26 planning and zoning board hearing for the city of deltona staff can you call the roll please yes ma'am member french here member northy here member stewart here member warnecke secretary amoroso vice chair diarico here chair cardo here alternate o'brien alternate zeltos thank you next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from our january 13th 2026 meeting does any of the board members have any uh any comments changes alterations no ma'am wonderful uh may i have a motion to approve the minutes so moved second second moved by member french seconded by vice chair all those in favor say aye aye aye aye and it passes uh moving on to item number four public forum staff i don't see anybody in the do we have anybody in the public who'd like to uh make a comment no ma'am wonderful so closing the forum uh first item on the agenda for under new business we have an ordinance um council can you read the ordinance into the record yes yes madam chair this is ordinance number 06-2026 an ordinance of the city of deltona florida establishing a new article 3 small wireless facilities of chapter 82 communication antennas and towers within the land development code of the city of deltona's code of ordinances in order to comply with florida statutes and best practices providing for conflicts codification severability and an effective date thank you council and we'll turn it over to mr smith make his presentation good evening madam chair members of the planning and zoning board i'm jordan smith community development services director for the city of deltona the item before you is ordinance numbers 06-2026 which proposes amendments to chapter 82 of the land development code related to communication antennas towers and wireless communication facilities the request is to amend chapter 82 of the land development code to establish regulations for small wireless facilities consistent with florida statutes and applicable federal law so what is a small wireless facility the small wireless facilities are the smaller pole mounted devices commonly used to support cellular and data network coverage these are typically installed within public rights away and are substantially smaller than traditional cell towers and there's three examples of small wireless facilities that you can be found throughout central florida so in 2017 the florida the legislator adopted the advanced wireless infrastructure deployment act codified in section 337.407 parenthesis 7 florida statutes this established a statewide framework framework regulating small wireless facilities within public rights away and then in 2019 the legislator expanded those preemptions further limited limiting local government authority over placement and approval of wireless infrastructure so these amendments are necessary to bring the city's land development code into compliance with current state law they also provide objective standards that allow the city to continue regulating placement design and safety to the extent permitted by law the proposed ordinance creates section 82-120 through 82-133 and establishes regulations addressing application procedures and application procedures and review timelines placement standards within right-of-way design and concealment requirements equipment and lighting restrictions and compliance with building electrical and safety codes although state preempts much of the city's authority the city still retains the ability to regulate objective standards related to public safety safety ada and pedestrian accessibility traffic safety infrastructure conflicts and aesthetic and design requirements including concealment and neutral colors ordinance includes design standards to reduce visual impacts by requiring concealment and shrouding of the equipment neutral colors corridor consistency and restrictions on excessive or freestanding equipment these standards help preserve community aesthetics while complying with state law however state law prohibits the city from imposing certain requirements including separation distances demonstration of service needs zoning approvals and proof that co-location is not feasible as such the city's authorities limited to those objective standards expressly permitted by law and based on stats review the proposed amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable state law therefore staff recommends that the planning and zoning board recommend approval of ordinance numbers 06-2026 to the city commission the item is scheduled for first reading before the city commission on may 4th now there may be some questions that you you all may be asking so number one can we deny these facilities um we can only deny only if the application fails to meet objective applicable code standards such as proposed pole equipment would block required ADA pedestrian clearance on the sidewalk would create a traffic site distance safety issue fails to meet building structure or electrical code requirements um and so on can we control where they go only to the extent allowed under objective placement standards within the right of way can can the city prohibit these in residential areas no state law preempts local governments from prohibiting small wireless facilities and public rights away including those adjacent residential areas provided application meets code requirements can the city require providers to use existing poles first no while co-location is encouraged state law prohibits the city from acquiring applicants to demonstrate that co-location is not feasible before installing a new pole can the city require spacing separation between facilities no state law preempts local governments from imposing separation distances from small wireless facilities is the city required to allow these facilities yes Florida statutes require local governments to allow small wireless facilities within public rights away subject to objective and not non-discriminatory standards and can the city require providers to use and can the city require providers to use clarity to that one and what happens if the city does not adopt these amendments the city would still be required to comply with state law would have less clarity and fewer locally adopted standards to guide review and an administration of administration of small wireless facility applications that's my presentation thank you mr smith we'll start with questions from the board members member warnecke i have no questions at this time member french same here