Developers outline Deering Park Innovation Center PUD; residents press for stronger stormwater and community guarantees

Developers and city staff presented the draft Deering Park Innovation Center planned unit development and related master development agreement at a special New Smyrna Beach workshop on March 3, 2025, drawing more than a dozen public speakers and several commissioners' requests for tightened guardrails.

The applicant's representative, Glenn Storch, described the current document as "a contract that we are now proposing," saying obligations would run with the land and that the PUD requires substantial nonresidential development before any residences are built. He told the commission the agreement would require 500,000 square feet of nonresidential construction and another 500,000 square feet permitted before any residential lots could be developed; the applicant estimated the project could add roughly $2.7 billion in nonresidential valuation at build-out and move the city's tax base from about 83% residential to about 63% residential.

Why it matters: the proposal covers a large area west of I-95 and SR 44 and ties together regional stormwater design, conservation easements and new infrastructure. The plan offers parcels for community uses (a minimum 55-acre sports site shown as 60 acres), a 10-acre police substation, an 8-acre utilities parcel and a 35-acre site intended for a career-technical (CTE) high school that the developer said could link students to jobs in the business park.

Key commitments and limits

- Stormwater and regulatory review: the applicant said the development would be designed as a single 1,600-acre parcel with regional stormwater facilities intended to accommodate hurricane-level events and that no on-site construction would be allowed until the comprehensive stormwater system is developed and approved by the landowner, the city and the St. Johns River Water Management District. Storch said the contract prohibits increasing runoff into Venetian Bay and requires culvert flows under I-95 to be equal to or less than current undeveloped levels.

- Accountability and maintenance: the developer proposed annual independent stormwater analyses for city review, independent review of as-built surveys, a Dearing Park Stewardship taxing district to fund long-term maintenance, and what he described as a novel "stormwater maintenance bond" to provide funds if the system is not maintained.

- Design and resiliency standards: the PUD would require at least 50% open space on sites, native/Florida-friendly landscaping to limit irrigation, higher water- and energy-efficiency standards, buried utilities, planted slopes and littoral shelves for stormwater lakes, and multi-use bike and trail connectivity tied into the city's and Florida's regional trail system.

Public reaction: benefits and concerns

Public commenters were split. Supporters said the project could create jobs and diversify the tax base; Bob Williams called it "a model for low impact development" and urged careful vetting of details. Tony Adi said the project offered an uncommon opportunity to create higher-wage local jobs and recommended approval.

Opponents and concerned residents pressed for stronger, clearer protections. Cindy Harris asked for a wider buffer along SR 44 and for more detail about whether the stormwater maintenance bond would cover damages to existing neighborhoods; she repeated a draft figure of 2,150 residential units and said that at an estimated 3.15 residents per unit the development could mean roughly 7,000 additional people. Brian White called the proposal suburban sprawl and urged developers to commit tangible funding for parks, affordable housing and infrastructure rather than land donations alone: "In an ideal world, this project wouldn't move forward," he said, while adding that if the project proceeds it must "give back to us in a meaningful way."

Other common themes in public comment included requests for:

- clearer definitions in the MDA (for example, what "construction" means for the 500,000-square-foot trigger and whether infrastructure counts); - guaranteed protections for wetlands and assurances about mitigation credits; - binding timelines and guardrails to prevent the project from being incrementally "morphed" over decades as Venetian Bay did; and - explicit affordable-housing commitments and more detail about impact-fee waivers and long-term fiscal responsibilities.

Commissioner response and next steps

No vote or formal action was taken. Commissioners thanked speakers, repeatedly noted the number of unresolved questions, and pledged further study and additional workshops. Commissioner Martin asked for "guardrails against morphing" and mandates that key amenities be built in step with residential development; other members emphasized consistency of the architecture plan and the need for clearer MDA language and timelines. The mayor closed public participation and announced the commission would reconvene as the Community Redevelopment Agency.

What remains unresolved

Many key contract details highlighted during public comment were not clarified during the workshop: the MDA's precise definition of "construction" for meeting the 500,000-square-foot nonresidential threshold, the specific triggers and enforcement mechanisms for donated parcels, the scope of the stormwater maintenance bond, and whether the draft waives impact fees and how that affects long-term city costs. Several residents asked that the city require larger buffers, stronger wetland protections and explicit affordable-housing provisions before any binding agreement is adopted.

The commission did not act on the PUD or MDA at the workshop and said it will hold follow-up workshops to address the items the public and commissioners raised.