City of DeBary staff presented the data-and-analysis portion of the city’s draft 2045 comprehensive plan at a June 18 council workshop and showed a development-suitability map that council members said needs closer review because several parcels marked as developable appear to be conservation land or wetland.

Stephen Bap, growth management director, told the City Council that “Tonight is our fourth workshop in a series of workshop with the end goal of having a new and refreshed comprehensive plan, which is a requirement to refresh by, Florida statute.” He said the presentation finished Volume 1 (data and analysis) and began Volume 2 (general provisions, vision and the property-rights element).

The draft map uses green to indicate parcels judged suitable for development, yellow for potentially suitable but with issues to resolve, and red for unsuitable parcels. Bap said the suitability analysis considered soil hydraulic ratings, floodplains, wetlands, presence of threatened or endangered species, nonconforming lots, easements such as power transmission corridors, and access to existing infrastructure.

Bap presented the plan’s demographic and land-use projections, saying the city is projected to have just over 33,000 residents by 2045 and that the analysis estimates roughly 2,831 new housing units over the planning period. He also told the council the plan projects a need for about 283,000 square feet of new nonresidential space and that staff used household-size and parking assumptions to estimate nonresidential demand: “it does boil down to about a 100 square feet of, nonresidential space per person per household unit.”

Council members asked detailed questions about the map during the workshop. Council member Stevenson asked the presentation team to “go back to the ... development suitability map” and noted areas she recognized “possibly as parks and conservation” that were not marked as such. Vice Mayor Butland asked whether a small yellow parcel on Fort Florida was city-owned; the council confirmed it is privately owned and that it contains wetlands and a roughly 5-acre area that could affect development feasibility.

Council members pointed to specific areas they asked staff to re-evaluate: parcels near Riviera Bella that include a conservation strip and an identified Indian midden; several St. John’s Woods parcels along wetlands that council members said are very wet and lack built roads; and portions of the Highbanks area that already have pre-plat submittals in process (Highbanks Town Homes). Bap acknowledged those concerns and said staff and another identified staff member would re-review the map coloring and parcel status. He also said some parcels currently marked as potentially suitable reflect 2024 property-tax-roll data and development orders that may be removed from the suitability map at adoption.

On statutory requirements, Bap said the plan will include the property-rights element required by state law and a lengthy “effects of the element” paragraph consistent with the legislative requirement, state constitutional language and applicable U.S. Supreme Court precedents. He outlined the anticipated schedule: staff will complete goals, objectives and policies for the plan’s Volume 2 (including the future land-use and housing elements), aim for a first reading/transmittal hearing in early September, send the plan to the state for the statutory review period (about 30 days), and target a second reading for adoption in October or the first meeting in November.

No formal motions or votes were taken at the workshop; the session was a staff presentation followed by council questions. Bap and council members directed staff to re-evaluate the development-suitability map—specifically the Riviera Bella parcel near the river, several St. John’s Woods parcels, and some Highbanks-area entries—and to adjust map colors or parcel notes before formal transmittal. The council did not adopt policies or take regulatory action at the workshop.

Next steps for the council are the completion of Volume 2 goals, objectives and policies (including the future land-use and housing elements), re-checking parcel suitability where council members raised concerns, and the scheduled transmittal hearing and state review period before a final adoption vote.