member jericho just just just essentially this is we there's no choice correct okay thank you just wanted to make sure you know i was getting the right vibe i don't think we it would be a right-of-way use application do we charge it annually or just the one because it would be a one-time fee it's what one-time fee yes because i was reading in the i mean something is that if they do attach it to uh the maximum rate for attachment to authority polls is $150 per poll annually so if there's a chance that we can charge them annually right and to answer that question when the statute refers to authority polls it's it's referring to polls that we own as local government so if they wanted to attach to a city streetlight poll we could charge them a fee for that or if we had an electric utility um we could do that that's all i have great thank you uh member stewart yeah i just had a few quick questions um i worked in wireless for 11 years and this was always kind of a point of contention um when building out cell sites and towers and when we went to the micro cell and 5g and micro cell and 5g and there were a lot of concerns uh about radio frequency and all kinds of other issues like that um but as i was reading through this i was a little concerned because it really strips away any teeth that the city would have um and the ability to manage or dictate carriers from coming in and just putting towers everywhere so i my first question is this for um the impact to a resident uh what notice or input will residents have before a decision is made or a tower uh a mini site like this would be put in residents would not become aware of a permit coming in um so the company would submit a building permit and it would go through the just the normal review process so um resident residents would not be made aware of these types of permits okay so this is a carrier comes in and they say hey uh we've got some extra spectrum we're looking to drop in a tower here we're lagging and so in in in a community in the public right of way they can just come in and put in a poll and there's zero input from residents it's just we have to rubber stamp it so residents can possibly um provide and zach can please help me out um can provide comments but um not possible placement but um if there's a concern but yeah this is the this is a similar process think of it more like a building permit that it's administrative in nature so there's no additional notice to the public certainly if your neighbor is pulls a building permit and you come and talk to staff about it they'll hear your concerns there's not necessarily a uh there's not necessarily a redress unfortunately yep so so a mini sale site or a sale site goes up we see it then we can come in and go hey what happened or what is this yeah essentially or if it's or if you're watching the city's permit portal and are able to pull that information yeah yeah every night every night okay um and so my next question is this have there this was uh this law was established or put in into play in 2017 have there been any been any legal challenges from other local cities or municipalities challenging their ability to have more input or say so i'm not aware of any challenges on this specific uh law this is unfortunately um one of the many laws that we've seen over the past several years that have come down through tallahassee that limit our local home rule authority um and certainly i would encourage all of you as board members and certainly active you know uh participants in your local government to attend league of cities events uh join up with league of cities stay in tune with what they're doing as far as um their advocacy each legislative session because there are plenty of these bills that come up each year and um you know some pass and some do not thanks to the advocacy of you know our our local elected and appointed officials thank you thank you member stewart just for clarification so the first the first law came down in 2017 and 2019 um the city did not take any action so um we're trying to put some regulations in place for instance so we can apply um concealment shrouding and um design standards to whatever polls do come in we are getting polls in applications in for these polls so we're just trying to put something in place okay so this is kind of preempted to say okay we want to have a little bit of say and where okay yes all right thank you i'm sorry may i just i'm sorry jordan did i hear you say we are starting to get applications for these we've been getting these for a while yes okay thank you member northy i have a couple questions one do we buy uh do we have a definition of small wireless facility that is somewhere where a person could read that because i listened to what you said i looked at the photos but i have no idea what we're talking about i don't understand i'm we're doing fiber in my neighborhood right now in the right of way and nobody has bothered to come to the homes they've sent us notices now that it's up and we can go ahead and order it but um but as far as the process of it so so what is the difference between that and something like a small wireless facility what go over that again for me please because i'm lost yeah so i'll go ahead and read to you the definition of a small wireless facility from the statute um so it's the small wireless facility defined is defined as a wireless facility that meets the following qualifications each antenna associated with the facility is located inside an enclosure of no more than six cubic feet in volume or in the case of antenna that have exposed elements each antenna and all of its exposed elements could fit within an enclosure of no more than six cubic feet in volume and all other wireless equipment associated with the facility is cumulatively no more than 28 cubic feet in volume the following types of associated ancillary equipment are not included in the calculation of equipment volume electric meters concealment elements telecommunications demarcation boxes ground-based enclosures grounding equipment power transfer switches cutoff switches vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services and utility poles or other support structures so what we're talking about when we're talking about small wireless facilities are mostly above ground structures things that are either mounted on existing pole or input a new pole as opposed to fiber are normally seeing that go underground or as an overhead line