Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'm gonna call the planning and zoning board for the city of Edgewater, May Wednesday, 05/13/2026 to order. Can we have a roll call, please?

Mister Duane? Here. Mister Shalt? Mister Fisher?

Here.

Mister McGinnis? Here. Mr. Kennedy?

Here.

Mr. Andrew Kovic?

Here.

Mr. Hatcher?

Here.

Mr. Cunningham?

Here. Okay. Next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from the 04/15/2026 meeting, AR 2020 Six-ten 44. Has everybody had an opportunity to review the minutes?

Yes.

Any questions, comments, concerns, deletions, additions? Okay, I'll ask for a motion.

Motion to approve the minutes of April 2026. Second. I'll second.

It's April 15.

Mr. Duane?

Yes.

Mr. Fisher? Yes. Mr. McGinnis?

Yes.

Mr. Kennedy? Yes. Mr. Jacoby?

Yes.

Mr. Hatcher? Yes. Mr. Cunningham?

Yes.

Okay. There is no old business at this time. The first item under new business is DA two six zero seven, request for a variance to allow a carport extension resulting in a maximum building coverage of 30.5% for the property located at 605 Navigators Way. Can we have a staff report, please?

Yes. Thank you, chairman. The request before you tonight is to allow for a carport extension resulting in a maximum building coverage of 30.5% for the property at 605 Navigators Way. City staff sent public notice within 500 feet of the subject property with this aerial map attached to the public notice. Here is a site plan showing or plot plan showing the extended drive and the carport.

Per Article five table B1, the maximum building coverage permitted within the AMH 2 zoning district is 30%. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an increase in the maximum building coverage to 30.5%. In accordance with Article nine, Section 20 one-one 104, city staff reviewed the six criteria and found that the applicant could not meet all six of the criteria. City staff is recommending denial. City staff will note that the Planning and Zoning Board in the past for question number two has granted several variances with building percentages greater than 30%. City staff will be happy to go over any of the questions and answers within the staff.

Thank you very much. I will open the public hearing and ask if anybody has any comments or questions, board comments or questions. We will need your name and your address for the record, please.

Jessica Cortelli. Is it working? 2900 Citrus Drive, Edge Water. I don't think it's working. Do I need to repeat it? Did you guys

Go ahead.

You're good.

Okay. I don't really have any questions. Again, I just want to reiterate basically what he said. We're just asking for the 05% increase. Pretty much every lot in that park is already over a lot coverage. Coverage. Most of them are. We're not asking for anything that nobody else doesn't already have.

Okay. Anybody have any questions for her?

No. Okay.

Thank you. Any other board questions or comments?

Just a statement. We've we've done this before many times, and we understand the situation, and I see that our architectural review committee approved it. So, you know, we've done it. Okay. Thank you.

Alright. I'll close the hearing and ask for a motion.

Motion to accept VA twenty six zero seven as

written. Second.

Mister Dwayne?

Yes.

Mister Fisher?

Yes.

Mister McGinnis? Yes. Mister Kennedy? Yes. Mister Andrew Kovic?

Yes.

Mister Hatcher? Yes. Mister Cunningham?

Yes.

Okay. Next item under new business is VA two six zero eight. Request for a variance to allow a maximum building coverage of 31.1% for property located at 1210 Willow Oak Drive. Staff report, please.

Thank you, chairman. The request before you tonight is from article five table b one to permit a maximum building coverage within the R 2 Zoning district of 31.1% for the construction of a home with an airplane hangar adjacent to the taxiway. Per the R2 zoning district, the maximum building coverage is 30%. City staff did review against Article nine, Section 20 one-100.04 for the subject property shown on the screen here that city staff sent public notice for within 500 feet. This is the plot plan for the applicant.

City staff did review all six of the criteria and found that applicant could not meet all six. City staff will note again, though, will the granting of the proposed variance result in creating or continuing use, which is not compatible with adjacent uses, to facilitate these airplane hangar homes as the board has granted additional variances in the past.

Okay. I will open the public hearing and ask if anybody has any comments or questions. Okay. Thank you. Anybody have any questions for him before he sits

I had actually Sir? What kind of construction is this? Because the plans all say it's a barndominium, but it looks like it's blocked with siding. Okay. Because the plans all say barn door at the bottom. That's why I was asking.

And

then the only other thing, so on the plans, you've got a proposed hangar. But on the back elevation, there's no hangar door.

Okay.

It's basically going to be a 37 by

12. Okay.

That's all I had.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, concerns, comments? Board questions, concerns, committee?

Just again, I'll reiterate that we've we've done this before. We've had this situation, and we understand the the necessity of it.

Okay. I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

Motion to approve VA twenty six zero eight.

Second. Mr. Duane?

Yes.

Mr. Fisher? Yes. Mr. McGinnis?

Yes.

Mr. Kennedy?

Yes.

Mr. Andrew Kovic?

Yes.

Mr. Hatcher? Yes. Mr. Cunningham?

Yes.

Okay. Next item on the agenda is VA two six zero nine, request forbearance to allow for the construction of a home on a nonconforming lot with a side yard setback of 7.5 feet, a front yard setback of 35 feet, and a maximum building height of 35 feet for the property located at 603 North Riverside Drive. Can we have a staff report, please?

Thank you. The applicant is seeking to build a new home on the subject property and has requested variances against Article five table b one to allow a 35 foot house in lieu of the maximum building height of 26 feet in the R 1 zoning district. For Article five table b one, allow a 7.5 foot side yard setback in lieu of the required 15 foot side yard setback for a two story dwelling on the river. And per Article five table B1, to allow a 35 front yard setback in lieu of the 40 foot required by the Land Development Code. The applicant originally had requested up to 42 feet in height.

However, she revised her plan set to 35 feet once city staff let her know about the charter restriction. So the variances is capped at 35 feet should the board grant it. City staff did review the application and did send out public notice within 500 feet to subject property shown here with this aerial imagery. City staff did review Article nine, Section 20, non administrative variance, and found that the applicant could not meet all six criteria. Again, with number two, city staff will note that the board has granted similar variances for properties on Riverside Drive.

Thank you. Were there any neighbor comments? Anybody?

We got a letter

of support. Support, but nothing nobody didn't

The city staff didn't receive any public comments from actually on any item. GREGORY Okay.

Perfect. Okay. I will open the public hearing and ask if anybody has any comments or questions. Thank you very much. Any board comments or questions for her before she sits now?

I have a question. I past this every day, as you know. What's that caution tape up for? So you're giving them permission to go by? Okay. Because that threw me for a loop. I was just curious, why is that construction tape over there? It's very narrow for a truck. Okay. Good. Thank you so much.

Any other questions or comments?

The concern that I have is on the undeveloped lot next to your location. And I'm wondering if whoever, whenever that is purchased, if they would like to have a building seven and a half feet from their property. That's my concern based on the r one residential. You know, there's several areas and stuff that, you know, you're asking for variances for for your home. And that was my biggest concern is that the the neighbor or whoever would build there, they may not like seven and a half feet.

So that's and with it being wetlands all the way through, you're saying that you need fill in there. How high is that going to go? So then that means your runoff will go to your neighbors.

No. Well,

Are you stem walling this, I'm assuming? Not bringing in fill and then doing all the stabilization stuff?

There's a retaining wall, and

we will be bringing fill.

So you are going to backfill the whole front, the west section of the lot then?

No. Just the part I think it shows that It

just says retaining wall. It doesn't give me any elevations. And I was trying to look at all your three d elevations that Ian gave you, but I don't see anything that references the footing. And here's where I'm going with that. So I've got two concerns.

