Planning board delays Daytona Landing rezoning after residents cite wetlands, wildlife and flooding risks

The Daytona Beach Planning & Zoning Board on June 25 continued a rezoning request for the 5.69-acre Daytona Landing site to the board’s Aug. 27 meeting after multiple residents urged delay and additional study.

City staff (presenter identified in the hearing as Dennis) told the board the applicant, Whitewater Properties LLC (represented by Cobb Cole), seeks to rezone the parcel from its existing Grand Champion Plan Master Development No. 3 designation into a Plan Development General (PDG) to allow residential development. Staff outlined three concept plans: a 34-unit multifamily/condo building, a 34‑unit townhome plan and a 19‑unit single‑family layout. Staff said roughly 3.65 acres of the site are mapped as wetland and recommended forwarding the rezoning to the City Commission with a recommendation of approval.

The applicant’s attorney, who identified herself in the hearing as Jessica G of Cobb Cole, told the board the site’s prior PD entitlement lapsed in 2021 and that state law requires an entitlement before the property can move forward. She said the mixed‑use future land‑use designation allows up to 25 units per acre but the carried‑forward PD option for this parcel retains a six‑units‑per‑acre cap. She reiterated that detailed stormwater, soil‑boring and agency reviews cannot be completed until a zoning direction is established.

Residents who spoke during public comment urged denial or additional review. “My family and many others invested in this community because of what it is — a premium golf‑course community with predominantly single‑family homes,” said Travis Williams of Legends Preserve, asking the board to deny the rezoning request. Neighbor Grayland Perkins warned the parcel is a wildlife corridor to the Tamoka River and said development would “constrict” animal movement and worsen flooding in an area already experiencing standing water after storms. “We need hydrology testing and to find out what is sustainable on this property,” Perkins said.

Other commenters raised the parcel’s ownership history and wetland ratio after the original 27‑acre entitlement was split, a point advanced by Melissa Stole, who told the board she believes parts of the tract have been treated as a tax‑appraiser ‘wasteland’ designation and questioned whether the prior entitlements should carry forward to the smaller parcel. Several residents, including Scott Hollingsworth and John Nicholson, emphasized recurring flooding on International Golf Drive and urged a plan that minimizes disturbance to wetlands and tree canopy.

In response, the applicant said two neighborhood meetings had been held and that the most consistent feedback was opposition to a connection to Wentworth Avenue and opposition to rental apartments; she said the PD has been drafted so the commission could select one product and remove others if desired. Met World Engineering’s Amir Malik told the board that no detailed subsurface borings or full hydrology studies have been completed at this conceptual stage and that those studies would occur during the next design phase after a zoning decision.

Board members probed a balance between property‑owner rights and neighborhood concerns and noted that zoning establishes a theoretical maximum; buildable yield can fall when site constraints are demonstrated in later engineering and permitting. Several members said they wanted clearer, prioritized community input — what residents value most (wetland conservation, lower density, or avoiding multi‑story buildings) — before making a recommendation.

A motion to continue the Daytona Landing PDG item to the Aug. 27 planning‑board meeting passed; staff said a neighborhood meeting notice will be mailed and the item will return to the board’s agenda on that date. The continuance means detailed stormwater and wetland studies will remain at the design phase, pending the board’s and commission’s future zoning direction.

The board made no formal rezoning recommendation at the June 25 meeting; the item remains scheduled to return to the planning board on Aug. 27 for additional public input and further consideration.