although and nowadays it's mostly underground so a community cannot dictate what kind of service they would like that okay um and that definition is where would i find that definition that is statutory that's in chapter 337.401 okay okay thank you i have one question oh yeah go ahead member warnecke just to put this in some type of perspective is there anything different in this than when duke energy or florida power says hey we're running lines right here they're in an easement i mean is there any difference between these guys and the power people when they come through decades ago through saxon boulevard and put huge poles in people's front yards i'm yeah i mean really other than the type of utility that it's providing um there's not much utility the electric utilities do have even more uh rights uh to to preempt a local government but um it's very similar yep i i came up with a question um i see the illustrations those i guess are to give us an idea of the height but is there an actual required or stated height that these kind of poles would have section 82-125 a small wireless facility mounted on an existing polar structure should not extend more than 10 feet above the structure a new pole installed to support a small wireless facility should not exceed 50 feet in height or the height of the tallest existing pole within 500 feet okay when you say existing structure does that mean some of these could actually be mounted on existing towers or poles that are already yes in place yes they can they can be mounted on um light poles or telephone poles yes up i had originally a question but when you read through here i didn't know if it was going to apply that's why i waited but i was wondering uh it mentions on page 14 of uh the 22 14 of 22 number 15 uh on line 333 about complying with certain federal regulations do those regulations in these instances where they're going to be taller or mounted on other things do those take into consideration uh any uh existing studies of uh migratory flyways or or flight paths of birds i only ask that because every time polls are put up sometimes there's massive killings of uh birds that can't see them at night when they go through the flyways um so the statutes there the federal regulations that we're referencing in the city code is the federal telecommunications act of 1996 um not uh any migratory um any regulations dealing with migratory birds um however if that's a concern uh we could add that as um you know as a compliance piece that goes into another question i had when when you mentioned about public notice would would these types of permits that you mentioned jordan would those be presented at uh the drc meetings no they will not okay because i was wondering as you were just saying uh about if someone had a question about some of those concerns how would the public be aware of them ahead of time if they wanted to raise a concern unfortunately the only way the public would become aware is um when they're doing their due diligence out on the site measuring or when it's under construction unfortunately because there's no mechanism for us to notify the public so what we're looking at is the regularly posted signs that would be on the side of the road to let people know that there's a consideration of something going on no no go right ahead sorry i don't want to belabor this because again begrudgingly we we don't have much choice but i'm just curious jordan i know you said we we have we've been getting quite a few applications over the years do we know how many of those are in current residential areas unfortunately i do not know that okay um the last one we just received was um right near deltona high school okay um because i i i like what mr french had indicated about the migratory birds and doing some type of lighting or beacon but my only concern about that would be if that's in front of a private residence i don't necessarily want a big red glaring light flashing into my house 24 7 so just wanted to bring that up so thank you uh do any of the other board members have anything else they'd like to ask or say before i ask my question great uh jordan if we could look at section 82-123 a 1 and 2 where we're stating that the ordinance is mandating compliance with the florida building code and the national electric code since those codes are amended usually on a three-year cycle i think we're on the eighth or ninth edition of the fbc uh nec i think is 2020 or it could be 2023 i'm not sure which but um asking if staff would consider amending those two items to include some type of verbiage that mandates the applicable addition be complied with i think we can and um legal can correct me if i'm wrong i think we can put comply with florida building code as amended from time to time yes that was exactly what i just wrote down here based on the applicable coded code year right okay awesome that's all i had all righty um i'm opening the public forum to see if there's anybody in the public who would like to speak on this matter i don't see anybody in the audience so i'm going to close public forum and ask for a motion madam chair i begrudgingly and i would really like the record to reflect that um recommend that the city commission approve ordinance numbers 06-2026 establishing a new article 3 small wireless facilities of chapter 82 communication antenna and towers do i hear a second i'll second it okay uh motion by vice chair seconded seconded did by the secretary uh staff if you'll call the roll please member french yes member northy member stewart member warnecke yes secretary moroso vice chair viracle yes and chair cardo yes motion passes wonderful moving back to the agenda item number seven uh presentations awards and reports we have a land use presentation so i will turn it over to uh to council the floor is yours sir it's your lucky day zach thank you ma'am uh today you all get to learn that i do have legs i do stand up normally you see me at the at the podium um so tonight i'm gonna do a brief overview of conduct of hearings on land use matters uh certainly feel free as i go along if you have questions feel free to flag interrupt um i want this to be as useful for you all as um as possible and i will try and be brief and concise um and again i want this to be as useful for you as possible so if you have questions feel free to ask um we're gonna go over tonight the um procedures and review standards for legislative matters quasi-judicial matters ex parte