One, I've lived here my entire life, and that lot harbors water. So I'm sure if we drive by it right now, it's got water sitting in it and high tides. I mean, it's just that unique nature of that piece of property. My bigger con my biggest concern is a, backfilling the whole front section of property because of the water, but more and I don't know if we could do this at this level or not, Ryan, but they're going

to need to do

some soil impact studies on this because this is a million pounds getting ready to sit on an area that's typically underwater. So I'm just curious to see if it's going to be a pier footing, if it's going be a stem wall footing or something like that. That's what I was trying to find out and I just can't see it from the I wasn't sure if Ian had the construction documents done. Okay. So it is a peer footing. Okay. So the retaining wall back to that side

by the river.

It's out back by the river.

So that's what's making me think that only the retaining it's almost like it's going to be stem walls with piers in it then. Because the only way they'd be able to backfill, they'd have to build a retaining wall all the way from the north side, which is the Dougherty's property, to the south side, which is the vacant land, and then backfill that whole thing. But they don't have that indicated on the drawings. Yeah, that's what I was trying to find. There's one that's set half. Okay. Yeah. No, there it is. I see it. Yeah, that's way easier to see than this.

All right. So they are going to basically bring it up about five feet, which will be about level with Riverside Drive. At the worst point, basically, Jim, all the way out to the east is going to be the worst. And then it tapers from there. Because, I mean, it's not like it goes from the sidewalk. It just drops off a cliff, you know? So, well, I mean, it's

And our neighbors Yeah.

Are you just going to tie into their existing retaining wall, is there going to be any kind of a buffer in between the two?

Yeah, because there's a small

space in between.

Drainage swale? Okay. So it's almost like it is going to be a stem wall, but just wider than the footprint of the house. And then peer footing's inside. All right.

I was going to ask who your biological was, but she said Joe Young. He's good. All right. So what are we looking at here? Because I know you all are going to wait on me to make this.

How'd you figure that out, Chris? Oh,

Is there anyone else that has any comments before we before we close the public hearing? Okay. We're all the whole room is waiting on you, Chris.

I know. No pressure.

If you need help, the requested action is to allow for a 35 foot height, to allow for a seven and a half foot side yard setback and a 35 foot front yard setback.

I was trying to figure out if there was a way to tie in the pier footings into it. And not so much because it's I mean, I know they've had all the studies done. I just, again, riding up and down that road like Bob has for forty seven years now is the house is going to sink.

Make them submit a geotech. Well, they already have to do it for the fill.

That's true. Could I stipulate the 20 foot geotech instead of the six and a half hand dunk?

It can be a condition Do

you know if you've already got geotechnical studies done? Like someone came out with a drilling machine and drilled down? Would you be opposed if I made a condition that I want you to get a geotechnical study to 20 feet? I mean, would anyway, just because of where you're building. The right way. Yeah, I would anyway just because of where you're building. But that's

can I say something to Chris? I bow for your expertise in this field. And if you think that this needs to have that survey, I would highly recommend

you adding it into So the basically, bring a Bechtel Engineering brings a truck out.

Oh, I've seen it.

And they down like 20 feet. I've seen it. They give them everything underneath that house for 20

Exactly.

That makes changes to the foundation and things like that, so that if the house settles, it settles

I flat, not like think where it is located is, I think, it's important to All do

right.

I'll make a motion to approve 20 six-nine as written with the condition that the applicant at time of construction provides a geotechnical report no less than 20 feet boring. Building permits. Do I have to say that whole thing over? Okay. Building permits in the middle. Did you get the 20 foot no less part? Okay.

I need a second.

Second.

Mr. Duane?

Yes.

Mr. Fisher? No. Mr. McGinnis?

No. Mr.

Kennedy? Yes. Mr. Andrjakovic?

Yes.

Mr. Hatcher?

Yes. Mr. Cunningham?

No.

Motion passes. That was four-three, right? Okay. Next item on the agenda is CU two six zero two, request for conditional use permit to allow for a donation center within B 3 Highway Commercial Zoning District for the property located at 512 North Ridgewood Avenue. Staff report, please.

Pardon me. The request before you today is for a conditional use permit to allow a donation center within the B3 Highway Commercial Zoning District for the property located at 512 North Ridgewood Avenue. A donation center is not specifically defined as a use within Article III, Section 20 one-three 305. III. I made the determination that this use most closely related resembled a distribution type facility.

Property is being requested. They're requesting this conditional use permit to use it as a goodwill donation center for drop off. If you recall the old facility, the original site plan was approved for a four lane drive through bank. Access to the site is limited to West Knapp Avenue. There's a left hand turn lane into NAP there.

And city staff believe that the necessary transportation and concurrency management system has been met. The existing site has utilities. The only thing that city staff would note is that the back and the rear could use some additional landscaping to just help screen it as a condition of the conditional use permit for the drive through section. Otherwise, city staff support the conditional use permit from goodwill.

Okay. Thank you. I'll open the public hearing and ask if anybody has any comments or questions. Any other questions?

I would just be concerned with, is there any type of after hours donations? Is there a way to deter after hours drop offs so that the clutter doesn't become

I

have a question on your where your redemption area and then the drop off point, I'm assuming, on the backside, the little triangle grass area where the driveway goes to the current drive thru. Are you going to fence that area in back there? Or is that just going to be open?

Great. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, sir. Alright. What? I'm sorry. Sir, I need you to come to the mic.

Or ma'am, actually, can you answer ask all your questions first, and then we'll

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Okay. Thank you.

So as you mentioned, you think 30 to 50 donations a day. Okay. Thank you.

And

we did have a goodwill that was right

next

next to Publix.

Yes, right.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah, Ryan, I was thinking the same thing. Mean, a bank's going to have thirty to fifty an hour.

Yeah. Thank you. Board, Thomas, your questions?

I think we run into this a lot where commercial butts up the residential. And it's just the way it's going to be to take an existing facility that's already there. You're not having to tear any more trees and put down any more pavement. You're just trying to repurpose it. Right.

Okay. Any other questions? I'm going close the public hearing.

I really don't think we're going to have much problem with traffic, additional traffic. Obviously, it was planned before for a bank, right? There's going be a lot more traffic for that than there would be for this. Like he said, if you can only plan for one truck a day. It's not going to really, to me, create a problem.

Okay. We'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

Make a motion to approve CU2602 with the condition of the rear landscape buffer receive additional plantings to help screen the donation drop off existing driveway. Second.

Who is that second?

Me. Patrick.

Mr. Duane?

Yes.

Mr. Fisher? Yes. Mr. McGinnis? Yes. Mr. Kennedy?

Yes.

Mr. Granger Kovic? Yes. Mr. Hatcher?

Yep.

Mr. Cunningham?

Yes.

Okay. Next item on the agenda is a n two six zero one, request for annexation of partial parcel IDs 8412 Dash 02 Dash 08 Dash 0010, 8412 Dash 02 Dash 080040, and 841202080090 from Volusia County into the city of Edgewater, generally located West of Starboard Avenue and East of San Remo. Staff report, please.

Thank you, chairman. If you would allow me, I wanted to present AN2601, CPA2601, and RC2605 consecutively within the PowerPoint. They will need three separate votes. But I think to provide context for the entire plan of the development, not just annexation and so forth, I'd like to get that PowerPoint

done. Perfect. Perfect.

So are we going to do discussion on all three at Okay. One

CityStats sent out public notice within five hundred feet with this aerial imagery for all three applications. So there should have been public notice mailed. This is the future land use map for the subject property. Within the county has a future land use of commercial and urban low intensity. They are proposing a future land use of commercial with the conservation overlay.

The rezoning map shows that currently in unincorporated Volusia County, it's R3 urban single family residential and B4 general commercial. The request before you is B3 highway commercial. Regarding the annexation, the property is contiguous. It is compact. It has any indications of urban sprawl.

