Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Planning board moves major Avalon Park proposals to City Commission despite resident concerns over traffic, flooding and waivers
Loading...
Summary
The planning board voted 6–1 to recommend rezoning roughly 2,760 acres for the Avalon Park Daytona plan development, after also supporting a related small‑scale comp plan amendment; residents raised persistent concerns about traffic, stormwater, construction haul routes, cemetery sites and the number of code waivers sought.
The Daytona Beach Planning Board voted to recommend the City Commission consider a large Avalon Park rezoning and a related small‑scale comprehensive plan amendment after extended presentations, technical explanations and public comment.
Staff presentations: Senior planners told the board the small‑scale map amendment would change ~27.3 acres from Volusia County low‑impact urban/ESC to Daytona Beach mixed‑use with a Potentially Environmentally Significant overlay and would include a site‑specific neighborhood policy capping development (80 residential units and 479,448 square feet of nonresidential uses) for that parcel. Dan Alipaddock presented the PD‑General rezoning request that would apply city plan‑development zoning to roughly 2,760 acres; staff described requested waivers to landscaping buffers, parking standards, lot widths, signage and tree‑preservation standards and recommended forwarding both items to the City Commission for final action (first readings scheduled 05/06/2026).
Developer presentations and commitments: Avalon Park representatives said the project follows the developer’s ‘‘town’’ model—live, learn, work and play—and committed to delivering significant public infrastructure, including road construction and rights‑of‑way (Hand Avenue) and partnerships on schools and other public improvements. A senior developer representative stated about 40% of the land would remain as buffers and open space and said the developer will construct roads and other public improvements concurrent with development.
Public concerns: Dozens of residents and neighborhood representatives urged the board to press the applicant on specific impacts. Concerns included: • Traffic and connectivity: commenters said State Road 40 and the existing Granada Boulevard/I‑95 crossings are chokepoints and asked which relief roads will be completed and when. Several speakers urged the developer and agency partners to commit to parallel east‑west and north‑south connectors (Hand Avenue was repeatedly cited). • Flooding and stormwater: residents reported historic flooding at nearby homes and asked whether new drainage plans will reduce off‑site flooding. The applicant’s civil engineer said the team completed ~160 soil borings, piezometers, a regional flood study and a master stormwater system permitted with the St. Johns River Water Management District; he said permits will require the developer to avoid increasing downstream flood elevations. • Cemeteries and cultural resources: speakers said a labeled local burial site (referred to in public comment as Cone Cemetery) sits adjacent to the proposed build area; staff and the applicant said cemetery identification and any state permitting requirements will be addressed during future permitting and design reviews, not at the land‑use hearing. • Construction haul routes and neighborhood impacts: residents requested that the PD agreement prohibit use of Booth Road and residential streets as construction haul routes; the applicant said it does not currently have legal access to Booth Road and added permit‑level routing will be evaluated when construction activity is known. • Waivers, parking and 0‑lot lines: board members and neighbors pressed the applicant for details about proposed waivers—particularly reduced parking, zero‑lot‑line allowances, and modified perimeter buffers—asking for concrete guarantees to avoid creating spillover parking, safety hazards, or a recurring pattern of code erosion. • Affordable housing: commenters urged the applicant to commit to a measurable share of lower‑cost housing rather than rely on broad product diversity; staff noted the PD can include a range of unit types and the concurrent LDC amendment designed to expand incentives for affordable units.
Applicant technical response: Civil engineer John Florio described coordinated meetings with FDOT, Volusia County and city staff and said the developer has executed an agreement obligating it to construct more than $100 million of roadways concurrent with development; he outlined stormwater design commitments and legal constraints that prevent the project from increasing off‑site flood elevations.
Board action: After discussion and questions of staff and applicants, a board member moved to recommend approval of the Avalon Park PD‑General rezoning (DEV2025‑219). The motion passed 6–1 on a roll call; one board member voted no. The board also recommended approval of the small‑scale comprehensive plan amendment DEV2025‑218. Both items are scheduled for City Commission consideration (PD first reading 05/06/2026; public hearing 05/20/2026).
What happens next: These are advisory recommendations. The City Commission will hold the formal readings and public hearings where final legislative and rezoning authority rests.
