Calling to order the October 15, 2025, City of Deltona Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Staff, will you call the roll, please? Yes, ma'am. Member Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Member Northey. Member Stewart. Here. Secretary Amoroso. Vice Chair Diarico. Here. Chair Cardo. Here. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the September 17, 2025 meeting. Were there any items that needed to be corrected or noted? I have a motion to approve. So moved. Second. I'll second. Thank you. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Moving on to the next item, number four, presentations, awards, and reports. Not seeing any. I'll move on to public forum. Not seeing anybody from the public who'd like to speak this evening, so closing public forum. No old business. Moving on to new business. Council, can you read the item into the agenda for us, please? Yes, Madam Chair. This is ordinance number 36-2025, an ordinance of the City of Deltona, Florida, amending Section 110-814, additional regulations for certain permitted principles, uses, and structures of Chapter 110 zoning and Chapter 74 administration of the Land Development Code, updating procedures and regulations related to certified recovery residences in compliance with Florida statutes, providing for conflicts, codification, severability, and an effective date. Thank you so much. Mr. Smith, would you like to proceed with your presentation, please? Good evening, Madam Chair, fellow board members. Tonight, I'm presenting proposed code updates related to certified recovery residences to ensure our local regulations comply with new state law and align with federal housing standards. In Florida, a certified recovery residence is a safe, sober, and supportive living environment that helps individuals maintain a long-term recovery from substance use. Each residence is overseen by a certified residence administrator, as required by law, to ensure that homes meet the standards set by the Florida Association of Recovery Residences. Now, in front of you, you have a revised Section 110-814, and a revised Chapter 74, and a revised staff report. So, when staff originally did these amendments, we were looking at Senate Bill 954, which was passed by the Florida legislature, but we were also looking at House Bill 1153, which was not codified. So, we made amendments this afternoon. Okay, so the intent is pretty straightforward. It is to meet new state requirements and make sure the city is clear, has a clear, lawful process for reviewing these requests. The Florida legislature now requires every local government to adopt a process for reviewing certified recovery residences. Our ordinance must include a reasonable accommodation procedure and cannot add local hurdles beyond what's in the statute. Two key sections are being updated, Chapter 74, to create the procedural framework. In Section 110-814, to ensure consistency in how these residences are classified and regulated under zoning. This section lays out clear timelines and responsibilities. It provides applicants certainty while giving staff a structured review window, and it also protects the city by ensuring renovation is possible if compliance is lost. I mean, revocation, I'm sorry, is possible if compliance is lost. This section 110-814 ties everything together. It confirms that certified recovery residences are treated as residential uses. It ensures compliance with all safety codes and references both the state statute and our new local procedure, which is Chapter 74. Certified recovery residences. These residences are community-based homes where individuals can live in a sober, supportive environment, FARR, sets and enforces the certification standards to protect both residents and neighborhoods. This update is not about adding new rules. It's about bringing our code into compliance with Florida statute, ensuring consistency in protecting both the city and its residents through a clear and lawful process. And staff recommends that the board find the amendments consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and recommend approval of Ordinance 36-2025 to the City Commission. Thank you, Mr. Smith. We'll start with questions for staff. Member Gonzalez? No. Member Stewart? None. Member, or Secretary Amoroso? Vice Chair DeReco? Yes, I do. Sorry. So, Jordan, I had a lot of people reach out to me on this one, believe it or not, which is not typical. I'll be honest with you, I didn't think a lot of people paid attention to the planning and zoning meetings. Um, so I understand that approving this, approving this ordinance is required to establish a procedure and compliance. We're, and I, I think I heard you say it's not about adding new rules. So, if there are concerns and if there are some, some, maybe some considerations that we want the commission to take into account, how do I go about doing that? Can I, do I just read them off here in this meeting and ask them all to watch or can we make that part of the motion? Um, we can, we can discuss your concerns right now. Okay. Yeah. All right. So, so these are, these are, were concerns that were brought to me because they, so after talking to some folks that have previously lived next door to recovery residences and that I've had a recovery, recovery residences in their neighborhoods, they do have some concerns. So there's a concern about the maximum occupancy. So how will that be managed? Do we know, you know, if it's a two bedroom home, we, we don't want 10 people probably living in there. I'm going to ask for legal assistance on this because this is