It is located within doesn't have to meet Florida statutes. But this is a perfect example of a textbook annexation meeting Florida statute criteria, chapter 171. Regarding the future land use, you can see within the city here that predominantly US1 along this section here has a future land use of commercial and subsequently has a zoning designation of B3 of highway commercial. So city staff are entertaining these applications because they match the existing land use patterns, which is shown in these maps here. The applicant is proposing a kind of different self storage project.

So it's both storage and RV storage. But the spaces are to be condod and to be bought in lieu of renting. City staff felt that the proposed development is a pretty non invasive commercial development that could go there in between or kind of nestled against the back end of a quaint small subdivision on that cul de sac of San Remo. The applicant at the request of staff did place on the concept plan the stormwater pond at the rear to provide additional buffer. We believe that this is a pretty compatible use.

And it's a different use that we haven't seen in the before. And that's why city staff are entertaining it. And again, it meets the existing land use pattern.

Okay. Thank you. I will open the public hearing and ask if there is anybody that has any comments or questions.

So I can kind of answer this question. So the reason we're not entertaining an annexation agreement for the right of way is that ISBA agreement. As soon as the city has 50% of the property along a road becomes ours not a great agreement but it does. So the intent here on his conceptual plan, the applicant was showing that he was going to extend a road. I think it's probably too costly unless DOT is not going to allow him a stub out.

There is, in addition so the original intent was to vacate this right of way. Half would go to the South property owners, half would go to the North so that the city doesn't have to maintain this public right of way. You do have HOA common area here. Sorry, the little legend down there isn't kind of in the way. But that HOA common area prevents any sort of connection there.

Even if that road was extended all the way to here, you guys would have to allow private access through that HOA common area. And so that'd be up to your HOA. The intent here was to vacate it to give him more room to accommodate the more intense landscape buffers since this is a straight zoning request. Has to be a vinyl or masonry wall on a straight zoning. So this does have to come back.

So the annexation, the comp plan amendment, and the rezoning will have to go before two readings before city council. The application would then come back. The applicant wanted to come back for he would have to come back, set to straight zoning, for a conditional use permit, asking the Planning and Zoning Board to grant him a conditional use permit to have outdoor storage since that's not granted by Wright under B3. And then again, he'd come back again to vacate the road. So he'll be back before this board probably an additional two more times. And he'll be back before the council at least another four times, including this application process. So there'll be a lot of public participation available

Thank you. Thank you.

Have you done the environmental study or the ecological study on what types of trees are on the property?

I'll kind of civil engineer where we haven't

completed that yet before. Okay.

Anybody else have any questions for him before you

I don't have a question for

him, no.

Thank you. You had a question, ma'am, or comment? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Eric.

Hi,

I'm Joe Heffernan. I'm at 205 San Remo Circle. I was curious as to where the sewer connection was going to be made.

Coming into the cul de sac, connecting in

our area?

I mean, at this point, we're just at the annexation rezoning comp plan. I asked for the concept plan from the gentleman, not a requirement on a straight zoning. He doesn't have the engineer drawings yet. But there is sewer on both. So I think there is an option to pull it. Obviously, if it would need to come through the HOA through that common area, you would need to obtain an easement.

Any other questions or comments?

The only other thing I picked up

correct me

if I'm wrong, Ryan, but it says 15 would require a 15 foot landscape buffer. The plan's only got a 10.

On light to light, yeah, you'd have a 15. On the rear, you'd have a 35. Right. It's a Class D now from commercial to residential, which requires the wall or the fence, six feet in height. Yeah. Yeah, mean, this is a conceptual plan. I haven't reviewed, like, an engineer drawing, so he doesn't have comments with all the code sections yet. I just asked him to throw something together so that you could see what he was proposing so that it wasn't like, But again, it's not a requirement of the application process. It's something that he did for at staff's request.

And then sewer connection wise, we can probably just connect to that four inch pipe at 209 San Remo.

All right. Any other comments or questions? Board comments or questions? All right, I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

For just the annexation, right?

Yes. I'm going to ask for a motion for AN2601. Motion

to send a favorable recommendation for AN2601.

I'll second it.

Mr. Duane? Yes. Mr. Fisher? Yes. Mr. McGinnis?

Yes.

Mr. Kennedy?

Yes.

Jacoby?

Yes.

Mister Hatcher? Yep. Mister Cunningham?

Yes.

Next item on the agenda is r z 2605, request for rezoning for 2.95 plus minus acres. PIDs 8412Dash02Dash08Dash0010, 8412Dash02Dash08Dash0040, and 8412Dash02 Dash080090, generally located South Of Roberts Road from Volusia County Commercial B 4 and Volusia County Urban Low Intensity R 3 to City Of Edgewater Highway Commercial B 3. Staff report, please. Damn. You're gonna make me do that all over again.

Okay. It's cool. Sorry.

Same thing George already said, but for CPA twenty six

zero one.

So, no, I'll do it. It's good. Good practice. So next item on the agenda is CPA two six zero one. Right? Request for small small scale comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map for parcel IDs 8412Dash02Dash08Dash00108412Dash02Dash08Dash0040, and 8412Dash02Dash080090 from Volusia County commercial and urban low intensity to City Of Edgewater commercial. Staff report, please. I know we already did one, but I'm just opening it.

Yeah.

Do I need I still need to open it public hearing. Right?

Yeah. Yeah. We well, yeah. We should give an opportunity to public comment specifically on this item.

Well, they all left. So.

DELL:

I think it was understood that the comments were open for all three. It's the same project.

But I mean, you obviously still say,

Okay.

The So I'm going to open the public hearing.

Sandy, Mr. Storch,

Matt Questions? Board comments or questions? All right. I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for

a motion.

I make a motion to approve as written CPA dash two thousand six hundred one.

Second.

Mr. Devine? Yes. Mr. Fisher? Yes. Mr. McGinnis?

Yes.

Mr. Kennedy?

Yes.

Mr. Andrew Kovich? Yes. Mr. Hatcher? Yep. Mr. Cunningham?

Yes.

Okay. This is the third of '3. RZ2605, request for rezoning of 2.95 plus minus acres for PIDs 8412Dash0 2080010, 84202080040, and 841202080 090 generally located South Of Roberts Road from Volusia County Commercial B 4 and Volusia County Urban Low Intensity R 3 to City Of Edgewater Highway Commercial B 3. And I will open the public hearing. Board comments or questions? I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

Motion. Are we sending a favorable recommendation? Yeah. Motion to send a favorable recommendation for RZ 2605 as written. Second.

Mr. Duane?

Yes. Mr.

Fisher? Yes. Mr. McGinnis? Yes. Mr. Kennedy? Yes. Mr. Andrew Poix?

Yes. Mr.

Hatcher? Mr. Cunningham?

Yes.

Okay. Next item on the agenda is SD2408, request for preliminary plat and construction plan approval for Deering Park North Phase one for 347 residential units located West Of Interstate 95 and North Of Indian River Indian River Boulevard within Deering Park North. Staff report, please.

Thank you, chairman. City staff sent out public notice within 500 feet of this large tract of land, which is 118.282 acres. The proposed development is a mix of neighborhood general, neighborhood center, and town square typology units composed of 60 by 130 foot length lots, 50 by 120s, 40 by 120s, 45 by 120s, 34 by 125, and 24 by 125. The Deering Park North development agreement within composite exhibit C outlines the different districts for which city staff must review the plans against the PUD. And Deering Park North in this first subdivision, city staff looked at the neighborhood general code, the neighborhood center, and the town square.

Drawing 3A, the construction plan provides a broad overview of the different areas within this subdivision. Part of Deering Park North requires that within a half mile of all amenity centers that all units be located within a half mile one. So that's that big bubble you see there. City staff show the lot breakdowns here at phase one and two. More specifically for phase one here, this gets a breakdown between the neighborhood general, neighborhood center, town square, different units.

