- November 23, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
Citizens have put forth a petition to place a Volusia County Charter amendment on the 2026 ballot to implement a rural boundary — a measure that would make it harder to develop in those areas — but the Volusia County Council may not start discussing the issue until March 2025.
The petition, created this week, has been signed 272 times as of Wednesday, Sept. 18. Its creation follows an ongoing effort in Orange County by its county commissioners who approved the placement of two charter amendments for the November ballot, according to reports by WKMG Channel 6. The amendments would establish a rural boundary, requiring a majority-plus-one vote to approve urban development in those areas, and would require a majority-plus-one vote from the commission to allow governments to annex unincorporated land into their boundaries.
"As Volusia County residents, we have witnessed firsthand the devastation caused by development-induced flooding," the petition by Daytona Beach resident Catherine Pante states. "Many people have suffered major financial setbacks and seen their properties damaged. This situation is a direct result of unchecked development. We believe that the introduction of a Rural Boundary Charter Amendment to the Volusia County Charter is a potential solution to this issue."
At the council's meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 17, County Councilman Jake Johansson made a motion to place a discussion on the possible charter amendment sometime on a council agenda in March 2025, with the goal to potentially have the Volusia County Charter Review Commission look at it in May 2025.
"We've received a lot of email regarding the rural area boundary that Orange County voted on," Johansson said. "I know this is of interest to many in our community. I've got some for it, some against it, but I'm finding, based on the limited knowledge I know, many of the people that are for it or against it have limited knowledge of what it's about, or have only a portion of the information."
In 2004, 71.4% of Volusia voters passed a similar charter amendment that aimed to implement urban growth boundaries — which the Daytona Beach News-Journal reported supporters hoped would help protect environmentally sensitive land and restrict sprawl, while opponents said it would have detrimental economic impacts and drive up urban housing costs. This vote was later overturned in court on the basis that the ballot language was misleading.
Johansson said that he'd like to revisit the issue — lining up with County Council Chair Jeff Brower's position. With the exception that Brower wanted to discuss the issue at the council's meeting on Oct. 1. He'd already spoken about it with the county manager and attorney.
This led to a dispute on the council, with Brower agreeing that because it was a long process, the council should start on the issue now.
"It's not going to be approved Oct. 1," Brower said. "We've got to draw lines, the attorneys have to chime in, there has to be public hearings so that everybody does know what is going to happen, and we can discuss all that on Oct. 1."
Johansson said two of the members — he and Danny Robins — will be absent on Oct. 1. He argued a discussion in March would still leave enough time to get it to the CRC. He said stakeholders, such as the Volusia County Farm Bureau, would likely not be able to consider the issue in time to speak on Oct. 1.
"I think it's nearsighted to not include stakeholders in the initial conversation," Johansson said.
Councilman David Santiago said that by Johansson making the motion, the council has already started the conversation. Robins said the council has more than two years to work on the issue.
"We have to get a tremendous amount of stakeholders at the table," he said. "I don't think we can do that in 13 days or less... I want to follow a good process, or make a good process with this."
Brower said he wanted to start the conversation because, echoing Johansson's sentiments, he wasn't sure if people knew what a rural boundary could do for the county, calling it a tool to stop "hostile annexations."
Some council members took issue with his choice of words, with Johansson saying that, while annexations take place against some residents' wishes, they are sought by property owners.
"It's not hostile if the person who wants it, asks for it and gets it," Johansson said.
Santiago said he hasn't been aware of any "involuntary annexations" since he has been on the council, and Brower said he used "hostile" to describe a situation where neighbors oppose a development's annexation, and it takes place regardless.
"It completely changes their neighborhoods forever, and this gives us a tool to give them a say before that happens," Brower said.
Calling it "hostile annexations," Santiago said, is an inaccurate statement.
"You're rewriting the dictionary — you can't do that in that role, is what I'm trying to tell you," Santiago said. "You can't do that because there's legal terminologies that are used that we work with up here."
Johansson said he didn't deny the issue was important. He just made a motion to set a timeline, he said.
"The chairman apparently has a different timeline," Johansson said. "My motion is this timeline. All we have to do is vote on it."
Brower asked County Attorney Mike Dyer if the council have the authority to change, or postpone a discussion, that was already directed to be placed on a future agenda by the chair. Dyer replied that he didn't believe the council could "stifle the chair" in bringing an issue up, but that the majority could control the timing.
He asked Brower not to put staff in a situation where the chair and the majority of the council are split on what is placed on the agenda and when — that there should be some agreement on the discussion's timing.
"My concern is that kicking it down the road to March 2025 doesn't give us enough time, and that it takes it out of our hands and puts it in the Charter Review Committee's hands," Brower said. "I want it in our hands."
The board voted 4-3 to have the discussion in March, with Brower and Councilmen Troy Kent and Don Dempsey voting against.
Kent said he likes games — but not games like what had transpired on the dais.
"This feels like a game that we don't deserve to do to you," Kent said, directing his comments to the public.