communications and quasi-judicial bias findings of fact and then just some best practices so legislative matters legislative matters involve setting policy this is adopting or amending your comprehensive plan adopting or amending your land development regular regulations you just did one right you just amended a recommended amendment of the land development regulation that which is a legislative matter so for legislative hearings it requires a broad general notice we usually do our publication of in a paper of general circulation within the county this can be a wide-ranging public hearing that includes consideration of preferences and opinions conjecture and assumptions the presentation of evidence is anything relevant to the topic and you all as a board have substantial distract discretion as policy makers unfortunately the previous item is somewhat of an exception and that we are complying with the state law but in general you do have broad discretion as a board to make recommendations consider preferences and opinions as you look at legislative matters the standard of review so if someone wants to challenge a legislative decision is the fairly debatable standard of review which means there must be a reasonable basis to support the action so upon review a court will not second guess the wisdom of a local government's action and they must affirm if there is a reasonable basis for the decision and there is no constitutional violation so in a legislative matter the court is very deferential to the conduct of you know of your hearing and and your recommendations and your decisions continuing on with review so legislative findings may be based on a rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data right as long as it's rational you don't have to have hard facts to back up your decision in a legislative matter you can legislate as an experiment you don't have to have proof that i'm mandating that all your roofs be blue is a good thing you can just do it because you think it's pretty and if the decision is challenged the city has the opportunity to create additional evidence to support additional studies um expert testimony etc and throughout the presentation i do have case citations if any of you all would like to look those up if you need some light bedtime reading as we move on to quasi-judicial matters i guess i'll stop there first and see if any of you all have questions about legislative seeing none thank you um quasi-judicial matters this is the application of your general policies and rules as in the city code of the comprehensive plan to specific properties you cannot create new policies to govern your decisions without first going through legislative and these examples are your re-zones conditional uses variances special exceptions etc what you all have seen a lot of so with a quasi-judicial hearing there has to be a notice to the owners and affected persons which are entitled to participation because of their uniquely impacted rights and so in deltona we have adopted a radius of mailing notification when we conduct our quasi-judicial hearings we call up our members with standing first those are those people who receive notice they're called up first to participate so in a quasi-judicial hearing you have two key elements you must have the finding of facts regarding a specific proposal and then the exercise of judgment and discretion and applying your adopted policies to the specific situation so you as a board sit as judges quote unquote in a quasi-judicial capacity you are applying the law your land development regulations and your comprehensive plan to facts a specific property a specific application when you are conducting your quasi-judicial hearings when there is a conflicting evidence presented you as the board have the responsibility of deciding how much weight to accord each evidence that's when i read my little disclosure i say if you're not if you don't wish to be cross-examined or sworn your testimony is given its due weight with the assumption that if you are swearing under oath your testimony would have more weight as opposed to not swearing under oath your testimony has less weight in the event of a continued hearing you must be the you must be present for all or must review the complete portions of record or portions missed all exhibits and materials presented must be kept as part of the record so some people come up and you know offer a letter those all get offered to the clerk and and move forward with the record the review of a quasi-judicial hearing is based on the record right if you're in court over a quasi-judicial decision the only consideration is the record you're not able to create new findings new testimony new evidence so as the board you should give due consideration to the professional judgment of your city staff but the question of what the code or comprehensive plan means is a question of law for the board to decide so just because your professional staff has made a recommendation does not mean that you are obligated to follow it if there is different or conflicting evidence that is presented at a hearing continuing on with review of quasi-judicial decisions so decisions by the city and a quasi-judicial capacity are subject to narrow and limited review by certiorari on the record in the circuit court they're looking at whether procedural due process was accorded whether everyone got their notices you know whether the hearing was conducted correctly whether the essential requirements of law have been observed and whether the decision is supported by competent substantial evidence which is a different standard from what we talked about in legislative a petition for writ of certiorari must be filed within 30 days a rendition of the development order to be reviewed and cannot be extended denials must cite the legal authority for the decision which is listed in statute and again we have some case law citations if you'd like to read further so as i just mentioned competent substantial evidence is a different standard for quasi-judicial hearings than what you see for legislative and when you're looking at competent substantial evidence you um that means that evidence is it means that your decision is supported by evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion substantial competent evidence from lay witnesses and residents must be fact-based a subjective preference like i love this project i hate this project is not fact-based and