You can tell that the neighborhood general has the 60 to 50 foot wide lots, 40 foot wide lots, while the town center gets more dense with townhomes and these row house style homes. Drawing 3A also demonstrates the amenity buffer area as well as the dog waste stations surround throughout the site. City staff did review to make sure that all requirements of the PUD have been met including sidewalk lengths, block sizes, minimum number of planting required. So Afton is meeting the minimum open space requirement of 25. The Afton is also satisfying the tree and landscaping requirements and providing eleven twenty eight plants or trees, I should say.

All trees are native species. And they've also provided within the construction plans, plans and schedule for littoral shells within the storm water retention ponds as encouraged by the MUPUD. The storm water master plan was modeled for Deering Park from Jones Edmonds and Associates. Seth Cohen and Associates have also reviewed the Deering Park master storm water plan for Deering Park North as Deering Park Center, as well as Matt Creel, the city engineer. And all have stated that the plans meet the city's code and the PUD agreement.

City staff, again, have school concurrency satisfied from the school board. And with that, city staff are recommending approval for Deering Park North Phase 1.

Thank you, sir. I will open the public hearing.

Good evening. Ernie Cox, good to be with you here on behalf of the applicant Enduring Park. This Phase I plat is also a bit personal to me. My wife and I are going to be building a home in the north end of it, and my mom is planning on building her own in the south end of it. So this is where we're going to be neighbors. Brian, were you Yeah,

if you want. Which one? The short one,

but not the additional information. Just the presentation. We have more additional information if you have extra questions. Next slide, please. I think there's a way to click it, so just page by page.

If not, perfect. This is I'm not going to go through all these slides, but this is just, again, to give us regional context as to where we go into the bright green represent the publicly owned conservation lands up until last week. The county also approved. If you look down in the lower left hand corner, where you see the turquoise green, that's actually Volusia County's Deep Creek Preserve. The county just approved to the west of it purchasing another 1,600 acres.

So Deep Creek will now be in conservation on both sides of the creek. So I just wanted to point that out on the map. And then the dark green represents the 46,000 acres of conservation lands that we've placed in conservation related to Dearing Park. Next slide, please. This is within the Dearing Park North PUD.

As you may recall from the last time we were here on Deering Park Center. To the south is Deering Park Center, and Deering Park Center has the first approved flats that came before you earlier this year, end of last Gearing Park North is the property to the north of kind of the Awesome Camp Road, future extension of Indian River Boulevard. The Edgewater Wetland Park is shown in the kind of bright turquoise that we dedicated last week, and the reuse line has already been installed. They finished that last week. So we're hoping to be moving dirt this week and planting this fall.

This gives you context. So we're now within Gearing Park North within an already approved PUD project. Next one, please. These are the two plots we're talking about today. If you don't mind me presenting on both and then say you have any questions. The plant Phase I is to the East and Phase II is along the conservation area to the West. Just again, the standards for approval. We have to meet the conference plan. We have to meet the land development code. We have to meet the PUD agreement.

And as Ryan outlined, we meet each of those requirements, but each of the detailed reviews. Next one, please. And then we've gone forward to put the 4,000 acres into conservation. We've started the extension of Indian River Boulevard. We're constructing the lakes. Most of them are under construction. Some of them are now completed. The storm water system will be in before any of the development, very important. And we've already started stabilizing the pond banks. As soon as we finish the pond bank, we're going ahead and putting sod in, getting that sod grown in.

Next slide, please. Welcome center under control, under construction. We're hoping to have it done this summer. Hope to have it opening sometime maybe this fall. We've actually given it a name, so we're excited.

We're going to call that the Hartwood, kind of a tribute to timber operations on the site for decades. And then we're working with FDOT on two projects. One is to build design and build the seven mile segment of the bicycle trail that will run from just East of 95, under I-ninety 5 West to the Wetland Park, up through the Wetland Park, and ultimately to New Smyrna Beach, where we'll connect to the trail trail right by the racetrack. So that's underway. And then we're also working closely with FDOT on improvements to the I-ninety 5 interchange, which will be broken into three pieces.

One is to widen that road from two lanes to four lanes. The legislature appropriated that money last year. We're to add the bike trail, protected bike trail under that interchange. And then fingers crossed, we're in the budget right now in Tallahassee to improve the storm water within that interchange. And the hope is that we're under construction with all of that by the end of the year.

Next slide, please. Even though the kind of the plat process, as you know, is pretty straightforward, you meet the requirements, make sure the engineering is correct. But we know there have been some questions about drainage. And so I thought I'd, if you don't mind, take a few minutes and update update you all on where we are with the drainage system for Deering Park. As we know, that's very important not only to you all, to the entire community and to us.

So this is a schematic of the system. The blue area represents the 400 acres of connected lakes. And that's important that they're all connected to each other. But the purple lines are actually control structures. So at each of those stages, we've got the ability to hold water back.

So as we've designed it, it's all connected, but the water level at the north cascades its way down, and each time we're holding that water back for longer. Gives us two benefits. One, as the water is held back, particulates filter out, fall to bottom, reducing the turbidity. And also, the longer it's able to stay in there, the littoral shelves that Ryan mentioned can absorb any nutrients that might be in that water. And more importantly, it gives us the ability to pull that water back during times of high water.

And then you'll see the orange on the western side built into the system are some overflows. So in times of very high water, we're able to overflow into the swamp. And that's part of the permitted system with the district. So not only looking at daily operations, but high operations, the overflow gives it a swamp instead of going east under I-ninety 5. And then we modeled we actually modeled 36 different storm events. But these are just a few of the examples. We had our engineers do modeling. We had a third party engineer check their modeling. The St. John's District double checked our modeling.

The city's engineer did their modeling. And then Jones Edmunds did their modeling. Next slide, please. This is the highlighted my core highlighting, but this is the area that we're talking about. The lakes provide 20% more storage than required. Again, we understand what's happening in the community. We want to hold more of that water. And we actually designed it from a water quality perspective to meet the outstanding Florida water quality standards, even though it's not in an outstanding Florida water. Next slide. This is again the same area.

It reduces the runoff from the site, very important. After development, so today water is coming off through the culverts under 95. After development, less water will come through those culverts than it comes through today. And that water will be cleaner. Next slide.

This is just a little bit of the review. Certainly the city now has their own engineer who's reviewing everything. We have Mark and Matt Dallas, local engineers in Daytona working on the master system, English, Timothy Miller out their Orlando office. We've also got Gale Engineering, who's one of the best modelers in Florida in terms of doing the modeling of how this will function over time. Kimberly Horn, also with Swarm Water, the city's got their reviewers.

And then we've recently brought on Wix Consulting, and that's an engineer that I've worked with for decades. Amy was the original design engineer for the Babcock Ranch community over in Southwest Florida. She and I worked together on that project, so we brought in Amy to oversee everything. And at some point, you'll get a chance to meet her. She's actually coming. We're spending two days together next week with the entire team. But she's we're trying to do what they did at Babcock, but maybe a little bit better. Don't tell Sid that. Excellent. This is just a few excerpts.

The city's master stormwater plan was presented in December to the council, and that's at the time when the approvals of the Deering Park Center Platts were approved based upon the presentation that the city's engineers did Jones Edmunds. But now the entire report is available, and it's got a lot of information. The three slides that you show here are three different storm events that they modeled. And what it shows is that the discharge rate coming off the site reconfirms it's lower than it is today. So post development, lower rate.

And then importantly, post development, lower stage. So if pre development, the water is coming off the site at this level. Post development, it's coming down lower, which means less off-site impact. Next slide. These are just a few quotes that I pulled that might be relevant for this conversation is that particularly Florida shores, we all recognize there's some concern and some need for retrofit in Florida shores.