new for all cities. Yeah. So your current code of ordinances does not regulate maximum occupancy on a single family residential. Uh, that is fairly complicated to regulate. Um, it, uh, infringes on some constitutional aspects when you talk about family unit and the right of a family unit to live together and how that is defined. Uh, however, it is, um, there is in the context of a, uh, recovery residence, there are certain permitting requirements of the state and how they are regulated based on number of residents to be served. And utilizing that framework, the, it would be appropriate for, um, the city to, uh, regulate pursuant to those licenses. And those licenses do take into account the size of a structure. So a, um, the state does not permit a, uh, structure that is a single family home of three bedrooms to, uh, you know, operate a, uh, recovery residence that is intended to serve 100 people. That's just not reasonable. Um, so the city can take into account the, uh, state permitting requirements in its review of an application. So if, um, right, if for example, the recovery residence is permitted for, is licensed for 30 individuals and they want to go into a single family home and they are seeking an accommodation, uh, the city can review that against the size of the home. Um, and I would venture to say there are not, uh, many, if any single family homes in Deltona that can reasonably accommodate 30 persons. Um, right. But those are all valid considerations as the city, uh, evaluates a request for accommodation under the code. I don't know if that was helpful. It, it was, it was, but so there's, so it sounds like they would all be looked at individually, but there's no way to put a guideline in place from the start that says only X number of occupants. And if it exceeds that, it, it wouldn't be eligible. I do not believe so. It, it would have to be on the, on the case by case basis because of the state licensing portion. So the state determines, uh, whether or not a home can be, uh, or a certain number of individuals. And then the city would evaluate that against our zoning code and whether a, uh, you know, a residence of a certain size is truly compatible with a, a certain residential district, single family versus multifamily. So with that, what the state said, if the state gives a higher number that is higher than what our zoning permissive permits, does the state supersede our zoning? And that would be a case where the applicant would then have to come to the city for a reasonable accommodation and the city could make that determination. Um, and it is possible to put some guidelines as far as, uh, you know, a percentage of deviation from, uh, from city regulations. So not to exceed, I don't know, 10, 15%, um, you know, variation from code norms. Okay. All right. So why don't I do this? Why don't I just read the list of concerns that residents have brought to me? And then it is what it is. At least I could say. Sure. And I don't mean to interrupt, but on the first page of exhibit a, um, staff did put in a definition of reasonable accommodation. And then we also included, um, examples of reasonable accommodations as well. And that's lines 29 through 40. Okay. I'll, I'll quickly 29 through four. All right. I'll quickly read these and I'll circle back and read those and go on. We can go on to the next. So, um, the Mac, the maximum occupancy was a concern. There was a concern and folks were asking for regulations on parking, um, right. Especially since private residents are not allowed to park in front driveway, you know, front yards, the easement. They just want to make sure that the recovery residents would have to follow the same. They would have to follow the, our parking code. Yes. Okay. Um, there was a mention of wanting to see distance requirements from schools, parks, daycares, bars, and liquor stores. Um, again, I'm not sure. I'm just, just putting them all out there. Um, and then there was a suggestion to, and it sounds like, I think you said this already earlier, Jordan, to see the same inspection requirements that a home business must go through as far as fire inspection for smoke, carbon monoxide detectors, fire extinguishers, emergency lighting. Um, and then the, the last thing that I just wanted to bring up, and I think I heard Zach say this is the tax base on these, although it's, they, they are revenue generating and there is a significant financial component. They're, they're not taxed as commercial. They're still taxed as private residents. Is, is that correct? It would be a, yeah. So these under our zoning code would still be, uh, you know, zoned as whatever residential district they're located in. Whether the property appraiser, uh, decides to maintain that use classification for their purposes as assessing the property, um, that is a decision of the property appraiser. Um, I mean, certainly it would not be a homestead property. It would not be subject to those productions. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Absolutely. Um, member Northey, do you have any questions for staff and alternate Zatos? Do you have any questions for staff? No, I do not have anything new. So, um, let's just go back to the, uh, what, um, vice chair was mentioning. Um, and I think I found where it says in here, allowing up to two residents per bedroom. Thank you. So that is noted. What page is that on, Andrea? What line number was that? Sorry. Um, yeah, sure. Um, it's paragraph D two starts on line 69. Uh, two residents per bedroom is actually on line 72. All right. Fantastic. Thank you. Yes, of course. And I didn't have any questions for staff either. Which version are you looking at? Um, I think that was the new one. Exhibit A. Am I, are we looking at the right one? The right copy? Is it the one in your book or the one that was? It's the one in the book. The red line one in the book. I'm talking, did you put it in the book? Oh. It's different. Oh. Dun, dun, dun. Okay. So the, the, the handout one is what we should be looking at? Yes. So was that clause not included in the update? So a lot of what was included in the amendment that's in your book, um, included a lot of House Bill 1153 that was not codified into law. Oh, I see. Yes. Okay. So we don't have to amend our code because the state didn't amend theirs. The state law wasn't amended, but didn't pass. So we're not amending our code to match something that didn't pass with the state. So the city is just making sure that our code is compliant with Senate Bill 954, which this version does. Do we have any, um, information on House Bill 11, whatever, as to whether or not that two residents per bedroom piece at some point in the future could potentially pass the state where we would have to again come back and update our code? Um, that is not information that we have at this time. Um, my understanding of what occurred during this previous legislative session was, um, essentially they were companion bills. And as, um, you know, this, the Senate bill, uh, SB 954 is the one that ended up moving forward. Um, the House bill included, uh, different provisions, um, and ended up dying in committee. Um, so I, because they were companion bills, I would doubt that it would be something that would necessarily come back, but, but you never know. I mean, that's really up to the legislature. Okay. Thank you. See if I, may I? Yes, absolutely. Go ahead. I just wanted to, so line 113, um, of the, the handout page four actively manages up to 150 residents. So long as the licensed service provider may maintains a ratio of one to eight. That is in the previous. That's in the previous version. This is okay. Yeah. Nellie or Jessica, could you maybe help clarify? Can we make sure that the board has the correct ones? So is it the one in the book? It's not the one. It's not the one in the book. Because that just made me really nervous. 150 people living next door to me. So all of that language was removed. This line number two. Well, that kind of covers it as well. Okay. So clause number two. Okay. Perfect. As Secretary Amoroso is pointing out. So that kind of takes care of it without actually dictating a number for bedroom. So safety standards would have to be maintained. Exactly. Any other questions or comments or items for discussion from the board or any other questions for staff? No. Okay. I'm not sure. I don't see anybody in the public that wants to speak on this item. So I'm going to open and close public forum and move forward with asking for a motion. I make a motion that the commission approve the number. I don't know. I just closed the book. So what was the number? Ordinance number 36-2025. Do I have a second? I'll second. Staff, can you call the roll, please? Alternate Zaltos. Yes. I'm here. Member Gonzalez. Yes. Member Northey. Member Stewart. Yes. Secretary Amoroso. Vice Chair DeRuco. Yes. And Chair Cardo. Yes. Motion passes. Okay. Moving on to the agenda and the next item. Do we have any staff comments? Yes, Madam Chair. Sorry. On Monday, November 11th, we will be having a joint workshop between the PNZ and the City Commission. There will be two topics, air-based amendments, because we're updating our comprehensive plan right now. And then we'll also be going over Chapter 1, which is our future land use element, housing, property rights, and mixed use centers. And that is Monday, November 11th. It's Monday, November 10th. Monday, November 10th. I'm sorry. Can you tell me what time that workshop is happening? 530. Okay. Is it possible that staff can help remind the members with an email? We will send out a reminder. Yes, ma'am. That'd be wonderful. And then at the next City Commission meeting, they will be choosing an alternate for this board. Okay. Very good. Number nine, any committee or board members have comments? Member Northey? We think about the handicap accessibility on old buildings, and at that point, unless there was major changes made to the inside, we were not able to direct them to make changes to the parking areas. I believe Chair Cardo had brought up the fact that in South Florida, there was some legislation that was going forward that mandated that happened, and we were going to check that at this one year and we had checked that. I happen to be down at the Country Rooster again today, and it's really a mess. We should be, they should be ashamed, not concrete for whoever does the, whoever owns that full section building, because they have made changes inside the buildings, and they've put walls up and all kinds of things from when that was built. So have we made any inroads on that? So, Member Northey, two comments related to that. So first is, the City Commission has directed staff to put together an ordinance review committee. So that's one of the items that we're going to possibly be addressing with them. And the second is, a lot of the changes that the Planning and Zoning Board is asking for impacts our land development code, and we don't want to make too many changes because we're going to be doing an overhaul on our code after our comp plan update. Any other comments from board members? All right, not hearing anything else, so I will ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Meeting adjourned.