Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing And Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies appeal for Howland Station multifamily site plan; staff had ruled application incomplete
Summary
The commission denied an appeal by the applicant for the Howland Station/Holland Station multifamily project, upholding staff’s finding that the application was incomplete under recently updated local rules implementing the Live Local Act.
The Deltona City Commission voted unanimously 7–0 to deny an appeal from the developer of a proposed multifamily project known in the record as Howland Station (also referenced as Holland Station). The vote sustained the planning director’s determination that the application was incomplete and therefore subject to updated local requirements.
Outside counsel for the applicant told the commission the project was pursued under Deltona’s earlier implementation of the Live Local Act and that the developer had spent millions on construction documents and closed on private-activity bond financing. Counsel argued the application was filed in August 2024 and that staff had issued a sufficiency letter, creating a pending application that should not have been subject to a zoning-in-progress later adopted by the city.
City staff and outside counsel for the city countered that vital items were missing from the submittal, including a traffic study and formal commission approval for inclusion of a church parcel in the lot configuration; staff said the church parcel’s deed restrictions required the city’s commission to act before title could be unified. The planning director’s decision required an updated submittal under the amended local ordinance (chapter 76) adopted December 2024.
Attorney Anthony Sabatini, representing Mayor Avila at a different agenda item earlier in the meeting, did not represent the applicant in this matter. The applicant’s attorney, Rebecca Wilson, told the commission the developer had met with staff across several months and asserted that the plat procedure was the mechanism staff had advised to resolve title and lot-configuration issues. City counsel disagreed and maintained the application was incomplete under current code.
Commissioner Lully moved to deny the appeal; the motion was seconded and carried 7–0. The denial sustains the staff determination that the final site-plan application did not meet the requirements in effect at the time staff processed the filing and that the applicant must resubmit following the directions in the staff letter and the amended chapter 76 implementation rules.
