Calling to order the August 19th, 2026 City of Deltona Planning and Zoning Board meeting. And I'd like to ask staff to call the roll, please. Member Northey. Member Stewart. Member Warnicke. Here. Secretary Amoroso. Vice Chair Diarico. Here. Chair Cardo. Here. Alternate O'Brien. Alternate Guida. Correct. And here. Alternate Hassan. And alternate Zaltos. Next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from our May 20th, 2026 meeting. Does anybody on the board have any changes, additions, or amendments they'd like to bring forward? If not, I'll take a motion. So moved. Second. I'm sorry, go ahead. So moved. I think that was Member Northey that first, and Vice Chair Diarico seconded it. And all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed, hearing none, the motion passes. Presentations, awards, and reports is the next item on the agenda. I'm not seeing anything, so we'll move on to public forum. Staff, is there anybody here in the public who would like to speak? No, Madam Chair. Closing the public forum. No old business, so moving on to new business. And I'd like to ask Council to read the matter into the record, please. Yes, Madam Chair. This is Ordinance No. 16-2026. This is an ordinance of the City of Deltona, Florida, amending the City of Deltona Land Development Code by amending Section 70-30 definitions, amending Section 110-321 statutory uses, amending Chapter 76, affordable housing under the Live Local Act. To update definitions, applicability, administrative review procedures, development standards, and related provisions consistent with Section 166.04151 Florida statutes, providing for codification, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. Thank you, Council. I believe staff has a presentation. I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, Planning and Zoning Board. This is Ordinance No. 16-2026, which updates Chapter 76 of the Land Development Code related to the Live Local Act. We already have regulations in place, and this ordinance updates those regulations based on the changes the legislator has made to the Act. The Live Local was originally adopted by the state in 2023 and has been amended several times since then. For anyone who may not be familiar with the Live Local Act, basically, it allows qualifying affordable housing developments in certain commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas without going through the city's normal rezoning or discretionary approval process. If the project meets requirements of the statute, it is reviewed administratively. The Act also preempts some of the city's normal zoning authority, particularly as it relates to use, density, and height, while allowing us to continue applying other development standards where they have not been preempted. We adopted Chapter 76 in response to the original legislation and updated it after the 2024 changes. The legislator made additional changes this year through House Bill 1389, so we need to update our code again. With that background, there are a lot of red lines in the ordinance, but I want to point out a few examples of what is actually changing. First, eligibility. Our current code is limited to certain commercial and industrial zoning districts and specifically excludes PUDs, which is planned unit developments. Under the revised language, certain PUDs and other flexibly zoned properties may qualify. We are also adding property owned by a qualifying religious institution, regardless of the underlying zoning, if it meets the requirements of the Live Local Act. Administrative review. The process has always been administrative. What we are changing is some of the discretionary language in the current code. For example, right now the administrative official can impose conditions based on compatibility or impacts to surrounding properties. That language is being removed and the review is based on whether the project meets applicable requirements. The affordability compliance requirement itself is not changing. We are cleaning up how we handle compliance. For example, the current code has a specific $1,000 a day fine for noncompliance. That is being removed and replaced with a notice and cure process before enforcement. Development standards. We are also updating things like density, height, setbacks, parking, landscaping, and open space to make sure our standards are consistent with the current statute and what the city is still allowed to regulate. And in code consistency, we have some related changes to the definitions and statutory use sections. So those sections line up with the changes we are making to Chapter 76. Those are the major changes and I'll go through some of these in a little more detail in the next few slides. So where the Live Local Act applies, one of the bigger changes resulting from House Bill 1389 is where Live Local can apply. Our current code is fairly limited and specifically excludes PUDs. Under the changes made by the legislators, certain PUDs and other flexibly zoned properties may now qualify. The legislation also addresses eligible government-owned property and property owned by a qualifying religious institution, regardless of the underlying zoning. That does not mean every PUD or every property owned