Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Land Use Osteen topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council tables Osteen rezoning and plans workshop after residents raise JPA, wetlands and traffic concerns

2511823 · March 4, 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 Volusia County Council on March 4 tabled a proposed small‑scale comp plan amendment and rezoning in Osteen after residents raised concerns about wetlands, the Osteen joint planning agreement’s 70/30 mixed‑use interpretation, traffic and flooding.

The Volusia County Council voted March 4 to table a proposed small‑scale comprehensive plan amendment and an accompanying rezoning application in the Osteen joint planning area after extensive public comment and requests for more outreach.

Planning Director Carol McFarland described the applicants’ request: change roughly 6 acres from Osteen transitional residential to Osteen mixed‑use village and rezone the property to the mixed‑use zoning that corresponds to that future land use classification. Mark Watts, representing the applicant, said a straight rezoning was requested (no binding site plan) and that an eventual developer may seek a mix of uses consistent with the mixed‑use village designation.

Many residents and community groups opposed the change or asked for fuller review. Tina Swift of the Osteen Preservation and Planning Society urged denial, saying county staff’s interpretation of a 70/30 residential‑to‑nonresidential allocation within the JPA was inconsistent with the JPA language and precedent. “County staff's interpretation of the seventythirty split is not in alignment with the JPA,” Swift said during public participation.

Other speakers, including Amanda Carl, Rosemary Warner, Emily Bush (a planner), Louise Hamm and several Osteen residents, raised concerns about traffic on State Road 415, increased runoff and flooding, mapping of natural‑resource areas (NARMA) and school capacity. Environmental staff had recommended moving an existing mapped NARMA boundary to match on‑site, field‑verified wetland and buffer lines; some residents queried whether staff had sufficiently documented that adjustment.

Deltona staff provided a letter of no objection after meeting with county staff; the City of Deltona and the applicant have discussed annexation and utility agreements if the project proceeds. Council members pressed for better joint interpretation with Deltona about what the 70/30 allocation means — whether it is parcel‑by‑parcel or computed over the entire mixed‑use area — and for public outreach with Deltona and community groups.

Councilman Danny Robbins moved to continue the items to a date certain and to host a community workshop in Osteen. The council agreed to hold a workshop in April (staff noted two possible dates, April 2 and April 9) to brief the community and coordinate with Deltona; staff and the applicant agreed to participate. The council then tabled the items to the May 20 council meeting to allow time for the workshop and follow‑up. The motion passed 7–0.

Ending: Council delayed action to give staff time to conduct coordinated outreach with Deltona and Osteen community groups, and to return the items after the April workshop for council consideration at the May 20 meeting.