Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Two thousand twenty six planning and zoning board hearing for the city Of Deltona. Staff, can you call the roll, please?

Yes, ma'am. Member French? Here. Member Northey? Here. Member Stuart? Here. Member Warnecke? Present. Secretary Amoroso? Here. Vice chair Dierico?

Here.

Chair Cardo?

Here.

Alton O'Brien? Here. Alton Szaltos? Here. Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from our 01/13/2026 meeting. Does any of the board members have any any comments, changes, alterations? No, ma'am. Wonderful. May I have a motion to approve the minutes?

I so moved.

Second. Second. Moved by Member French, seconded by Vice Chair. All those in favor say aye. Aye. And it passes. 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, make a comment?

No, ma'am.

Wonderful. So closing the forum. First item on the agenda for under new business, we have an ordinance. Counsel, can you read the ordinance into the record?

Yes. Yes, madam chair. This is ordinance number zero six dash twenty twenty six, an ordinance of the City Of Deltona, Florida establishing a new article three, 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, counsel. And we'll turn it over to mister Smith to 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 zero six dash twenty twenty six, 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?

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 of way and are substantially smaller than traditional cell towers. And there's three examples of small wireless facilities that can be found throughout Central Florida. So in 2017, the Florida Legislator adopted the Advanced Wireless Infrastructure Deployment Act codified in section three thirty seven point four zero seven (seven) Florida statutes. This established a statewide framework regulating small wireless facilities within public rights away.

And then in 2019, the legislature expanded those preemptions further limit 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 dash 120 through 82 dash 133 and establishes regulations addressing 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, 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 free standing 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 colocation is not feasible. As such, the city's authority is limited to those objective standards expressly permitted by law. And based on staff's 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 number zero six dash twenty twenty six to the city commission. The item is scheduled for first reading before the city commission on May 4. Now, there may be some questions that you you all may be asking. So, number one, can we deny these facilities? 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, and so on.

Can we control where they go? Only to the extent allowed under objective placement standards within the right of way. Can the city prohibit these in residential areas? No. State law preempts local governments from prohibiting small wireless facilities and public rights of way, including those adjacent to residential areas provided application meets code requirements.

Can the city require providers to use existing poles? First, no, while colocation is encouraged, state law prohibits the city from acquiring applicants to demonstrate that colocation is not feasible before installing a new poll. Can the city require space and 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 of ways subject to objective and non discriminatory standards. And can the city require providers to use priority to dwell on? 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 administration of small wireless facility applications. That's my presentation.

Thank you, mister Smith. We'll start with questions from the board members. Member Warnecke?

I have no questions at this time.

Member French?

Same here.

Member DiErco?

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.

Remember the Amaroso?

Which one do I call in? What what do we charge? What's the permanent fee that we charge for this? Do

you know?

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 it would be a one time fee.

It's what?

One time fee.

One time fee? Okay. Because I was reading in the I mean, I just read a couple of things that if they do attach it to 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, like

And to answer that question, when the statute refers to authority polls, it's referring to polls that we own as local government. So if they wanted to attach to a city streetlight pole, we could charge them a fee for that. Or if we had an electric utility, we could

do That's all I have. Great. Thank you. Member Stewart.

Yeah. Just had a few quick questions. I worked in wireless for eleven years, and this was always kind of a point of contention when building out cell sites and towers and when we went to micro cell and five g. And there were a lot of concerns about radio frequency and all kinds of other issues like that. But as I was reading through this, I was a little concerned because it really strips away any teeth that the city would have, and the ability to manage or dictate carriers from coming in and just putting towers everywhere.

So my first question is this for the impact to a resident. What notice or input will residents have before a decision's made or a tower's a mini site like this would be put in?

Residents would not become aware of a permit coming in. So the company would submit a building permit and it would go through just the normal review process. So, resident residents would not be made aware of these types of permits. Okay. So this is

a carrier comes in, and they say, hey, we've got some extra spectrum. We're looking to drop in a tower here. We're 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 provide and Zach, please help me out can provide comments about possible placement, if there's a concern, but Yeah.

This is the this is a similar process. Think of it more like a building permit Mhmm. In that it's administrative in nature, so there's no additional notice to the public. Certainly if your neighbor pulls a building permit and you come and talk to staff about it, they'll hear your concerns. There's not necessarily There's not necessarily redress, a unfortunately. Understood.

