I didn't see anybody. So just do. I understand. Just for the, just for the record in the minutes, if you could just say. Sure. Is there any public comment? And Jessica will say. Is there any public comment on this matter? No, Madam Chair. Thank you so much. Staff, would you like to call the roll on the motion that we have before us, please? Member French. Yes. Yes. Member Gonzalez. Yes. Member Northey. Yes. Alternate Warnicke. Yes. Secretary Amoroso. Yes. Vice Chair Diarico. Yes. Chair Cardo. Yes. Motion passes. Wonderful. Moving on to the next item on the agenda, item number C. Council, can you read it into the record for us, please? Yes. Thank you for indulging me. We just, we've been getting some challenges lately, so we really want to make sure that our records at these, at all of our meetings are very clean. But thank you. And this is the ordinance that I was so excited about earlier. This is ordinance number 30-2025, an ordinance of the city of Deltona, Florida, amending section 7030, definitions of chapter 70, general provisions, and chapter 74, administration of the land development code of the city of Deltona, Florida, to include procedures that encourage the development and redevelopment of urban infill properties, providing for conflicts, codification, severability, and an effective date. Am I looking at the wrong agenda? I have on here that we're supposed to be reviewing platting and replatting processes. Is that not correct? That's part of the same ordinance. Okay. Very good. Staff. Let me make sure. Hold on. Yes. Thank you so much. I believe staff has a presentation for us. Good evening, board. Jordan Smith, planning director again. So tonight, we're discussing ordinance number 30-2025, which are amendments to chapter 74, administration of the land development code. And the purpose is to update procedures to comply with Senate Bill 784, which was adopted by the Florida legislation in 2025, and clarify approval authority. So the city commission adopted resolution 2025-71 on June 30, 2025, and what that did was it gave the planning director designated as the administrative official for platts and replats. And this is a result of Senate Bill 784, which requires administrative approval of certain platts and replats by a designated official. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure compliance with state law, clarify the roles of the director, DRC, the planning and zoning board, and the city commission, streamline the plat and replat approval process, and encourage redevelopment via new urban infill redevelopment program. The key changes, the director is the final approval for platts and replats, the DRC, make a recommendation on platts, and the PNZ board and commission, they're still responsible for rezoning, conditional uses, and variances. And the city commission approval is eliminated from the plat and replat process. So section 74-20, final platts, as I said before, director is the sole final authority. DRC submits a formal recommendation. Senate Bill 784 has some compliance requirements. It requires seven-day written notice of application receipt, final action within time frame stated in notice. Written denials must cite statute and code, and applicants are not required to request extension, and it clarifies recordation and issuance of final development order. Section 74-11, the approval, approving authority, it confirms that the director handles platts and replats, the PNZ board and city commission retain other approvals, and continuances are allowed if statutory deadlines are met. And this is a new section we're adding, section 74-25, urban infill redevelopment program. This encourages infill redevelopment of vacant parcels, small lots, underutilized problem properties. This provides flexibility and development standards, which include density, height, setbacks, lot size, and FAR. It's a conditional use, which will be reviewed by this board, and it requires superior design and a measurable public benefit. The project criteria for non-residential and multifamily must be compatible. We'll look at design, parking, architecture, public facilities, and environmental compliance, residential compatibility, neighborhood stabilization, housing options, design quality, and public facilities. And why is an urban infill redevelopment needed? There are many older lots in Deltona, which are too small or irregular to meet current zoning standards. Vacant parcels leave gaps in neighborhoods, creating potential for blight or underutilization. And traditional zoning rules often make redevelopment impractical or impossible. And this program provides flexibility to allow redevelopment while protecting neighborhood character and public interests. And how the program works, the urban infill redevelopment is a case-by-case rezoning tool. It is not a blanket zoning change. Each project goes through the planning and zoning board for approval. And projects must meet enhanced design and compatibility standards. And applicants must demonstrate measurable public benefits to qualify. Eligibility parcels are vacant or underutilized and unable to meet the current LDC standards. They are constrained by lot size, shape, or setbacks, preventing traditional redevelopment, and sites where creative infill would stabilize or enhance surrounding neighborhoods. We also made changes to the Citizen Awareness and Participation Plan under Section 74-12. We expanded the neighborhood meeting notification from 300 feet to 500 feet to be consistent with our other standards in the code. And this will increase opportunities for resident input early in the review process. And in summary, these amendments streamline the plot approval process and brings the city into compliance with Senate Bill 784. It clarifies the role of the Director, DRC, PNZ, and City Commission. It establishes new tools for infill and redevelopment. And staff recommends the PNZ Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval of Ordinance No. 30-2025. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Questions from the board members? We'll start with Member Gonzalez. No. It's clear. Alternate Warnicke? No, I'm good with this one. Member Amoroso? Vice Chair Diarco? I do. I'm sorry. Can we roll back a few slides where there was the first bullet point? I think it said something similar to director equals final authority or sole approving authority. This is for? This is for plats and replats. Okay. I'm just right going into single point of failure mode. What if the director's not available? The director's out. God forbid. They win power. Or happy scenario. They win Powerball. What happens? Right? Just wanted to point that out just to see if there's a contingency plan in place. Can we also go? Listen, it could happen. It could happen. Can we go to jail? There you go. I went to the positive. See? There you go. There was also, I think it was section 74-25, if we could, there was the bullet point for underutilized properties, fourth bullet, third sub-bullet under the first bullet. Are we, is there due diligence as to why they're underutilized? Right? So are we making sure that if we're building on an infill lot that there's not a reason why it's been left vacant? Did I say that in a way that made sense? I didn't, did I? Can you phrase it? So if it's an underutilized property, it's a vacant property. It hasn't been built on. But it has the ability to be built on. Correct. Is the only reason why it was not built on yet because it has a unique characteristic? It may be too small for our current zoning. Or I just want to make sure, right, it's not something, an area that floods, that there's a reason why it's not utilized. Gotcha. Okay. So that is definitely something staff will look into, and that's the purpose of this program to, for the properties that do not have those flooding issues, for the properties that are too small or underutilized. Okay. That they can use this type of program instead of going for a putt or they could do straight zoning and meet these criteria. Okay. And then I think my last question is, how many urban infill lots do we have roughly now in Deltona? I recall I asked this before, and it wasn't that many, I don't believe. Oh, it is a lot? We don't know the exact amount, but the commission asked recently, and I want to say it was over 1,000. Yeah. Quite a few. To clarify, I think the question posed before was how many, we did a map about, there are about 1,500 single-family infill lots. This legislation here is, I think, directed to commercial and office zone property. This is for both residential lots and commercial lots. And both. This is both. Both. Correct. Okay. Correct. Yes. All right. And every one of those would have to come up for a rezone and would be looked at on a case-by-case basis? Correct. It would come to this board for approval. Okay. Would it be fair to assume that there would be at least some standard requirements in place? Make sure that things are being looked at equitably? So in the ordinance, there are nine factors that a project must meet in order to qualify for this process. Okay. So those are, number one, the property must meet three or more of the signifiers of slum and or blight, as defined in Florida Statute Chapter 163. The proposed project must include uses permitted in the City of Deltona, must be compatible with adjacent land uses, must enhance community character through design, must justify requested flexibility based on the public benefit and redevelopment goals. It must provide adequate on-site or nearby shared parking, must meet architectural design guidelines, must be located in established areas served by public facilities, and must comply with St. John's River Water Management District requirements. All right. Excellent. Thank you, Zach. And then this will be my final question, is also built into this, because right now we have guidelines in place for the minimum size resident that could be built, right? So are we then going to, if it's a smaller lot, are we then going to allow a smaller residence to be built? Well, if they meet this, they would have to meet this particular criteria that is listed in Section 74-25. Okay. So we're not looking to put our standard size house on a super tiny lot. Okay. No, ma'am. Great. Thank you. Member Northey. Just one question, and for clarification, under Section 74-19, under Review Procedure, we have added Item 4 and 5, which speak directly to not requiring public hearings or related notifications. Tell me how we handled that previously. Yeah, 74-19, page 31, Item 4 and 5. How is that different from what we have done in the past, or is it just clarifying language? Madam Northey, this is just clarification outlining this review procedure for PLOTS. Say again? It's just clarification language. I wondered about that. That's the only thing I had a question on. And if I understand this correctly, this brings us into, with Senate Bill's, what? It brings us into compliance with Senate Bill 784. 784. Okay. So that's why. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, it's clarifying language. Oh, well, because it's, if you go to page 32, it's exactly written as D&E, that's strikethrough. So it was handled exactly the same way. Right. So we were just cleaning up the, um. Duplicative language? Yeah. Correct. Cleaning up the numbers. That's what it looks like it was doing. Thank you. No, you're fine. Yeah. Member French, do you have any questions for staff? No. Very good. I don't either. Do I have a motion from the board on this matter? Madam Chair, I will make a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend the City Commission approve Ordinance Number 30-2025. Second. Staff, will you call the roll, please? Oh, wait. I'm so sorry. Is there anybody from the public who'd like to speak on this matter? Not seeing anyone. We'll move on so staff can call the roll. Can I ask who second? Because I heard two and I did not. Okay. Thank you. I don't know if anybody else did that. I heard her microphone, so we're going to go with, uh. Member French? Yes. Member Gonzalez? Yes. Member Northey? Alternate Warnicke? Yes. Secretary Amoroso? Yes. Vice Chair Diarco? Yes. Chair Cardo? Yes. Motion passes. Thank you so much. Next item, staff comments. Do we have any? Um, the only staff comment is, um, we would like to welcome, um, alternate French as a permanent member to the Planning and Zoning Board. He was appointed by the City Commission this past Monday, and the City Commission will be appointing an alternate member in his place, um, at a future meeting. That's all the comments we have. Thank you. Very good. Thank you so much. Uh, item number nine. Do we have any board committee member comments? Member Northey? I would just like to thank the staff for putting together the information for education and sending that out. Yes. Hopefully all the members got that email. And I want to second the thank you. Yes. I would like, I am going to take an opportunity for that. I'm looking forward to it. I think Jessica's collecting all of our emails and getting us enrolled, so there'll be more information forthcoming. Yep. I see a nod. Anything else from the board? Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, hearing none, meeting is adjourned.