So Jones Edmunds specifically looked at it and included not negatively impacted because those stages are reduced. And then concluding that of little to no impact on the peak stage. It will reduce it a little bit. That means less water when water is trying to come out of water shores. And then these were just some actual modeled data points from that report, which actually show you the percentage reduction off-site after development based upon the way the swing wires have been designed.

And again, so we're actually very happy to see the detailed report, read through everything, and see how they've confirmed independently what our engineers were telling us. So very, very important, I think, to all of us. Next slide. This is back to what we're here for tonight. I thought it would be helpful to kind of show it in context to the whole project. Phase one is this area. It's 118 acres. It does include the central lake system. Those lakes are already there. Ryan, I'm going to need to get you an updated aerial to show everybody.

And then those lakes are connected. What you can't see at this scale is all the lakes have native vegetation. And then there's trails along the lakes, and then we're planting over 1,000 trees, street trees. And then we're also doing native ground cover. So instead of just we're not doing any St. Augustine grass. There's a mixture of bahiagrass, but more importantly, native ground cover. So sunshine mimosa and perennial peanut, which is a Florida native. It's Florida friendly. It's not a native.

And then we're planting cypress, and we're planting ground cover along the lakes. And we've given enough room between the sidewalk and the street for an oak tree to reach full maturity size. So a minimum of 10 feet, some places 10 to 15 feet. Again, you just can't put an oak tree in a narrow space. So that's during phase one.

That's the one my wife and I and my mom were opposite in. She wants to be close to the woods and ride a bike distance to us, but not next door. And then the next one is phase two, which is for folks that want to live next to the conservation area. And there will be a bike trail that connects into the wetland park, but also a trail with some boardwalks going through the conservation area to get to Wetland Park. And I think this next one is the last one.

Just the conclusion is that we meet those requirements of the plat, and we're asking that you all recommend approval. We're excited to move forward with this next plat on the property. Happy answer any questions you all may have.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

So on the storm water well, let me just start. I'm concerned that we come to the reporting and we read and it says, you know, this been approved by this. We meet this. We meet that. I think that we should be giving actual detail that demonstrates we meet the requirements. And what are the requirements? Here's where we're at and we meet these. I don't believe that everything that's within Deering Park should just be assumed by the rest of us that everything's approved. Right? The stormwater master plan on page one sixteen, section five point six point two, list future developments.

And in there, when you get Deering Park, it says full build out model but does not include other future Deering Park phases. So how do we know if we're making decisions on what to do? How do we know? How can we tell whether this is pre stormwater model master plan model? They they built their model based on documentation that was submitted by 10/31/2025.

So was you know, and then I read, well, you know, Derek Park worked with the city and we we increased this and we changed that. So then my question is, was that reengineered? And does that fit into the model? And how does that fit? So my concern is is that not to just be told that it's in Dearing Park and everything's cool.

Right? There's changes. There's always changes. Was the entire Deering Park process a 100% complete and submitted to Jones Edmunds and the powers that be and everybody else that had anything to do with the stormwater master plan? So and if not, at what point and how do we know this section, this phase, this piece that we're talking about tonight or two years from now? How do we know that it's been included? You follow me? And my and my point is just

I'm 100% with you. Ryan, if we could go back to the the the the overall plan. Was done in Enduring Park was the entire project was permitted. And what that means is the entire project, all the impervious, all the pervious. And so we have very strict guidelines within the permit that tell us how much impervious surface can be done in the whole project, and then how much lakes do we have, and the modeling of the entire system.

And then that builds a phase of the system, that phase of the system comes in for engineering review. And engineering review prepares the master permit, which has all of that in it. Are we within that master permit? If we can see anything in that master permit by phase, we have to come back and do it again. So what we've done with our design and with the permitting and with the construction is the phase we're talking about tonight.

If you look at the whole project, it's got pervious, impervious, lake size, runoff. That whole thing, modeled approved, modeled by the district. Now we cannot increase. So for instance, So you see the yellow? It's not an engineer yellow.

That's the piece of this whole system that we're here talking about. That piece has gone through its individual permitting. And the individual permitting is reviewing it against the master. It has to be within the master.

And who does that? Who does that? Who performs that?

Engineer to go back. The contractor has to certify that they built it according to plans. The engineer has to go out and certify they built it according to plans. And the surveyors make sure they put this stuff in the right place and the sensors are at the right size. Kind of a trust but verify.

Right. That explains more. It's just hard to just come in and say, this is done and you It

would be helpful again. Folks, we're going be seeing each other a lot because the way this works is each time we do a plat, we come back. If it would be helpful for us to provide some additional information, we're happy to do that. Believe me, there's more documentation, calculations. Sometimes my eyes glaze over, but we're happy to present as much or as little of that as you guys would like.

Oh, for sure. I sent Ryan a an email asking for some information going forward because it's not just this piece. I had issues with Crestwood and I just I just feel that us as a group needs more information, more detail on on those specifics. You know, the the the stormwater master plan the construction document, I'm sorry. You know, it it states that the water is gonna flow down to Darren Park Center out under the culverts in 95 and out through Little Cow Creek in the Terminal Hammock.

And that's a natural estuary. It's a national natural body. And there's only so much it can hold. Now I understand the entire project's been determined that it's gonna hold, you know, put off 50% less than what it currently what it did before. But, you know, do those folks realize, you know, that that it could turn out to be not the case. Right? Well It could happen. And I just think some accountability going forward and some transparency for those. Like, you state that notice was mailed within 500 feet or 500 feet? How many did you send out?

Goodness. Right. So everybody from Indian River South down, you know, down Cow Creek Road and out all the way down through Volco and all, you know. And I understand too because I did read the the master plan, the stormwater master plan to some degree. You know, there's a ridge along Willow Oak. So if if the worst happen, a lot of that water is not gonna affect anybody East Of Willow. But from Willow West and 90 5 East, there's another there's another bowl and that water is going that way. So this is what fuels my concerns and why I keep pushing for more visibility into

Did my staff not send you

No, sir. I didn't I didn't. But that's fine. I'm not I didn't come to slam anybody. And I don't disprove that any of this any of the analysis was is wrong. I I just feel that it needs to be transparent. It needs to be put out for us if the more we can talk about it and it gives us basis to approve stuff. I don't wanna approve anything. If if I continue to come to these meetings and I don't have anything to to base and and and my words are are the words in the staff report provide a conclusion, but there's no supporting evidence. And I'm just asking for supporting evidence as we go forward.

Because again, I I don't question whether the model's technically competent. It's just that as decision makers, we should have something

But to do mister Fisher, I just want to make a point. I am not a certified engineer.

Well, I understand.

And so as I have AICP, which is American Institute of Certified Planners, which I'm hired to do is enforce the land development code. We have about $1,800,000 escrow right now of developer money to pay third party engineers at the city to review these. And so yeah, when I make that broad accusation statement, yeah, I am taking on what certified licensed engineers, surveyors, traffic engineers all say are saying to me, this is good to go. It is my job to then say, then it is good to go. It is not my job to question the engineers that we are then paying to I don't have the technical expertise to read curve tables.

And that's just far beyond what I was even hired to do.

And I totally understand that. It's just you're our go to guy. And so I don't know who else to send that to. You know? And we're not engineers, and I don't wanna read 600 pages of a engineer study. The stormwater master plan is 1,160 something pages, you know? There's a lot of information in there. Dearing Park comes up 34 times in the search. And there's about 20 pages, all the pictures you've shown and everything else. So I've, you know, I've looked at it. I'm just I'm just wanting I'm just wanting to know that we're given the information and we have the information and that it's being interpreted right. That's all I'm looking for.

Goes through and gives you here's the total, here's how much is the total we're using.

I'll help coordinate it, but

We'll take the lead.

