The Port Orange City Commission failed to pass a first-reading comprehensive-plan amendment on a proposed 56.5-acre subdivision known as Vintage Acres after a 2-2 tie during Tuesday’s meeting, halting a companion rezoning to a planned unit development (PUD).

The measures would have assigned a City of Port Orange future-land-use designation and rezoned property annexed into Port Orange in June. The applicant sought up to 2 units per acre, with a conceptual cap of 113 single-family homes and about 65% open space in the PUD.

City planner Penelope Cruz, who introduced the items, said the property is “primarily cleared, vacant pasture land” and that the requested rural-transition future land use is intended for land between agricultural uses and established neighborhoods. Cruz told the commission that the project’s infrastructure-impact analysis showed sufficient capacity for sewer, potable water, solid waste, recreation and schools at the plan-amendment stage, and that only one roadway segment — Pioneer Trail from Airport Road to Turnbull Bay Road — might exceed adopted level-of-service standards and would be rechecked during subdivision review.

The applicant’s attorney, Joey Posey, said the proposal had been repeatedly redesigned in response to staff feedback and neighborhood concerns and described the site as “an old farm.” Posey said the PUD would preserve specimen trees, provide sidewalks on both sides of internal streets and build turn lanes on Airport Road. He said the PUD’s master development agreement requires stormwater treatment and retention that exceed the city code, and that the applicant had offered a maintenance bond provision to ensure ongoing upkeep of stormwater facilities.

Several residents and community speakers urged the commission to deny the items. Catherine Pantene of Slow Growth Volusia said the annexation “effectively bypass[ed] the Samsula local plan,” calling that plan a tool to preserve a low-density, rural character. Multiple Spruce Creek Fly-In residents and others described longstanding ponding and high-water conditions on the pasture; several said the land acts as a large flood sponge and warned new development would raise flooding risk for adjacent neighborhoods. Resident David Gall cited local stormwater figures and asked whether a flood bond that he said had been promised during prior approvals had been posted; the applicant clarified the bond in the PUD covers maintenance of on-site stormwater facilities for a multi-decade period if the HOA fails to maintain them.

Engineer Harry Newkirk said the project would be designed under updated state and district stormwater requirements that include best-management practices beyond a simple wet detention pond, and that the PUD’s dry- and wet-retention ponds will be sized to reduce off-site peak flow and volume. The engineer said the project’s ponds and treatment were being designed to cut peak flow and volume by an additional 25 percent beyond the city’s current requirements and that required state and district permits would follow during detailed plan review.

Planning staff said the Planning Commission recommended approval and that staff recommended approval, but residents pressed the City Commission to wait for a broader Spruce Creek basin study and to answer questions about cumulative watershed impacts before approving new density. Several commissioners said they wanted more basin-level analysis; a member of staff said the Spruce Creek basin study was expected to begin in 2026 and could take roughly a year to complete.

The tie vote on the first-reading future-land-use amendment left the companion rezoning motion without an operative underlying land-use change; the motion on the PUD was later rescinded by the maker and second after the City Commission’s action on the FLU item.

Because the first-reading amendment failed, the applicant may revise and return at a later meeting for further consideration. Planning staff and the applicant noted that detailed subdivision plans, traffic concurrency analysis, stormwater engineering and required state/regional permits would be reviewed only if the commission later approves the land-use and zoning changes.

Votes and formal actions at the meeting concerning these items were recorded as follows: a motion and second were made to transmit Ordinance No. 2025-26 (future-land-use map amendment) and Ordinance No. 2025-27 (rezoning to PUD and master-development agreement). The first-reading motion on Ordinance 2025-26 resulted in a 2-2 vote (no majority) and did not pass; the companion rezoning motion was rescinded after that result.

The debate drew more than a dozen speakers during public comment; concerns repeatedly raised included drainage, school capacity, pedestrian safety, and whether the voluntary annexation had removed the site from an existing Samsula-area local-plan restriction.

The commission made no final determination on a subsequent request to table the items for further review at this meeting. The record shows the Planning Commission and staff had recommended approval before this public hearing and first-reading vote.