Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies final plat for Edgewater Preserve Phase 2 after flooding concerns
Summary
The City of Edgewater council voted to deny final plat FP 2,400 for Edgewater Preserve Phase 2 on Jan. 27, 2025, after residents and council members said recent flooding and incomplete documentation left questions about drainage and follow-up work.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The City of Edgewater council voted on Jan. 27 to deny final plat FP 2,400, the final subdivision plat for Edgewater Preserve Phase 2, after residents and some council members raised unresolved flooding and drainage concerns. A motion to approve the plat was made but received no second; a subsequent motion to deny carried on roll call (Gillis yes, Thomas yes, Dalbo no, Mayor DePauw yes).
Staff and the developer said the application met technical requirements and that agency reviews, including St. Johns (Water Management District) permits, were in place. The city's attorney reminded the council this was a quasi-judicial matter and that the decision must be based on "competent substantial evidence in the record." Residents and council members asked for written documentation describing why prior flooding occurred, what corrective steps were taken, and assurances against recurrence. Harry Newkirk, speaking for the property owner, said he agreed with the staff report; Agnes Witter asked specifically whether St. Johns approvals had been obtained and staff confirmed permits had been issued. "So the applicant has their Saint John's permit," staff stated during public comment.
Opponents cited recent storm events and video evidence of flooding that undermined trust in the project's drainage performance. Planning-and-zoning board member Eric Rainbird said that built work near Burger King and Walgreens continues to flood and urged stronger follow-up after construction: "We need to start watching and call them back to fix the stuff," he said. Several council members said they had not received written explanations of what failed and how the developer remedied it; one member said, "We got nothing in writing."
With those unanswered questions, the council moved to deny the plat. The denial was procedural and tied to the record before the council; the attorney explained that if the applicant addresses the stated deficiencies and provides the required evidence, the plat can be resubmitted for consideration. The council also requested a written account of what occurred during the prior flood event, what corrective actions were performed, and documentation to show the problem will not recur.