Yeah, Mac Friel, Zepco, and Randy Kudyak, I've said, come in and have them.

And that is one thing that Ryan did mention is that the staff that's been hired for the city would do to find this work that we get those reviews. That way you guys have got kind of a scorecard.

Sure. I

can share that with you later.

Yeah, absolutely. Are you looking for like a detailed summary from our engineer that summarizes everything that they did? Is that something what you're looking for?

I'm not 100% sure what's pertinent because I'm not an engineer anymore than Ryan is.

Well, that's what I'm saying.

But I want to know that if we're if we're we've that we're given some something substantial that says here. Pre development, post development, is it adequate or is it not adequate? Right? And there's and there's about 20 things on here. Is this the right are these the right items? I don't know. Does it can it be tweaked? Can you know what's important.

Yeah.

But at the end of the day, by the time how many acres total?

Well, as we get done in Edgewater, it'll be it'll be 1,800 acres of development and over 4,000 acres of conservation. But I think what I would suggest, again, understanding the concern is not that we would put something together that you guys would use for everybody else, it's understanding the multi phased nature of the art. Something that you have a simple one page if I get it to one page, I'll get it to one page. But one or two pages that simply provides data that supports the conclusion.

And even maybe a running total or a subtotal or some sort of total that says this is the entire project and we're at this phase and this is how much what percentage we're at. Just something that quantifies that, that says, we're making the right decision here, as opposed to just saying, yeah, everybody's checked the boxes. Everything's good. Nothing to see here. Look at the pretty wetland park. You know? Don't look that way.

Don't. No problem. Again.

And may I interject another a follow-up on what Patrick is trying to establish is keep it simple. In layman's terms, what we understand, we're not engineers. We're not, the level that we are at to understand this whole thing.

And that's kind of this is going to come off bad. And I don't mean it to come off the way it is, but I know another way to say it. I mean, really, I think what you're asking you're looking for validation from the engineers that have already done the validation on another engineer who have already done the validation on another engineer. The reality is the worst nightmare is he hands you all the data from this. Because we don't possess the necessary knowledge to do the math on hydrodynamics of pipe size and how much cubic feet of water goes through a pipe and the perk rate of Orsino fine sand versus Yellow Hill sand.

So to some extent, we kind of have to trust that they've already had it looked at. We 've had it looked at twice. Now, one thing I wanted to pick up, and I remember months ago, you had sat here and you made a comment about you wish Jones and Edmunds could have done this, but they only do municipality work, correct? So was I did I hear correctly they've analyzed, they've taken this and then plugged it into what their determinations were?

To have hearing parts with you. The

It's modeled. It's built into the model.

So the reason I'm bringing it up, though, is you had about four people here that night basically say they're the best in the country. And unfortunately, they don't do private work. We just got them to do private work.

On behalf of the city, Jones Edmunds because of the I mean, guys, we're a big project. We know that. And the city asked Jones Edmunds to specifically look at our stormwater design system as part of the report they did for you. And that's what they did. And so the few excerpts I pointed out tonight, I didn't go through all of it, but the 20 pages where they did their own independent analysis of our system to essentially check our work and see if we're telling them what was right.

And they did. So again, I have a great deal of respect for them. They only do government work. But the fact that the government that they're very good, the fact that they then did their own independent analysis and reached similar conclusions to our folks made me feel good. Because the first thing I mean, understand I'm working with the landowner. And the landowner wants to make sure that the promises that Gwen and I and others are making are being backed up. Not just in an approval or in an engineering plan, but in actual reality when we build this thing and people live here.

The only other question I had, and this was more of a, without going through the entire master POD again or having copilot do it for me, say three years from now we go to one hundred and fifty year storm flood. Does this have to get redesigned now to 150? Because I mean we're not going have this whole thing done in two years. Right. Okay.

I just wasn't sure if that I mean, with the PUD as it's written now, are we kind of handcuffed, you know, in five years down the road, way worse than we ever thought, you know? It's not a one hundred year flood, it's a two hundred year flood all of a sudden. Now we're getting 30 inches of rain in two hours. We do our

very best, because we get get six feet of rain in eight hours. Not

to say that we wouldn't increase it, but the stormwater master plan has been it was designed for our regulations, which is the one hundred year. So the only caveat to increasing storm water more is we need to do an amendment to because we have to that's part of the thing, right? So whatever we require the developers, we, the city, have to provide that level of protection for the public. And so we'd have to reengineer some things in the master plan.

We just

got it back after a year and a half.

I don't believe and this is in part based on what I know we've done, the design and construction. And it's based in part upon what I know that we did at Babcock, and one of the reasons we brought in Amy, is they had a hurricane two hurricanes sit over them all day. And they had absolutely no flooding on-site, and they had no additional off-site discharge. So I look at big rain events. There's two things I'm trying to make sure.

One is that I'm not sending any more water off-site than I'm allowed to. I'm holding that water back. Second, I'm not flooding myself. And so we do have an advantage in that I-ninety 5 is between us and everybody else. The thing we've been very focused on is what's coming under I-ninety 5 and going east. And that's got to be reduced, which we've done. Now, if there's more water, that's still going to be reduced. The overflow in that giant event, not every day, in that giant event, it's going to the swamp.

So another question, I'm almost positive. So the storm water system has to be built prior to construction, correct? Per phase or for the whole project?

No. I mean, they're I I know they're

a long way away already.

It's per phase. We've got to stay ahead of ourselves, but we're actually lakes, most of them are already in place. Some of them are still being done, like in the far north end of the property. That area is going to be in pasture probably for the next eight years. Right. But it's already the system's already been set up.

Where I was going with this is, are there monitoring stations? So you're going to know as soon as you complete the system whether or not you're hitting your numbers or not anyway. Because every time we get a storm event, they're going to get data right away that tells them, okay, yeah, we're good.

Yeah, just so you know, again, not related to this flat. We've monitoring stations all around the property we're gathering data today. We're just going to gather the data on a regular basis.

Yeah. I said it a few months ago. I've been on this board, I think, about ten years now ish. And this is by far the most detailed storm water system I think I've ever seen here. It's pretty impasse pretty impressive.

There were a couple of things in the storm water report too that caught my attention too was Jones Edmond's words appears to reduce. Doesn't say it does reduce. It says appears to reduce. That leaves a lot of speculation. The other thing is these findings may change if the proposed during park storm water system differs significantly from the system represented in the city's model. So there's a lot of compliance and there's a lot of, like you said, you know, without enforcement, it doesn't mean it won't mean anything. Nobody's looking to see.

Agreed.

Anything else?

No. Thank you for the explanations, though. I appreciate that. And Ryan, I apologize if you felt threatened. I don't know who else to talk to or to send the questions to. And I'm not expecting you to know any of that any more than the rest of us are.

Yeah. Yeah, I just I have no idea about curved tables or anything like that. So I have to unfortunately, yeah. I mean, have to put my name behind what everyone tells me. And that's just part of the job of being the director of development services. You have to take that load and support it when the other staff members are saying it's correct. It is like I wouldn't question the fire chief on the fire code. It's just outside of my expertise. But is back

DELL: But we're being asked to make a decision and to make a recommendation. And I just feel it's something that's totally missing and lacking in this process.

So one of the things Zev Cohen didn't have enough time. I know the answers were short to your email. I am going to have them follow-up with a full kind of summary for you. I know that doesn't help because it

It'll be after the fact, but that's fine.

But that is something that I will make an effort effort to do for the future, to make sure that you have that information and feel comfortable.

I appreciate it.

I had no problem throwing it up. It's just the last time I threw up the 600 page TIA, I got like so I was like, oh, do I throw it up now?

But those TIAs even have a couple of pages summarizing the information. And that's all anybody's going to go to is those last couple of pages, the summary.

Thank god this isn't a Leeds project.