does not constitute competent substantial evidence conjecture or assumptions are also irrelevant to the issues so what can we do as board members when we have that kind of discourse like for instance we have a a resident who stands up during the public forum forum forum opportunity and says i don't want this project because my house floods every time it rains what what what do we have what what is our recourse what do we do with that obviously they're allowed to speak and voice their opinion what are we allowed to do so right so they get their three minutes right they get to come up here and and speak their mind um you as the board then have to accord due weight to that testimony so they've made a conjecture that their house floods every time it rains and they that's why they don't like the project well if that's conjecture then you give it its due weight it's not competent substantial evidence to support a decision if they come up and say i have a report that says that this new development is going to increase flood risk and then they pass out the report that is competent substantial evidence right because you have a report prepared by an expert i think the that specific example with my house floods every time it rains if they have facts to support that you know they say it flooded this state this state this state this state that could be a factual uh testimony uh testimony that you all can consider and that's your role as the board sitting in your quasi-judicial capacity as judges to weigh that evidence and the court you know and consider it accordingly is what they're saying conjecture an opinion or is it fact-based um and that actually segues perfectly into the the next slide um so taking a different example um if you want to find that property values in the neighborhood will be harmed by a proposed project you have to make sure make your conclusion on record evidence rather than gut so you could have testimony from an appraiser about the impacts of a similar project on you know on neighboring property values and then you as the board have to weigh whether it's a truly similar project a truly similar impact um and does your record reflect that you know are you relying on your knowledge of the area or does the appraiser state with specificity what may be obvious to local citizens so that a reviewing court is able to review that record so does that give us the permission to table the matter to the next meeting while that evidence is gathered so you as the board can certainly continue a hearing if you would need additional evidence however you are not obligated to do so um if in if someone comes and speaks and says i would like to present additional evidence you can allow them to do that or you can say you had your time you know you had your notice you had your time to prepare and present your record thank you very much we'll take your comments but we're not going to continue this hearing to provide for additional um to provide for additional evidence to be gathered that's your call as the board and you have to balance as well certainly the rights of the applicant as they're moving through the process um so i would if you have a case where it is relevant and reasonable to gather additional evidence certainly you're able to do so if you have you know a some random human who says there's aliens that live underground underneath the property i don't know if that's reasonable to provide them additional time to gather their evidence of the aliens um so that's again a a board decision no but for for example if you had a piece of property where it let's say it's vacant undeveloped and surrounding neighbors noticed gopher tortoises and there was no endangered species phase one done or a phase two done we could potentially table the matter until such time as a phase one or phase two assessment of the property based on the testimony or based on someone saying hey i've witnessed gopher tortoises on the site and your requirements don't allow for the applicant to have to go get this type of study so that could potentially fall within what we're talking about and is that does that mean then that we would as a board have to have a motion a second and a majority approval to continue the matter and move the applicant or and application to the next meeting so you would have to have a motion second and majority vote to continue unless the applicant proffered it and asked for the continuance the particular situation that you have brought up with the gopher tortoise that is an evaluation that is not done prior to zoning that is done at the time of site plan jordan is that correct the so the in our land development code the timing for a a scrub j or gopher tortoise survey is at the time of site plan not at the time of zoning is that correct correct yes so you would so you're going to get your report eventually it just won't be before us correct okay so that's not an example of where we could continue it however if we wanted to continue it it would require a motion a second and approval yes ma'am okay thank you um so as we kind of continue down um which i think you all understand by now the presentation of facts has to allow a reasonable person to conclude that property values would go down in this example um and relevant personal knowledge as a um either a board member or someone presenting evidence has to be explained if it is to form the basis of the the motion for a vote so if one of you all is going to make a motion you have particular knowledge about an application a site and that knowledge is going to base your motion for motion for approval or denial you need to share that as part of your motion if it was not already presented as part of the record wouldn't you just have to recuse yourself if you had that kind of knowledge so with so for recusal that is a conflict of interest that would be if you had a particular economic gain or loss as a result of your vote so if you had a financial interest in the either approval or denial of the application but if you are an avid hiker and you hike that parcel and you have particular knowledge about the terrain of the parcel and why it is unfit for the type of development that is being recommended you would need to state that as part of your motion if you were going to say i move to deny because there is a special terrain that makes it unsuitable etc etc you would need to explain that if someone else had not already offered that as part of the record so any