Edgewater council declines proposed "urban connectivity" land‑use change after heavy public opposition

The City of Edgewater declined on July 1 to advance a proposed comprehensive‑plan amendment that would have created a new "urban connectivity" future land‑use category allowing up to 24 dwelling units per gross acre, after more than two hours of public comment and council questions.

Ryan Solstice, the city’s development services director, introduced ordinance 2024‑O‑27 and described the criteria staff proposed for the new land‑use: developments would have to be within 3,000 feet of a grocery store and within 3,000 feet of a school, park or the East Coast Regional Rail Trail, be located on an arterial or collector roadway, and provide a minimum of 30% open space. "The allowable density of the urban connectivity proposed future land use is 24 dwelling units per gross acre," Solstice said. He also emphasized that the amendment would not automatically change property designations; applicants would still need to apply and meet the listed criteria and go through RPUD review with architectural renderings required.

Residents packed the council chambers and criticized the proposal as a potential "domino" that would open the city to high‑density projects. "If something down in that neighborhood happens without a traffic light and an overpass... it's gonna be an absolute bloodbath down there trying to get across that highway," said Chuck Martin of Edgewater, who urged council to reject apartments at Edgewater Landings. Lisa Flynn said she fled another Florida city because one complex led to unchecked development: "They started with one complex. The end and you can't say no," she said.

Speakers raised consistent concerns about doubling density (from 12 to 24 units per acre in some places), traffic safety for children, stormwater and flooding, the potential displacement of residents in mobile‑home parks, and whether public services and schools could absorb more residents. Several speakers asked about impact fees and who would pay for traffic and infrastructure changes; staff reiterated that impact fees are developer‑paid and that the school board must sign off on certain changes.

Council members also questioned the policy mechanics and legal standards. A council member asked whether a later developer could secure the designation and then be unable to be stopped by a future council; staff and the city attorney explained that comp‑plan changes are quasi‑legislative and are subject to a "fairly debatable" standard, giving council discretion but also judicial deference where reasonable minds could differ.

The meeting record shows no motion to approve ordinance 2024‑O‑27; after the public hearing closed the presiding officer said, "Seeing no motion to approve, the motion fails." Because item 8M failed to move forward, the council pulled related items 8N and 8O (a parcel‑specific comprehensive‑plan amendment and rezoning tied to the Edgewater Landings project) from the agenda.

Live Local Act context and local mitigation measures Staff told the council that the Live Local Act at the state level could allow developers to use higher density and obtain a 75% ad‑valorem tax reduction for qualifying projects that reserve 40% of units at specified affordability levels. Solstice said staff drafted item L, a text amendment to the land development code, to establish local standards and design criteria so the city would have clearer review standards for multifamily proposals if developers sought Live Local benefits. Those text amendments (item 8L) were adopted on first reading the same evening.

What happens next Because the comprehensive‑plan amendment (8M) did not receive a motion, developers seeking higher density would still need to follow the city’s existing comp‑plan and zoning. Council members and staff discussed the option to workshop the policies further and to continue design‑standards work in item L to address resident concerns. Two related rezoning/change requests tied to the Edgewater Landings proposal were explicitly pulled from the agenda after the failure to advance 8M.

The public record from the meeting contains repeated requests from residents to retain the city’s character and to ensure infrastructure and stormwater capacity before approving large multifamily projects. Councilmembers signaled they would weigh those concerns in any future votes.

Ending The council closed the public hearing on the urban connectivity proposal without a motion to adopt the amendment; because the motion failed, related rezoning and comp‑plan requests were removed from the evening’s agenda.