Yep. A mini cell site or a cell 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 are able to pull that information.

Yeah. Yeah. Every night. Every night. And so my next question is this. Have there this was 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 law. This is unfortunately 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. And certainly I would encourage all of you as board members and certainly active, you know, participants in your local government to attend League of Cities events, join up with League of Cities, stay in tune with what they're doing as far as their advocacy each legislative session because there are plenty of these bills that come up each year and some pass and some do not thanks to the advocacy of our local elected and appointed officials. Officials.

You. Member Stewart, just for clarification, so the first law came down in 2017 and 2019. The city did not take any action, so we're trying to put some regulations in place, for instance, so we can apply concealment shrouding and design standards to whatever poles do come in. We are getting applications in for these poles, so we're just trying to put something in place.

Okay, so this is kind of preemptive to say, okay, we want to have a little bit of say in where Correct. Okay.

Thank you.

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 Northey?

I have a couple questions. One, 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 I don't understand.

I'm we're doing fiber in my my neighborhood right now in the right of way, and nobody has bothered to come to the homes. They they they've sent us notices now that it's up and we can go ahead and order it. But as far as the process of it, so what is the difference between that and something like a small wireless facility? Go over that again for me, please, because I'm lost.

So I'll go ahead and read to you the definition of a small wireless facility from the statute. A small So 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 antennae 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 an existing pole or input a new pole, as opposed to fiber are normally seeing that go underground or as an overhead line. Although nowadays it's mostly underground.

So a community cannot dictate what kind of service they would like then? No. Okay. And that definition is where would I find that definition?

That is statutory. That's in Chapter 337.401. Okay.

Thank you. I have

one question.

Yeah. Go ahead. Member Warnicki?

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, 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?

Yeah, I mean really other than the type of utility that it's providing, there's not much utility. The electric utilities do have even more rights to preempt a local government, but it's very similar.

I came up with a question. 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 dash one twenty five, a small wireless facility mounted on an existing pole or 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.

And when you say existing structures, does that mean some of these could actually be mounted on existing towers or poles that are already

in Yes. They can be mounted on light poles or telephone poles, yes.

I had originally a question but when you read through here I didn't know if it was gonna apply that's why I waited. But I was wondering, it mentions on page fourteen twenty fourteen of 22, two, number 15 on line three thirty three 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 any existing studies of migratory flyways or flight paths of birds? I only ask that because every time poles are put up, sometimes there's massive killings of birds that can't see them at night when they go through the flyways.

So the statutes there, the federal regulations that we're referencing in the city code is the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Not any regulations dealing with migratory birds. However, if that's a concern, we could add that as the compliance piece.

That goes into another question I had. When you mentioned about public notice, would these types of permits that you mentioned, Jordan, would those be presented at the DRC meetings?

No, they would not. Okay, because

I was wondering, as you were just saying, 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 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.

Sorry, I don't want to belabor this because, again, begrudgingly, we don't have much choice. But I'm just curious, Jordan, I know you said 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.

The last one we just received was right near Deltona High School.

Okay. Because 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 247. So just wanted to bring that up. So thank you.

Does any of the other board members have anything else they'd like to ask or say before I ask my question? Great. Jordan, if we could look at section 82 dash one twenty three a one and two, 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. NEC, I think, is 2020 or could be 2023.

I'm not sure which. But 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, legal can correct me if I'm wrong. I think we can put comply with Florida building code as amended from time to time.

That was exactly what I just wrote down here.

Based on the applicable year. Right? Okay. Awesome. That's all I had. Alrighty. 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.

Recommend that the city commission approve ordinance numbers zero six dash two zero two six establishing the new article three small wireless facilities of chapter 82 communication, antenna, and towers.

Do I hear a second?

Second. I'll second it.

Okay. Motion by vice chair. Seconded seconded by the secretary. Staff, if you'll call the roll, please.

Member French?

Yes.

Member Northey? Yes. Member Stuart?

Yes.

Member Warnicki?

Yes.

Secretary Moroso?

Yes.

Vice chair Viraco? Yes. And chair Cardo?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Wonderful. Moving back to the agenda item number seven, presentations, awards and reports. We have a land use presentation. So I will turn it over to to counsel. The floor is yours, sir.

It's your lucky day, Zach.

Thank you, ma'am. Today, you all get to learn that I I do have legs. I do stand up. Normally, you see me at the at the podium. So tonight I'm gonna do a brief overview of conduct of hearings on land use matters.