additional questions as we kind of wrap up that portion i think we're all set we can move on awesome uh so next we'll talk about ex parte communications um so you all are familiar with this communications outside of the hearing are presumed to be prejudicial and must be disclosed publicly before decision making which is why i always ask you all if you've had any expertise communications and to please disclose that prior to the conduct of the hearing just like a real judge is not supposed to talk to the parties of the case outside you know the lawyers of the case about the case outside of the courtroom that is uh the same presumption of why that would be prejudicial but by disclosing you are able to cure that presumption quasi-judicial bias so um bias can be the undisclosed ex parte communications uh close family or business ties which could disqualify you from participating or voting as a matter of due process even if there is no statutory conflict of interest those participating in quasi-judicial proceedings have a right to expect impartial decision making on the basis of the evidence presented decision makers should not take a position on a quasi-judicial application until each party has made its presentation at the hearing so that would mean in advance of hearing you're not coming out and saying absolutely no way will i vote yes absolutely no way will i vote no you know you're to remain impartial until you've seen the presentation of all evidence um and along that note as well you know board members should not actively involve themselves in efforts to support proponents or imponents of quasi-judicial land development action in order to reduce that risk of litigation just a couple of cases related to quasi-judicial bias again if you have any desire to do some deeper reading findings of fact so in the uh board of county commissioners of bravert county versus snyder the florida supreme court ruled that local governments will not be required to make findings of fact to deport to support decisions on an application for rezoning however written findings of fact can aid in the appeal in the case of appeal to support the local government's quasi-judicial decision um so the written findings are not required under law but are recommended i say that with a caveat because hb 399 was signed into law this legislative session and takes effect january 1st 2027 which does require in the case of a denial that certain findings be issued so we're going to work with your staff to make sure that that is implemented in time so that portion of this presentation will change in the future as we move forward so just to close we have some best practices on these quasi-judicial matters which is just be an objective decision maker you all are excellent at that you make decisions based on the information presented be effective and prepared again you're all excellent at that i mean you all ask great questions you know your materials uh you know making sound decisions and defensible motions and added conditions to any motion for approval should be rational and not overlap or conflict with with other conditions that are already located in the in the approvals so with that i'll take any additional questions that you all might have anybody any of the board members have any questions they'd like to formulate nope i'm seeing everybody's all yeah a good job thank you yes very very well done thank you so much thank you all righty moving on to number eight on the agenda staff comments yes madam chair so our next planning and zoning board meeting will be on may 20th um and then we followed by that we have our on june 8th our next comprehensive plan work update workshop is on june 8th um so that workshop will be um there'll be two workshops two topics will be discussed chapter 66 which is parking then the second half will be the comprehensive plan update at the workshop at the workshop yes okay june 8th all right can i ask that staff send uh a reminder a reminder a reminder before that was very helpful thank you and then zach's portion of this um presentation tonight can be used as some of your hours as well so and what date what date was the um in june june 8th monday june 8th okay and that's all steph's comments thank you you're welcome thank you uh board committee member comments anyone on the board like to make a comment i would please go ahead okay uh i really appreciate all the information that staff provides and uh and especially these updates that zach you provided us um one thing that i've always noticed is um the the best communication can give us the least amount of confusion and frustration i think sometimes with residents so um i would like to just suggest in any way we can to let citizens know that if they want to be more involved in this whole process before we come to planning and zoning about the availability of the drc meetings where they can find out about projects that are up and coming i know they sometimes can't participate that much but at least it puts things on the radar i know it helps me to understand sometimes what may be coming our way and then another thing that i think has been extremely helpful i've seen in the past with staff as a matter of fact is uh when both residents and sometimes even staff can somehow get involved in the florida master naturalist program which is through the ifas extension over by the fairgrounds this program gives a lot of in-depth information to anyone who wants to take a class like that about our uh upland communities that we have here represented in deltona our wetland communities it gives lots of background and information about a lot of these things that dovetail into this vision 2050 and other kinds of environmental considerations and planning kinds of things and the more this kind of information i think can be available not only to staff and in formulating your evaluations on projects but also to residents so they can be better informed about things uh i think and would wholeheartedly uh encourage that that information be made available to people that they could seek those things out i mean we have a lot of residents a number of them are are at a point in retirement where they could possibly benefit from more of that kind of information as they want to become more involved so that that's my comment and i i appreciate anyone else all righty uh motion to adjourn so moved i don't think i need a second on that do i wonderful all those in favor say aye aye adjourned