Planning & Zoning Board

Planning and Zoning Regular Meeting Monday, February 2, 2026, at 5:30 PM MINUTES The City of New Smyrna Beach Page 1 1. CALL TO ORDER Having been duly advertised as required by law, the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of New Smyrna Beach, Florida, was held on Monday, February 02, 2026, at the City Commission Chambers, 214 Sams Avenue, New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32168. Larry Wheatcraft called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM. Roll Call Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Jesse Thompson Non-Member Absent ---------- Deb Denys Member Present 5:30 PM David McKenna Member Present 5:30 PM John Causey Member Present 5:30 PM Thomas Bien Member Present 5:30 PM Jon Hall Member Present 5:30 PM Stephen Yates Vice-Chair Present 5:30 PM Larry Wheatcraft Chair Present 5:30 PM Also present were Stephanie Doster, Planning Manager, Jake Baker and Robert Mathen, Senior Planners, City Assistant Attorney Grant Day, and Board Secretary Stephanie Ferrara. Chair Wheatcraft asked City Staff if there were any changes to the agenda. Stephanie Doster stated that there were no changes to the agenda. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2.A Consider the Approval of the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Board regular meeting held on January 5, 2026. Chair Wheatcraft asked the Board if they had any additional questions or comments.

PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD February 2, 2026 The City of New Smyrna Beach Page 2 Motion: Member McKenna moved to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board regular meeting held on Monday, January 5, 2026, as submitted. Member Bien seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: McKenna SECONDER: Bien AYES: Denys, McKenna, Causey, Hall, Bien, Yates, Wheatcraft 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Chair Wheatcraft opened Public Participation. As no citizens wished to speak, Chair Wheatcraft closed Public Participation. 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.A ZT-11-25: Amendment to LDR to add Porte Cocheres to Section 804.04 Jake Baker, Senior Planner, outlined the Applicant’s request to amend the City’s Land Development Regulations, to add Porte Cocheres to Section 804.04 and definition to section 201.00. Chair Wheatcraft asked if the Applicant would like to speak. Kevin Schweitzer, 880 Catfish Avenue, New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169, Applicant, explains that the proposed text amendment is very close to completion with staff, but he has a key concern regarding the lack of allowance for a porte cochère or overhang. He notes that porte cochères have a long history in the U.S., dating back to the 1880s, and have been widely used in both public and private buildings. Their primary benefit is providing covered access when entering or exiting a vehicle, which is especially important in Florida due to frequent rain and strong sun.

PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD February 2, 2026 The City of New Smyrna Beach Page 3 He believes the site conditions support this feature, pointing out the 100-foot property line along the road and a 35-foot side-yard setback, which together provide sufficient space to accommodate a porte cochère that is modest in scale and compatible with the building, rather than visually overwhelming. His specific concern is that while columns may be permitted within 10 feet of the property line, prohibiting an overhang creates a functional limitation. Mr. Schweitzer adds that many residents want the ability to step out of their car and walk to their front door without getting wet or being forced to enter through a garage. He describes the porte cochère as an extension of the traditional front porch concept—an outdoor, transitional space that encourages a stronger connection to the community, rather than residents immediately retreating into a garage and entering their homes without interaction. He emphasizes that his request applies only to existing horseshoe driveways in the area. Member Bien acknowledges that porte cochères can be a strong architectural feature when used appropriately, with proper setbacks and spacing in the right neighborhoods. However, he raises concerns about their potential drawbacks, particularly that they add visual mass to the front yard. He explains that many residents of New Smyrna Beach value a “small-town America” character, where streets feel wide, homes are set back, and landscaping defines the front-yard experience. He also notes that the renderings presented did not show neighboring houses, which raises concern about how porte cochères would affect the overall appearance of neighborhoods with 100-foot lots, especially given the closer proximity of homes and the cumulative impact of added mass on the streetscape. Mr. Schweitzer agrees that reasonable restrictions on width—such as column-to- column limits and a 25-foot roof edge–to–roof edge measurement—are appropriate, noting that these still maintain at least 35 feet of separation from neighboring properties on 100-foot lots. He argues that concerns about excessive massing are largely dependent on roof pitch; steep roof pitches could create bulk, but most buildings in the city use lower pitches or flat roofs, which significantly reduces visual mass. He references a rendering from the final sheet of the materials, showing a real project where concrete was removed to accommodate a 10-foot driveway, and states that the before-and-after views demonstrate that, with good landscaping and an open porte cochère design, massing is not a significant issue.

PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD February 2, 2026 The City of New Smyrna Beach Page 4 While acknowledging the concern about cumulative impact if multiple properties added porte cochères in sequence, he emphasizes that the effective 70 feet of combined green space between properties still provides substantial open area, helping preserve neighborhood character. Member Bien raises a safety-related question, noting that while porte cochères on a straight street may not obstruct sightlines, they could pose visibility concerns on curves or turns. He asks how potential safety issues are addressed, given that front setbacks typically help maintain clear lines of sight in neighborhoods. Mr. Schweitzer responds that porte cochères would still be required to comply with the standard visual triangle requirements used to preserve sight visibility at intersections and along streets, thereby addressing safety concerns. Member Hall asks whether adding porte cochères to older homes can modernize them and increase their property value. Mr. Schweitzer responds affirmatively, stating that they do add value. Chair Wheatcraft opened Public Participation. As no citizens wished to speak, Chair Wheatcraft closed Public Participation. Jake Baker notes that in the existing R1 and R2 zoning districts, the code already allows open front porches to extend up to 10 feet into the front setback, indicating there is precedent for permitting open-air structures closer to the front property line. He explains that these areas typically require 100- foot-wide lots, which are shown as open in the zoning context, and clarifies that the example referenced relates to a client project Mr. Schweitzer is working on. Mr. Baker also highlights a discrepancy between a 6.5-foot allowance and a proposed 10-foot setback, stating that he believes a 10-foot standard is more appropriate. Chair Wheatcraft raises a concern about the maximum proposed porte cochère roof height of 19 feet, questioning whether there could be an issue if a porte cochère ends up taller than the primary house, even if that is unlikely. He asks for staff’s perspective on whether this should be addressed. Jake Baker agrees the concern crossed his mind as well, noting that 19 feet is likely similar to the height of the applicant’s client’s house and that it’s uncommon for a porte cochère to be significantly taller than the main

PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD February 2, 2026 The City of New Smyrna Beach Page 5 structure, though it is possible. He suggests that, if needed, the code could include a provision stating that the porte cochère height may not exceed the height of the house to address that concern. Planning Manager Stephanie Doster asks whether the porte cochères would be attached to the homes and therefore considered an extension of the primary structure. Jake Baker responds that if they are attached, they would technically increase the overall height of the house, but notes that a porte cochère taller than the main home would likely look out of place, suggesting this is more of a design concern than a typical outcome. Chair Wheatcraft asked the Board if they had any additional questions or comments. Member McKenna states that, from an architectural perspective, adding a porte cochère enhances the value of an existing property and positively changes its elevation. He says the renderings presented clearly show an improvement, noting that it’s difficult to view the before-and-after images and conclude that the result is not more attractive. He also supports limiting porte cochères to homes with horseshoe-shaped driveways and emphasizes that maintaining height restrictions is important to prevent misuse, such as accommodating oversized vehicles like RVs. Vice-Chair Yates expresses support for adding a requirement that porte cochères not exceed the height of the existing home. Member Bien agrees that porte cochères can be an attractive architectural addition for an individual house but raises concerns about their cumulative impact when added sporadically along a street. He argues that multiple installations could detract from the perceived spaciousness of streets, reduce the visual impact of setbacks, and interfere with the existing character defined by trees and open front yards. While acknowledging that current setbacks already allow limited porch encroachments, he notes that porches are much smaller in scale compared to a porte cochère, which could be significantly larger. In his view, although porte cochères improve individual properties and offer a cost-effective way to enhance older homes, the overall effect on neighborhood character would be negative, leading him to oppose the proposal.

PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD February 2, 2026 The City of New Smyrna Beach Page 6 Member Denys expresses strong support for the proposal, stating that improvements which add value to an individual property also benefit surrounding properties, comparing it to a “rising tide lifting all boats.” She believes the addition enhances the quiet use and enjoyment of personal property and views it as a positive change overall. She notes that porte cochères are not likely to become overly common and that any future issues could be addressed if they arise. As presented, Shee considers the proposal a win-win for homeowners, neighbors, and overall property values. Member Causey states that while he supports the porte cochère structure itself and recognizes its value, he does not support allowing it to encroach further into the setback. Chair Wheatcraft expresses strong support for the use, emphasizing private property rights and the benefit of allowing homeowners to make fuller use of their property. He notes that a driveway is already permitted in the area where a porte cochère would be located, so the proposal simply adds a structure over an existing or allowable driveway. He also supports staff’s recommendation for a clear, uniform 10-foot setback standard, stressing that the code must be straightforward and easy for residents to understand and for staff to consistently administer, rather than relying on more complex or ambiguous measurements. Motion: Member Mckenna moved to recommend approval to City Commission for ZT- 11-25: Amendment to LDR to add Porte Cocheres to Section 804.04, as submitted and the following conditions: Porte cochères shall not exceed the height of the existing structure and must be associated with a horseshoe driveway. Member Bien seconded the motion, and the motion passed with a 6-1 vote. Member Bien voting no.

PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD February 2, 2026 The City of New Smyrna Beach Page 7 RESULT: ADOPTED [6-1] MOVER: McKenna SECONDER: Denys AYES: Denys, McKenna, Causey, Hall, Yates, Wheatcraft NAYS: Bien 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.A V-12-25: 205 Quay Assisi Robert Mathen, Senior Planner, outlined the Applicant’s request for a variance to allow side setback variance from Section 803.04.D.(2), from the required 10-foot setback to a 2-foot setback for the construction of a small boat lift side setback variance from Section 803.04.D.(2), from the required 10-foot setback to a 2-foot setback for the construction of a small boat lift. Member Causey notes that the boat lift appears to already be installed and asks whether a permit was issued for it. Mr. Mathen confirms that the lift is currently in place but that no permit was issued prior to its installation, adding that the property owner is present and can address questions about the timeline. Member Causey then asks about boat slip allowances, noting his understanding that homes are permitted two slips only if navigable conditions allow. Mr. Mathen explains that under a 2007 Volusia County manatee protection program, shorelines were evaluated and properties were generally deemed eligible for two boat slips based on property size and overall shoreline capacity. Because not all potential slips are used, surplus slips were allocated to the city for distribution as needed. In this case, the property currently has one slip and a floating dock, with eligibility for a second slip. He explains that placing the lift on one side of the property would require dredging due to shallow water, which would disturb habitat, whereas placing it on the other side avoids that impact. Given the small size of the lift, its suitability only for a small craft, and a neighbor’s written confirmation that it would not interfere with navigation, staff felt comfortable supporting the application to preserve habitat while accommodating the request.

PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD February 2, 2026 The City of New Smyrna Beach Page 8 Member Bien asks about the orientation and function of the neighboring boathouse shown in the overhead drawing, specifically whether the side facing the applicant’s boathouse is simply the enclosed portion used for pulling in under the roof. Mr. Mathen confirms this and explains that the 10-foot setback requirement is primarily for navigation purposes, as boat access often requires maneuvering sideways into slips depending on currents and water conditions. He explains that, given the neighbor’s existing dock and boat setup, the proposed configuration would not interfere with the neighbor’s ability to access their dock. He also notes that the neighbor does not have oyster beds on their side and could expand further west if desired. In response to follow-up questions, Mr. Mathen clarifies that there is minimal activity on the east side of the neighbor’s slip, as the neighbor accesses one boathouse directly from the river and uses a lift accessed from the opposite side. Chair Wheatcraft asked if the applicant would like to speak. Randall T Jones Sr, 3115 Sanctuary Circle, Lakeland, Florida 33803, Applicant and Owner, stated that he has little to add beyond what Robert Mathen already explained and thanks the board for their time. He explains that constructing an additional dock on the east side of the canal would be only about 50% usable due to tidal fluctuations, shallow water, and oyster beds, which is why the variance is being requested for the current location. He notes that he can provide documentation supporting the shallow conditions if needed and adds that he has signed letters of support from the adjacent neighbor and five other nearby property owners within the 150-foot setback area. He concludes by offering to answer any further questions regarding the request. Member Causey clarifies his understanding that the boat lift was installed before a permit was issued and before a variance was approved. Mr. Jones confirms this is correct, explaining that the lift was installed prior to the variance request and permitting process. He states that he informed code enforcement of the situation, acknowledges that he acted on incorrect information, accepts responsibility, and apologizes both to staff and the board for not submitting the variance request in advance. Chair Wheatcraft opened Public Participation. As no citizens wished to speak, Chair Wheatcraft closed Public Participation.

PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD February 2, 2026 The City of New Smyrna Beach Page 9 Chair Wheatcraft asked the Board if they had any additional questions or comments. Motion: Member Denys moved to approve V-12-25: 205 Quay Assis, as submitted. Member Hall seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Denys SECONDER: Hall AYES: Denys, McKenna, Causey, Hall, Bien, Yates, Wheatcraft 5.B SP-14-24: Flagler Dunes Class III Site Plan Jake Baker, Senior Planner, outlined the Applicant’s request for Site Plan review for approval for an 80-unit townhome development on the south side of 10th Street, across from New Smyrna Beach High School. Vice-Chair Yates confirms that the proposed change adds a traffic signal with a new left-hand turn exiting the complex and asks whether that is essentially the main change. Mr. Baker confirms that it is, explaining that while the buildings were slightly rearranged to add a few units, the primary change is the use of the existing traffic lights. He clarifies that vehicles will now be able to exit the site by pulling up to that signal and turning either left or right. Member Bien recalls that in a previous case, county traffic officials did not approve a similar proposal without requiring traffic signal upgrades and asks whether that situation has changed. Mr. Baker responds that he did not personally work through those traffic details this time, noting that the project technically met the city’s requirements previously. Because the roadway is a county road, he explains that the remaining issues were handled between the applicant and the county after the fact. He adds that the project’s representatives are present to address those specific traffic-related questions, as he is unable to provide further detail.

PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD February 2, 2026 The City of New Smyrna Beach Page 10 Member McKenna asks whether the traffic signal includes a dedicated left-turn indicator. Mr. Baker responds affirmatively but defers to the project representatives to provide the definitive answer. Member Causey asks whether the flooding photos included in the board’s packet are related to the current project. Planning Manager Stephanie Doster explains that the images came from an email staff received from the Daytona State College facilities manager, which was intended for the board but is actually related to a separate, proposed charter school project. Mr. Baker clarifies that the referenced site is in Edgewater, near Daytona State College, and is in a different municipality altogether. Mrs. Doster adds that the project is separated from the current application by the Gabordy Canal and is therefore unrelated. She notes that any flooding concerns for that separate project will be addressed through St. Johns River Water Management District and other required state permitting processes. Chair Wheatcraft asked if the applicant would like to speak. Joey Posey, 420 S. Nova Road, Attorney Representing the Applicant, provides background on the traffic signal and intersection issues, explaining that in the past the county initially required a full redesign of the intersection. He notes that the county had previously upgraded the signal primarily to accommodate a school, without fully considering surrounding properties, and later acknowledged this in writing. Mr. Posey characterizes the earlier redesign requirement as excessive, arguing that the appropriate solution should have been a modification of the existing signal rather than a complete reconstruction. Following the board’s previous action, the project team returned to the county and worked to find a practical solution. They ultimately reached an agreement for a modification to the existing signal pole, which Mr. Posey says addresses safety concerns and enables the project to move forward as discussed previously. He explains that this traffic-related adjustment led to minor site plan changes but emphasizes that the overall project—amenities and number of townhomes— remains unchanged. He concludes by expressing support for the project and notes that the project engineers are available to answer any technical questions. Chair Wheatcraft opened Public Participation.

PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD February 2, 2026 The City of New Smyrna Beach Page 11 JD Smith, 1265 Tatum, raised strong concerns about flooding and traffic impacts from the proposed apartment development. He explains that the project site sits roughly three feet lower than 10th Street and would require significant fill, which he fears will displace stormwater onto his property and neighboring yards. He notes that recent storms already caused flooding in his backyard due to backup in the Edgewater Canal, and he believes adding fill and development will worsen the problem. Mr. Smith also expresses concern about increased traffic, stating that nearby streets are already congested during morning hours and that adding approximately 80 apartments could introduce well over 100 additional vehicles daily. He concludes that the scale of the project is excessive for the area and suggests that smaller, single-family- style development would be more appropriate. Chair Wheatcraft closed Public Participation. Member Denys raises concerns about water retention and increased traffic in the area, noting the presence of schools, a university, and a proposed charter school, and asks for clarification on stormwater impacts. She recalls that during the expansion of 10th Street, parcels were acquired for stormwater retention, which helped alleviate—but did not fully resolve—flooding issues. Mr. Posey responds that stormwater and flooding concerns have been taken seriously and thoroughly reviewed through multiple design iterations with city staff and the St. Johns River Water Management District. While he acknowledges neighbors’ concerns, he states that the project will not create additional flooding on adjacent properties. He explains that the site has previously been entitled for higher-density residential use and that the current proposal has been reduced to 80 units. He emphasizes that the applicant is seeking to apply the code appropriately and remain fully accountable to stormwater requirements. Member Denys reflects that existing flooding in the area is a pre-existing condition, independent of the project, and notes that while past improvements on 10th Street helped, they did not eliminate all issues. Roger W. Strcula, P.E., explains that the project’s stormwater system underwent extensive review and analysis with the city, the St. Johns River Water Management District, and the county.

PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD February 2, 2026 The City of New Smyrna Beach Page 12 He states that the county provided design peak canal water levels, with a 25-year storm peak stage of 6.1 feet at the site. The project’s stormwater pond is designed with an outfall elevation of 7.1 feet, placing it one foot above the canal’s peak level, which prevents canal runoff from entering the property. He also notes coordination with the county to maintain and clean the canal along the south boundary and a heavily vegetated ditch along the west boundary, which will improve drainage and runoff conditions in the area. Mr. Strcula clarifies that the drainage canal and ditch are county-maintained, not the property owner’s responsibility, and that there is an existing easement for maintenance purposes, which was expanded on the recorded development plat to allow better access. He explains that stormwater analysis compared pre-development and post-development conditions and determined that, after development, both the runoff volume and rate of discharge will be lower than before. These findings were reviewed and approved by the city engineer and the Water Management District, leading him to conclude that the project will improve existing drainage conditions rather than worsen them. Chair Wheatcraft asked the Board if they had any additional questions or comments. Motion: Member Bien moved to approve SP-14-24: Flagler Dunes Class III Site Plan, as submitted. Member Denys seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Bien SECONDER: Denys AYES: Denys, McKenna, Causey, Hall, Bien, Yates, Wheatcraft 5.C V-11-25: 804 Sandpiper Avenue Jake Baker, Senior Planner, outlined the Applicant’s request for a variance to allow a screen enclosure to be located 5.0' from the rear property line.

PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD February 2, 2026 The City of New Smyrna Beach Page 13 Chair Wheatcraft asked if the applicant would like to speak. Michael Gibson, 804 Sandpiper Avenue, Applicants and Property Owner. Member Bien asks about the pool’s configuration, confirming that one side of the pool runs parallel to the rear property line and inquiring about the distance from the water’s edge to the property line. Mr. Gibson responds that the distance is approximately 5½ feet and that there is only a single patio stone along that side, with the remainder consisting of vegetation. Member Bien then asks staff about pool setbacks. Mr. Baker explains that pools may be as close as 5 feet to the property line, but a screen enclosure requires a 7½-foot setback. He notes that this situation has come up multiple times in recent years, often because homeowners install pools close to the setback without realizing it prevents adding a screen enclosure later. Baker adds that staff try to warn applicants during planning, but because many go directly through pool contractors, the issue continues to arise and may warrant further review by the city. Chair Wheatcraft asks whether staff is considering a text amendment to address pool and screen enclosure setbacks, noting that pools and screen enclosures are typically planned together. Jake Baker responds that staff has been discussing the issue and may need to take a closer look at the regulations. Planning Manager Stephanie Doster explains that the distinction is based on the vertical aspect: pools at ground level may encroach to a 5-foot setback, while screen enclosures are treated as accessory structures requiring a 7½-foot setback. She notes that this issue has come up multiple times and can be confusing for homeowners, particularly when pool contractors advise that a 5-foot setback applies without explaining the implications for future enclosures. Because pool permits go directly through the building department, these broader planning considerations are often not discussed, leading homeowners to later seek variances. Staff has therefore discussed simplifying the code to prevent recurring confusion and avoid unnecessary variance requests.

PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD February 2, 2026 The City of New Smyrna Beach Page 14 Member Denys asks whether staff’s final recommendation is to deny the variance. Planning Manager Stephanie Doster explains that for variances, staff cannot recommend approval unless all required criteria are met, and notes that the application failed to fully meet one or two criteria identified by staff. Chair Wheatcraft asks staff to clarify which criterion was not met. Mr. Baker explains that the situation arose based on guidance from the applicant’s pool contractor, and while staff technically cannot recommend approval, he does not believe approving the variance would be detrimental to the public due to the surrounding context, including a cul-de-sac and wooded area behind the property. Chair Wheatcraft emphasizes that while variances are evaluated against strict criteria, the board has discretion to independently assess each criterion and may disagree with staff. He notes that the unusual situation—where pool screen enclosures have a different setback requirement than the pool itself—could be considered a special circumstance in this case, and states that this is how he can personally address that particular criterion in order to satisfy it. Chair Wheatcraft opened Public Participation. As no citizens wished to speak, Chair Wheatcraft closed Public Participation. Chair Wheatcraft asked the Board if they had any additional questions or comments. Motion: Member McKenna moved to approve V-11-25: 804 Sandpiper Avenue, as submitted. Member Causey seconded the motion, and the motion passed with a 6-1 vote. Member Denys voting no. RESULT: PASSED [6-1] MOVER: Denys SECONDER: Hall AYES: McKenna, Causey, Hall, Bien, Yates, Wheatcraft NAYS: Denys

PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD February 2, 2026 The City of New Smyrna Beach Page 15 5.D Nomination for 2026 Planning and Zoning Vice-Chair The board nominated - Steven Yates Motion: Member Bien moved to nominate Steven Yates for Vice-Chair. Member Hall seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Bien SECONDER: Hall AYES: Denys, McKenna, Causey, Hall, Bien, Yates, Wheatcraft 6. COMMENTS OR STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Member Bien makes a formal recommendation that planning staff review and consider the overall issue of pool setback requirements as part of a potential amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR). Planning Manager Stephanie Doster responds that staff will take the recommendation into consideration. 7. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS BY THE STAFF Planning Manager Stephanie Doster reminds the board that at a prior meeting they expressed interest in participating once the Comprehensive Plan process progressed further. She explains that at the next meeting in March, the city’s consultant, Kimley-Horn, will give a presentation outlining the current stage of the Comprehensive Plan and next steps. She adds that once staff receives the draft materials in the coming weeks, she will distribute them to board members by email for review in advance, allowing for discussion and interaction at the upcoming meeting. 8. ADJOURNMENT As there was no other business to discuss, Chair Wheatcraft declared the meeting adjourned at 7:04 P.M.