Council continues annexation hearing for former Big Lots plaza amid stormwater and litigation concerns

The City of Orange City held a first reading on Ordinance No. 688, a proposal to annex roughly 18.9 acres at 2412 South Volusia Avenue (the former Four Towns/Big Lots shopping center). Development Services Director Joe Ruiz told the council staff had evaluated the request under Florida Statutes section 171.044 and found the parcel eligible for voluntary annexation but flagged multiple nonconformities and pending issues that require resolution before adoption.

Why it matters: Annexation would bring the parcel into city land-development regulation, produce modest property-tax revenue for the city and allow the city to apply its design and signage standards. But council members said uncertainty about a pending stormwater-basin study, ongoing private litigation involving adjacent landowners, and on-site nonconforming conditions (storage containers, signage and prior fireworks sales) made it premature to finalize the annexation.

What staff and the applicant said: Joe Ruiz said annexation could yield approximately $50,000 annually in city tax revenue and allow future redevelopment under Orange City code, but noted the site was built in the 1970s and predates modern stormwater standards. "Staff has found the property eligible for annexation under Florida Statutes 171.044," Ruiz told the council and described recommended conditions for eventual approval.

Jeremy Anderson, representing the owner Millstone Commercial LLC, presented a conceptual plan for outparcels, driveway improvements and site enhancements. Anderson said redevelopment would include on-site stormwater management for new parcels and estimated a combined potential tax benefit if redevelopment occurs. He acknowledged that some litigation against property owners has been refiled after a motion to dismiss; he said the owners are seeking dismissal.

Council concerns and action: Several council members asked whether annexation could expose the city to liability if litigation proceeds and whether the county basin study would alter the project's viability. The city attorney and staff explained that the city's sovereign immunity provides protection against some claims but that real-property disputes could still implicate the city depending on facts. Given the uncertainties, a motion to continue the ordinance without a date certain passed. The council recorded that the ordinance is continued to no date certain so staff and the applicant can address nonconformities and pending litigation.

Next steps: The item will return to the council only after the applicant works with staff on code compliance items and after clarification about the status of the litigation and county stormwater basin findings. The decision to continue preserves the applicant's existing submittal while deferring adoption until the open technical and legal issues are resolved.