Certainly feel free as I go along if you have questions, feel free to flag, interrupt. I want this to be as useful for you all as possible, and I will try and be brief and concise. And again, I want this to be as useful for you as possible so if you have questions, feel free to ask. We're gonna go over tonight the 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 regulations. You just did one. Right? You just amended recommended amendment of the land development regulation, which is a legislative matter.

So for legislative hearings it requires a broad general notice. We usually do our publication 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 discretion as policy makers. Unfortunately the previous item is somewhat of an exception in 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. 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 your hearing 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 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, expert testimony, etcetera. 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. 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 rezones, conditional uses, variances, special exceptions, etcetera.

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. 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, so those people who receive notice, they are 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 in 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, your comprehensive plan to facts, a specific property, 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 and 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 were 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 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 offer a letter, those all get offered to the clerk 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 in 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 thirty days of 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, 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 opportunity and says, I don't want this project because my house floods every time it rains. What what what do we 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. You as the board then have to accord due weight to that testimony. So they've made a conjecture that their house floods every times it rains and 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 date, this date, this date, this date, That could be a factual 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 consider it accordingly. Is what they're saying conjecture an opinion or is it fact based? That actually segues perfectly into the next slide. So taking a different example, if you want to find that property values in the neighborhood will be harmed by a proposed project, you have to 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. 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?

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're not obligated to do so. 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 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 gonna continue this hearing 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. 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 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. So that's again a a board decision.

No. But for for example, if you had a piece of property where it would 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 if the in our land development code, the timing for a a scrub jay 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 gonna 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 an approval.

Yes ma'am.

Okay. Thank you.

As we kind of continue down, 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. And relevant personal knowledge as either a board member or someone presenting evidence has to be explained if it is to form the basis of 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 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's a special terrain that makes it unsuitable, etcetera, etcetera, 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. So next, talk about ex parte communications. 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 in communications and to please disclose that prior to the conduct of the hearing. Just like

presumed 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 the same presumption of why that would be prejudicial but by disclosing you are able to cure that presumption. Quasi judicial bias. So bias can be the undisclosed ex parte communications, 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.

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 You know, you're to remain impartial until you've seen the presentation of all evidence. 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 quadrilateral bias. Again, if you have any desire to do some deeper reading.

Findings of fact. So in the, board of county commissioners of Broward County versus Snyder, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that local governments will not be required to make findings of fact to support 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. So the written findings are not required under law but are recommended. I say that with a caveat because HB three ninety nine was signed into law this legislative session and takes effect 01/01/2027, which does require in the case of a denial that certain findings be issued.

So we're gonna 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. You all ask great questions. You know your materials. Making sound decisions in defensible motions. And added conditions to any motion for approval should be rational and not overlap or conflict with other conditions that are already located 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 Go good job. Thank you.

Thank you, Zach.

Yes. Very Thank you. Very well done. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Alrighty. 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 20. Then we followed by that. We have our on June 8, our next comprehensive plan work update workshop is on June 8. So that workshop will be, there'll be two workshops, two topics will be discussed, chapter 66 which is parking and the second half will be the comprehensive plan update.

At the workshop?

At the workshop, yes.

Okay.

June 8.

Alright. Alright. Can I ask that staff send a reminder email That like did was very helpful? Thank you.

And then Zach's portion of this presentation tonight can be used as some of your hours as well. So

And what date what date was he about in June?

June 8. Eighth. Monday, June 8.

Okay.

And that's all Steph's comments. Thank you.

You're welcome. Thank you.

Board committee member comments. Anyone on the board like to make a comment?

No, ma'am.

I would.

Please go ahead.

Okay. I really appreciate all the information that Steph provides and especially these updates that Zach you provided us. One thing that I've always noticed is the best communication can give us the least amount of confusion and frustration, I think, sometimes with residents. So 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. Then another thing that I think has been extremely helpful, I've seen in the past with staff, a matter of fact, is 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 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 in formulating your evaluations on projects, but also to residents so they can be better informed about things, think and would wholeheartedly encourage that that information be made available to people that they could seek those things out.

Mean, have a lot of residents. A number of them 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's my comment. I appreciate it.

Anyone else? Alrighty. Motion to adjourn.

So moved.

I don't think I need a second on that, do I? Second on that. Wonderful. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Adjourned.