by a religious institution automatically qualifies. The property and the proposed developments still have to meet the requirements of the statute. Qualifying Live Local projects have always gone through an administrative review process. That is not changing. The project will still go through DRC and be reviewed by the appropriate departments. What we are changing is some of the discretionary language that is in our current code. For example, our code allows the administrative official to impose conditions based on compatibility, which I talked about earlier. And under the revised language, the discretion is based on whether the project complies with the Live Local Act, the comprehensive plan, and the applicable provisions of our land development code, and that have not been preempted by state law. Any conditions of approval also have to be tied to an applicable requirement and cannot reduce or restrict an entitlement provided by the Live Local Act. The revised language also makes clear that a qualifying project is not subject to rezoning, conditional use, variance, or other discretionary land use approval unless that type of approval is specifically authorized by law. So while the review is administrative and some of the city's authority is preempted, that does not mean these projects are exempt from our land development standards. Density and height are determined based on the requirements of the Live Local Act. Setbacks also continue to apply, subject to the limitations in the statute. Our parking and mobility requirements continue to apply, except where the Act provides for a parking reduction. We also retain requirements for pedestrian connections and other mobility standards. Landscape and an open space requirements also remain. And the ordinance maintains a maximum impervious surface ratio of 65% and a minimum open space requirement of 35%. We also continue to have requirements for amenities and building design. So while the state has limited the city's authority in certain areas, particularly use, density, and height, we still have development standards that apply to these projects. One area where the state did not, where, excuse me, one area where the state did make a significant change is the amount of non-residential development that we can require as part of a mixed use project. Right now, our code requires 65% residential and 35% non-residential. Under the current statute, at least 65% of the total square footage must be residential, but the city cannot require more than 10% to be non-residential. And once again, we cannot require more than 10% to be non-residential. So we are removing the existing 35% non-residential requirement and bringing our code into line with state law. Those are the major changes we want to highlight. With that, I'll move to the board's role in reviewing the ordinance tonight. For tonight, the board is acting as the local planning agency. Your role is to review these land development code changes for consistency with the comprehensive plan and make a recommendation to the city commission. Individual live local applications will continue to be reviewed administratively, so those applications will not come before this board for approval. And staff finds that the amendments consist, that the amendments consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommends that the board recommend approval of ordinance number 16-2026 to the city commission. Overall, this is really an update to the regulations we already have in place. We are bringing Chapter 76 up to date with the current statute, cleaning up the administrative review process, and keeping our local development standards in place where state allows us to do so. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Open it up for questions from our board members, starting with Member Northey. Do you have any questions? Member Zatos? Secretary? Amoroso? Amoroso? Rachel? Rachel is getting up. Okay, Secretary Rachel, go. I just have one, and it's kind of like just an informational question. I don't even know it's relevant because I didn't read the strikethrough before I came. When it says that any property belonging to a religious, whatever it says, religious something? Probably owned by a poppy religious institution. I think it was like a year ago or so that we had that one come before us on Lake Helen Osteen Road, so if they were to find a developer who would build 100 units, 65 apartments, 35 businesses, that would be something that would not come before us again for approval. They'd be able to do it with this, right? If the project qualifies as a live local project, it would not come before the planning or zoning board or city commission. Okay. I thought so, but I... But it would have to meet the requirements of a live local project. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Tara, do you have any questions for Jordan? Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you. I have several questions, and I already know what the answers are, but I would still like to express them because this is just the continuing degradation of home rule. So I'm sorry, Zach, because I'm going to... I forewarned you. So just a couple of questions, and some may not be able to be answered. I'm reflecting back to our most recent joint workshop, and I'm just curious to know, you had mentioned height restrictions, Jordan, or height restrictions. How are the height restrictions working? Because when I saw the height restrictions in here, it made me wonder, because I know at the time in that workshop, there was some conversation about... I'm calling them high-rises. It was 9 to 11 stories that I don't recall us having had before. And I remember at that time, I kind of voiced my surprise and displeasure, so I didn't know if these two were tied together or completely unrelated. So your comprehensive plan workshop and the Live Local Act are separate. Okay. However, the maximum height is determined within one mile of proposed development, or three stories, whichever is higher. What was the... I'm sorry, the first sentence? Sorry. The maximum height is determined as either the maximum allowable height within one mile of the proposed development, or three stories, whichever is higher. Okay. So if your zoning districts were amended to allow for higher... And it's within a mile. And it's within a mile, it would increase, potentially, the available height. Okay. And that's in subsection M of the packet. Oh, thank you. All right. Under development standards. Thank you, Jordan. And then when there was a slide, Jordan, and I think I just... I didn't absorb it, but where you talked about the 65% residential, 35% non-res... Okay. Can I just... Can we just look at this? So the proposed is 65% residential, but the city may not require more than 10% non-residential. So that doesn't add up to 100%. What am I missing? So the code previously stipulated that you would have 65% residential, that has now changed because we cannot stipulate that your maximum percentage residential be anything less than 90, right? We can only require a maximum of 10% non-residential use. So that is now amended to conform with the Live Local Act. And that's by gross floor area. So, again, I'll use Secretary Rachel's definition. If we have a 10,000-square-foot building, which we know that would be a lot larger, only 1,000 square feet of that, up to 1,000 square feet of that, could be non-residential. Is required to be non-residential. Is required. A developer... Whereas before, we were requiring more. Yeah, 45. So we're skewing more to the residential side. That's... Yes. That's what I'm seeing here. Okay. Also, too, just want to just say, so when I look at page 5, starting at line 145, and you already went through this, Jordan, but, you know, it's now... We're now allowing in properties owned for commercial, industrial, PUDs. We're allowing, additionally, we're allowing them in properties owned by counties, municipalities, school districts, religious institutes. Jordan, I know, again, unfortunately, we don't have a lot of choice here, but my concern is there is so little... You know, Deltona is unique in Volusia County. We, for number one, currently, we have so little commercial as it is. And also, because of past decisions by past folks, we have very limited availability for any new commercial. Now, if this is going to start getting eaten up by residential, so we're never going to be able to give our residents the tax relief they need by bringing in commercial tax-based revenue. And with this, we're not even going to get the residential tax-based, because it's going to be exempt. So what... Do we have any... What do we... Do we have any choice here? And legal can correct me if I'm wrong, but with the Live Local Act, since the city has less... About a certain percentage of commercial and industrial, the project is required to have some non-residential aspects to the project. That's correct. Yeah, but... Because we have less than 20% of our landmass zone for commercial. However, I think, to your point, because of the state preemptions and the changes, it is no longer... It is now a 90-10 that we can require, as opposed to what we were requiring before, which was the, I think, 65-35. And that certainly reduces any meaningful commercial tax revenue that would be generated from a project like this. What the city has attempted to do as part of these regulations is at least make these projects adhere to the design standards, setbacks, landscaping, open space, amenity provisions that we would expect in any other high-quality development. And that doesn't necessarily fix the tax problem. I think it does make the types of developers who would be looking at these projects, I think we would at least hopefully be getting a higher-quality product and may drive out some developers that would be less scrupulous. Okay. Yeah, and I do want to say it wasn't lost on me the work that staff and legal did to try to put some parameters in place. So thank you all for that. I'm sure the residents appreciate that, too. And then I just, I have one final question. Would these be, would there be impact fees associated with this? Would these be excluded and exempt from impact fees as well, or would those be? They would still, impact fees would still apply. Okay, so impact fees would still apply. Can, would maybe, Jordan, just think on, look at, is there a way to make the impact fees a little more substantial if it's going to be