Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Deltona Village Bpud Amendment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning board backs major amendment to Deltona Village BPUD after discussion over vacated plats, right‑of‑way

5512684 · July 31, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Planning and Zoning Board voted Oct. 20 to recommend City Commission approval of a major amendment to the Deltona Village Business Planned Unit Development to add eight inhold parcels totaling about 10.3 acres and vacate antiquated Davis Park plats and paper rights‑of‑way.

The City of Deltona Planning and Zoning Board on Oct. 20 voted to recommend City Commission approval of a major amendment to the Deltona Village Business Planned Unit Development (BPUD) that adds roughly 10.3 acres made up of eight previously separate parcels. Planning staff described the amendment as an effort to consolidate small, antiquated plat lots and paper rights‑of‑way into the larger BPUD boundary for a roughly 130‑acre project south of Howland and Graves corridors, west of Deltona High School.

Planner Ron Paradise said the BPUD, originally approved in 2010 and amended in 2018, permits a mix of commercial, office, service and multifamily uses; the pending amendment would not change permitted uses or dimensional standards, only the BPUD boundary. As part of the application, the city staff recommended vacating Davis Park plat lots and associated paper rights‑of‑way and noted the applicant has acquired many of those inholdings over time.

During the board’s discussion members raised several concerns. Board members questioned a proposed exchange mentioned at the meeting—city staff said that after the staff report was published the city and applicant discussed granting roughly 1.03 acres of right‑of‑way to the applicant in exchange for the applicant granting about 1.03 acres back to the city to accommodate a future Rhode Island Road extension. Paradise and staff clarified that this quid pro quo was not part of the published staff report and that some applicant representatives said they had not been told about the proposed ROW transfer prior to the hearing. That lack of prior notice prompted discussion of whether to defer the item; staff and the board decided to proceed on the basis of the published staff report and to address access/right‑of‑way issues in follow‑up conversations.

Board members also asked about buffers and environmental protections along the south side of the property adjacent to a parcel identified as belonging to the Board of Education. Paradise confirmed existing BPUD buffer requirements would remain in effect (the staff packet noted a 10‑foot buffer along North Normandy Boulevard among other requirements), and said all site‑specific conservation or protected species requirements would be addressed at site plan review. One member raised potential concerns about gopher tortoise habitat and requested attention to reforestation or equivalent tree preservation along the outer edges of the BPUD as development proceeds.

The applicant’s counsel, attorney Kim Booker, said the request is primarily a “clean up” to incorporate small, antiquated platted lots and paper streets into the BPUD so they can be developed consistently under the BPUD standards; she said the parcels represent a small fraction of the overall project (about 8 parcels totaling ~10.3 acres of the approximately 130‑acre site). Booker said additional site development and site‑plan applications would follow and be subject to the BPUD requirements.

The board’s motion to recommend approval included a condition that the applicant submit an accurate, up‑to‑date development agreement and master development plan prior to final ordinance adoption. The motion was made, seconded and approved on roll call; the clerk recorded the vote as 6‑0 in favor. Board members and staff agreed that changes could still occur between the board’s recommendation and the City Commission hearing and that the commission’s final ordinance could differ from the board’s recommendation.

Members requested staff provide a future informational presentation on Deltona Village — past, present and future — to help board members understand existing commitments and requirements already recorded for the BPUD.

The board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Commission. The amendment will require an ordinance (listed in the staff discussion as Ordinance No. O‑6‑2021) and subsequent site‑plan and development‑agreement steps for specific parcels as they are proposed for construction.