Just one, thank you for your your time. And again, if you all ever have any questions in a public hearing, meeting, whatever, feel free to let us know. If you have something, want to send me an email. I'm happy to do that. If want to go out and look at the site, it's going to be one on one. But happy to do tours and show you what we're doing and Put your boots on and come right around. But kind of back to where we are tonight is this we're requesting a recommendation to the city council of recommendation of approval for each of these five states upon the three criteria that they code. Thank you again.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

And if you want, you can make a condition that get that to counsel before the meeting.

Okay. Anything else? All right. I'm going close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

I make a motion to send a favorable recommendation to city council for SD2408. Do we need any other specifics after that?

I mean, you're able to get that data to counsel.

Yeah. Mark and Randy just needed more time. It came in, I got it out that afternoon. I didn't get it out in the morning.

You want

me to put that in the motion? Yeah. That's What am I saying here?

You're adding the condition that Ryan gets the

Third party engineers to provide the Third party engineer. Yeah.

Against the Senate Stormwater summary.

The city council on ST 20 Four-eight with the stipulation that council receives Stormwater

analysis.

The water analysis before the hearing. Second.

Does that work, Eric? You weren't even paying attention.

Mr. Duane? Yes. Mr. Fisher? Yes. Mr. McGinnis?

Yes.

Mister Kennedy? Yes. Mister Jacoby?

Yes. Mister Hatter? Yep.

Mister Cunningham? Yes.

Okay. Next item on the agenda is related to the last, SD 2,409, request for preliminary plat and construction plan approval for Deering Park North Phase 2 for 169 residential units located West Of Interstate I-ninety 5 and North Of Indian River Boulevard within Deering Park North. Staff report, please.

Thank you, chairman. Sorry. Bear with me one moment.

There's a lot of things off.

The request before you tonight is for SD twenty four zero nine, which is a request for preliminary plat and construction plan approval for Deering Park North phase two for 169 residential units located West Of I-ninety 5, North Of Indian River Boulevard within Deering Park North. I kind of went over this, but this is this segment. This was reviewed against the neighborhood general design standards or lot typology, neighborhood districts, as outlined in that section C or exhibit C, should say, city staff did find that the applicant met all the criteria. As noted above, for this entire area, this applicant is planting eleven sixteen trees or 28 trees, sorry of which they were only required to plant eight forty four. They have met the school concurrencies, and staff are recommending approval.

This one was much simpler because it was only one neighborhood district.

Okay. I will open the public hearing. Questions, comments, concerns?

So you combined the trees and the school and the traffic for both, right? The information, the numbers are the same

Yes.

Yeah. So in both reports.

That the landscaping as a whole, and then each plan set had the individual plans. But the tabulation that I had them tabulate for me was for the whole thing. The TIA, that's actually what held up this process the longest. We finally went through the TIA, and it had all those improvements that they were going to do. It doesn't have a prop share because the impact fees that they're paying are greater than the prop share.

Yeah, that TIA was reviewed about nine times between our third party traffic consultants, Stanley consultants, FDOT, Volusia County. I'll be happy to know, Mr. Fisher, we were the last ones to approve it.

Any other questions? I'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve SD 2,408 as written.

Second.

O-nine. O-twenty nine. Sorry.

Still have

my Yes. Weight sitting

Mr. Fisher? Yes. Mr. McGinnis? Yes. Mr. Kennedy?

Yes.

Jacobix?

Yes. Patrick? Yep.

Mister Cunningham?

Yes. Okay.

Next item on the agenda is ordinance twenty twenty six dash o dash zero six, request to amend article two, article six, and article 18. It's been a while. And article 20 of the the city of Edgewater's land development code to create a new sign code? Staff report, Just

think about it like Super Bowls.

So this was an interesting task. So the city of Edgewater had received a challenge on the constitutionality, the existing sign code. After reviewing it with Sabatini law firm, we determined that it did have content within the sign code that needed to be stripped out. City staff utilized the city of Port Orange, which had undergone a similar constitutionality test on their sign code in light of the Reed versus the Town of Gilbert decision. It's kind of an old Supreme Court decision, 2017, but it had a big effect on the First Amendment and really sign codes for cities municipalities and counties.

The ruling held that content based restrictions under the First Amendment are viewed through strict scrutiny, which is a legal framework. In order for the government to pass something, they have to tailor the ordinance to come accomplish a compelling government interest. The crux of decision is that a municipal government may not restrict expression such as through sign regulations if it's based on its message, idea, or subject matter. So in this case, the city could not regulate real estate signs, political signs, because that is specifically calling the sign by its content and not by its sign typology, the location, the zoning district, and a time place manner manner restrictions on the sign. The sign code does match the existing sign code.

So there is no you're not going to walk out and be like, oh, I'm going to go get a new wall sign tomorrow. And it's going to be completely different than what it was. City staff took the very painful process of matching the code to the existing code, but matching it to how we're regulating signs now. So all the signs in the sign code, for example, monument signs or ground signs. So in this case, this is from article six.

You can see ground signs are limited to square feet, should not exceed 60 square feet, 10 feet tall. And then below this section here, I have article 20 snippet. And you can see 48 square feet, eight foot tall. We've kind of simplified it, which Port Orange had done, which is very helpful. So we have residential, multifamily, commercial, industrial, mixed use.

And we still maintain the Ridgewood Corridor overlay and the 442 overlay in those specific criteria. The sign code too, one of the things that I took advantage of through this opportunity was to get all of the sign code in one chapter instead of having to go to four different chapters in the sign code to figure out what regulations apply to you. City staff felt that wasn't in the best interest of the public. Certainly wasn't terribly transparent if you have to go reference four different chapters to figure out if you can put up a wall sign. So we feel like this is both content neutral.

It still has the same regulations, but it's just in a different format to get that constitutional issue off the plate. I'll be happy I could go through more examples, but that's really kind of the crux of it is that we now regulate signs based on the size, the material, the typology, which we did already. But a lot of our signs were often content based. And so this gets rid of that.

Okay. Thank you. I'll open the public hearing. Board, comments, questions?

I have a few, because honestly, this Supreme Court kind of irritates me. I know it's an old. It was 2015, but still. So something important to point out here. And I don't know if there's a way we

can do anything about

it or not. So they reference another case from 1973, Miller versus the State of California on the subject of obscenity. So there's a few things, and they've got them in here, about what cannot be on the side. But it doesn't say anything about cuss words, nudity, anything like that. You can put all that on the sign you want. And there's nothing the city can do to stop it.

Yeah, we're not allowed to regulate content.

Because somehow that's Okay. We can't have a book in school that mentions the word slavery, but we can put a nude person on a sign

in the middle of the

road for my 15 year old to see.

I'm going to do that.

So I mean, that's the only question I had was is there anything we can do

to If it is distracting, a compelling government interest, like if people not to be crude or anything, if there's a big busty woman up on a billboard or something and people start crashing their car, we could enforce that out of public safety because there is a compelling government interest. Hey, your nudie photos are causing car crashes and hurting people. So there is a little bit, but unfortunately it would be rather retroactive in the enforcement of it because we'd have to demonstrate in order to meet strict scrutiny, we'd have to have that compelling government interest. And in order to have it, we'd have to have some sort of public safety issue.

How does that not like, what about public decency laws? Do those supersede the signed law? Or how does that like, I'm just confused by that.

Yeah. Mean, yes, two totally separate areas. But yes, absolutely. And so that area of law would still apply. So this is just strictly with the sign code.

I mean, I don't think that and correct me if I'm wrong, there was anything in there about obscene signs or anything like that. So it's more so about removing the content based restrictions such as real estate signs or you can only have a real estate sign in this area or that area. It's just removing that aspect of it and making it more so, Okay, you can have signs that are this size or that size, or you can have a sign that if you have lights on your sign, it can only be in this area. So that kind of thing. But absolutely, public decency and criminal laws and things of that nature would still apply aside from sign code.