something that is not paying? So, um, back in June, the city just adopted, revised and raised the impact fees for non-residential, for both single-family and multi-family, and that's already been done. Yeah, and pursuant to Florida statute, the impact fee study must have a methodology that ties the impact of the development to, you know, the infrastructure needs. Um, the study that was prepared by the city's consultant at the time did not differentiate between an affordable housing use and another type, any other type of residential, right? It would just consider it as multi-family or single-family. Um, I don't know. I would have to, honestly, defer to a rate consultant if there is a different impact that would be calculable. Um, but if it's, if the, to borrow a phrase, if the math, maths, uh, you know, certainly the, the city would be able to amend in four years. Okay. All right. Thank you. That was all I had. Thank you. Thank you. Alternate Warnke? I have nothing. Thank you. Alternate Guida? I have nothing. Thank you. You're welcome. Can I ask a follow-up question? You certainly can. Go ahead. Okay. This is just off the top of my head. What is, what would be the impact of annexation lands into the city? Would they, would they follow the same guidelines or could they then be classified commercial? Because Tara really struck a point on that one that, that is now limiting. If a property was annexed into the city and it was given one of the, um, commercial industrial, industrial, um, zoning and land use, it would apply at the time of change, a time of change. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Uh, staff, my question would be, do we have any applications before you that would fall under the live local act? We had an application that was submitted. However, it was deemed incomplete. Um, so it has not been accepted for review. Is there any recourse or opportunity for board members and or the public to have any, any review and, or say, and the outcome of the decision that's made on that application? The applications that are submitted under the live local act are entitled to an administrative review and approval. They do go to DRC for technical review. Um, and DRC is a technically a public meeting. You can comment. However, their DRC is performing just a technical ministerial review. There's determining whether or not it meets the engineering or, you know, setback standards, et cetera. So no, there's no public recourse. There's the, there's no public recourse in an administrative process. Uh, do you know offhand if any of the other jurisdictions in the state, how they're reacting to these amendments and are there any, uh, is there any opposition from any of the other jurisdictions in the state to what the, uh, state statute has been amended to inflict upon us? Um, I will, I know that during session there was certainly lobbying against a continued preemption and continued erosion of home rule. Um, unfortunately, you know, that was not successful with the legislature, with, with the legislators. Some of our other clients were working on the same types of updates to their local codes in order to conform with the state statute. It's, um, unfortunately now just a mandate from the state and I'm not aware of any attempt to challenge this. There were attempts back when live local 1.0 came around, but now as it's been amended, there have not been any additional attempts at challenge. And there's no appeal process. No, ma'am. The ballot box. That's your appeal process. Okay. Thank you so much. Does anybody else on the board have any other questions before I open it up to the public? Okay. Opening up the floor to, uh, the public. If anyone has here to make a comment, um, staff, no. Okay. Hearing none. I'm closing public forum and would ask for a motion on this ordinance. I'll make a motion to the city commission approve ordinance number 16-2026. And while it pains me, I will second it. Okay. Motion by, um, Secretary Amoroso and, uh, seconded by, uh, member Northey. So, I believe staff, if you'll call the roll. Member Northey. Yes. Member Warnecke. Yes. Alternate Guida. Yes. Alternate Zaltos. Secretary Amoroso. Yes. Vice Chair Diarico. It doesn't really matter at this point, but no. I mean, we're, we're just taking something stinky and trying to make it less stinky. And Chair Cardo. No. Five to two. All righty. Moving on to the next item on the agenda, which is staff comments. Good evening, Madam Chair. Just a reminder that the next joint workshop with the Planning and Zoning Board and, um, City Commission will be on Monday, August 31st. And we will be going over the parks and rec element, economic development element, infrastructure, and future land use. And a reminder email will come out regarding that. Um, say that. What was that month? August 31st. August. Five 30. Okay. Those are my comments, Madam Chair. Sure. Thank you so much. Um, boards, committee members, comments. Anybody on the board have a comment? Just congratulations to all the candidates last night. Okay. Uh, that takes us to the end of the agenda. So, motion for adjournment. So moved. All those in favor? Aye. Meeting adjourned. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor. All those in favor.