Well, that's kind of where I mean, perfect example where my sister lives in Florida shores, there's a person with a flag catty cornered from her house that has not nice language on it proudly put up there. And it's like, Okay, so I'm sure the woman next door

to her with the eight

year old learning how to read really wants to see that flag. And I don't know, it just irritates me that there are certain things that the Supreme Court says you can't do that. But we're fine with that.

Well, know, First Amendment's a funny one. In college, I took a lot of constitutional law classes and a lot of philosophy classes. I think it was Locke. He said, it's best to have a lot of opinions and allow those opinions to drown out the ones that are either crude or that let society decide the messages and let them to decide through whatever it is, societal pressure or whatever it may be, he thought having more of it was good. And I think there is a point. I think if you get people obviously, you're an upset neighbor. That's not very neighbor. I'm not. You can't even see my house. Sure.

But other people around there

are upset.

I'm sure the relationship around that person and they may not care. But regardless, there is probably a connotation about that person, which probably makes it more difficult in their life to interact with people in the city. I mean, are externalities that will feed in for people that do just kind of very outlandish things. Typically there's a swing back to some sort of paradigm.

I keep waiting on it. I mean, right now, our current I mean, the country is so divided. Mean, one person hell, even families can't even talk to each other half the time. And when I read this, I'm like, great. Now it's going to be Okay for them to do it. And again, I was thinking about it more from the mindset of a kid.

Come to planning and zoning and get a side of philosophy

discussion. Exactly.

We do have a motion still open. Just

Oh, sorry. Yeah.

I think, Mr. Fisher.

I had a statement. I didn't see anything on string light, like LED curtains. I didn't see anything in there about LED curtains. I don't know if that would fall under

On the

window. The window. Yeah. You know what an LED curtain is, right? It's just I

did allow lighting. There is lighting allowed in window signs, so that would fall under

Is that where that goes? Yeah. That's all limits, percent on percentage on window coverage, and there's there's brightness, flashing lights, transitions mentioned elsewhere. But I didn't see anything on a digital, like an LED curtain or anything like that. I learned some new words, rectilinear and exposed raceways. They're not in the glossary. So I had to Google those.

Was it not in the definition?

I didn't see it. I didn't find it. Rectilinear and exposed raceway.

Oh, we can't vote on it now.

Rectilinear and exposed raceway.

So I know what exposed raceway is. And I'm kind of afraid to ask what the other one is.

It's what you think. It's a square box. It's a straight line, a straight line, a straight line.

It's the way of how Fort Orange and I think it's a great way of how they do it is that you have to box in your sign to give it so that staff can easily you can't have this weird and then staff are trying to do geometry and trigonometry in the office to figure out if your sign's compliant.

And

then The one thing that there's another thing that still sticks with us with me is is, like, we we had the we had the, I forget what it was, but the signs at Winn Dixie.

Mhmm.

In the Winn Dixie Plaza. Anywhere Plaza. Yeah. This says maintenance. It's page forty seven twenty one dash 60 dash one thirteen. Signs without panels removed within thirty days. Like, we made the exception to not make them go to monument signs, but there's still panels up there that are empty.

Yeah. And that that bothered me because we we we gave a a lot of that.

Yeah, and they never did anything. Well,

they did do something. They did some work on the one on The US one side, Ridgewood side. Right.

I mean, oneness is on them to get it done. Maybe this puts a

Well, I think that in the future, if we do that, we should refer to the sign and put that in.

Yeah, because we didn't change it. Because it's still the intent of the corridor is to get away from the poles and get towards monument sites for everyone. That's the design feature that was I don't know how long ago that was passed, but that's the design feature that the city wanted. And that's what we've been moving towards for the last, I don't know, ten, twelve years.

Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

Motion to send a favorable recommendation for ordinance 2,026 dash zero dash zero six.

O. Second. Patrick.

Mr. Duane? Yes. Mr. Fisher?

Yes.

Mr. McGinnis?

Yes.

Mr. Kennedy?

Yes. Mr.

Andrew Kovic? Yes. Mr. Hatcher?

Yeah.

Mr. Flanagan? Yes.

Okay, next item on the agenda is the Development Services Director's Report.

Thank you. I don't have a lot tonight. Kind of some exciting things, so just to talk about some of the projects. If you didn't see the city's boat ramp survey for down on Boston Whaler is available online. Please fill it out. It's really important that city staff get a good idea of the dynamics of the park that you want to experience and how you want to interact at the park. Planning, staff's going to take that recommendation. We're kind of towards the end of nailing down basic parameters of the boat ramp and all that and all that engineering. The next part here is kind of deciding what amenities we add to the park. And that's really what we're trying to get at from the survey.

So please participate. It's really important. Please not spend a lot of time on that boat ramp. Silver Palm, that will be coming before council for engineering approval for the five foot and eight foot sidewalk that will run from four forty two. It'll make the connection at the water retention pond just across the street from you, Mr.

Fisher. And then it'll extend on twenty second around that bend and down Silver Palm, a five foot sidewalk to thirtieth, providing that connectivity. If you recall at the last council meeting I believe it was last council they approved these We get north face of the sunfront from 442 on Juniper up Mango to Dale. And so that's very exciting. If you haven't seen it, the first building at the industrial park is up, 115,000 square feet.

So that's very exciting. And city staff have a lot of projects right now, very heavy, very low on residential coming in. I think I only have two entitlements currently. We have about 16 site plans in the hopper right now for industrial and commercial on US1. And all of Parktown is going to get built out here probably within the next year or so.

George, check your emails. Yeah, I got all that spare time. What else is going on? Oh, we hired a deputy director from my department to kind of help me out. So I have transitioned away from economic development. And I'm now over code enforcement at the city. So I have planning, building, and code enforcement. I do have a deputy director now. We stole Greg Larracy, who is the code enforcement manager up at Port Orange. So we're really happy to help have him and have his help.

He just started on Monday. So come on down, stop by, and meet him. They're identical twins to Jeff Larracy. So it's required that he has to have his goatee at all times.

Those two are scary. See them.

They have pretty similar voices, And as you know, they like to have fun, so I'm sure there'll be shenanigans. And if you know a planner, I'll be looking for a planner. Unfortunately, my junior planner left my department. And so I'm going out for another planner again. So do you know anyone who's looking for an opportunity?

What kind of certification? Do you have that?

Well, I'm looking for a senior planner this time because I really need help. And I really don't have the time to train extensively. But beyond that, everything else is going really well. Working through trying to figure out stormwater master plan and a bunch of other different projects around the city. And excited that with the build out of Parktown with these remaining phases, with the historic tree that was approved for removal with the fee, I anticipate we're probably going to be getting around 400 to $500,000 for the landscaping tree fund.

So I'm hoping that we can use that to offset some of our projects at the city. And that's directly developers paying the city and that money going back into projects so that there's less money coming out of the taxpayer. So you'll see some new ones we're probably going to be doing at Menard May, some landscaping there in addition to some fewer other areas one: around the city here and there. To kind of

Nice. And

the board has any questions? And I will make sure that I'll state a name on the Markarette tonight, make sure that Randy and him are on it. I'll make sure that the board is also included on that

as well.

The board is still wrong The pool serving on the PNC.

Yeah, I don't know if you noticed, but the new website is It's changed. It's a little Yes. Altered right We are working through trying to troubleshoot why it looks that way. And once that is troubleshooted, I will then be able to get in there.

That wasn't intentional.

It not intentional. It does fix itself if you hover over the top menu, then it goes back to like it's supposed to. It's not all overlaid over the top of each other.

Yeah, went in there to pay the water bill, I was like, wow.

Okay. Meeting in