Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. This is the August 5th, 2026 Seminole County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

This board is a seven-member board appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. A quorum has been established to hold tonight's meeting. Public hearing items acted upon by this board are referred to the Board of County Commissioners for further consideration. Board members present tonight are Carissa Lohan, myself, Vice Chairman Brandy Iapolo, Commissioner Tim Smith, Commissioner Lourdes Aguirre, Commissioner Richard German, and Commissioner Mike Lorenz. Staff present tonight are Mike Rhodes, Development Service Director, Naysa Borkert, Deputy County Attorney, Jim Potter, Development Review Engineering Manager, that's a long one, Joy Giles, Planning Manager, Annie Silloway, Principal Planner, Caitlin Apgar, Senior Planner, Hilary Payden, Planner, and Tammy Brushwood, our P&Z Board Clerk. Tonight's meeting will go as follows. Staff will introduce each item. The applicant will then present their item. Audience members wishing to speak will then be heard. Audience participation requires each speaker complete a comment card and give it to the clerk. Comment cards are located out in the lobby. Please check the box if you'd like to make oral comments. Written comments are also welcome and will be read. Speakers should restrict their comments to information directly related to the item being heard. When called, speakers should approach the microphone and clearly state their name and address for the record. The board may ask questions of the speaker. After all speakers have been heard, public comment will be closed. The applicant will be given a chance for rebuttal. Any items shown, such as videos, presentations, pictures, or maps, must be left with the clerk for the public record. Items shown from electronic devices should be emailed to the clerk. A motion will be made and then seconded. Board discussion may occur and we'll conclude with a vote. I will request a roll call vote for any split votes. We'll start with acceptance and approval of the proof of publication. Do I have a motion?

I'd like to make a motion. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Proof of publication approved. Next, approval of the minutes from the July 1st PNZ meeting. Does the board have any changes or do I have a motion?

Motion to approve. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Moving on to our technical review items. Item number one is the Skywater Preliminary Subdivision Plan. Caitlin Abgar presenting.

Good evening, Caitlin Apgar, Planning and Development Services for the record. The applicant is requesting the approval of the preliminary subdivision plan for the Skywater subdivision containing three residential lots on 25.24 acres located on the west side of Lake Markham Road, north of Markham Road. The subject properties have a suburban estates future land use, which allows a maximum of one dwelling unit per net buildable acre. The proposed density is 0.71 units per acre, which does not exceed the maximum. The subject properties have a zoning designation of A1 agriculture. The minimum lot size requirement in this district is one acre, and the minimum lot width at building line is 150 feet, which the proposed lots comply with. The proposed subdivision is a reconfiguration of three existing single-family lots and is proposing three dwelling units total. Potable water and reclaimed water service will be provided by Seminole County. Wastewater for each lot will be provided via on-site septic system. The subject properties are located within the Markham Road, Longwood-Markham Road, and Lake Markham Road scenic corridor overlay. Each property must provide and maintain a 40-foot wide undisturbed landscape buffer along the property's Lake Markham Road frontage. This buffer will be shown on the subdivision plan at the time of final plot. The site contains wetlands and floodplain along the western portion of the development located at the rear yard of the proposed lots. The applicant will identify and delineate wetland and floodplain boundaries at the time of the site plan and building permit review for each proposed single-family home as well as on the final plot. Each lot retains frontage on Lake Markham Road. The properties are dedicating 20 feet of right-of-way to Lake Markham Road along the eastern frontage as required by Public Works. Staff requests the approval of the preliminary subdivision plan for the Skywater subdivision containing three residential lots. Thank you. Thank you.

Questions of staff? Is the applicant present?

Good evening, Tom Faber with Faber Engineering, 3165 Macquarie Place, Orlando, Florida, 32803. Don't have any additional comments, but happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant?

Nope.

Okay. Is there any member of the audience who'd like to speak in favor or in opposition to this item? Any board discussion, questions, motion?

I'll make a motion. I would like to make a motion and recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the preliminary subdivision plan for the Skywater subdivision containing three residential lots on 25.24 acres zoned A1 Agriculture located on the west side of Lake Markham Road, north of Markham Road. I'll second that.

Chairman, just for the record, and I think you'll need to amend your motion because the Planning and Zoning Board is the final decision-making body on this matter, so it's not a recommendation, it's a final decision. So if you could amend your motion to state that it's the final decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve. Do you want me to start over? No, you can just say I amend the motion to strike the recommendation to the board and to... move to approve for the Planning and Zoning Board. And then if you could, the seconder, Ms. Aguirre, if you could second the amended motion, that'd be great.

I would like to amend my motion and adjust that and ask that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the motion. And I will second.

Okay. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Seeing none, the motion carries. Moving on to our public hearing items. Item number two, Tatra Townhomes Rezone. Caitlin presenting again.

Hey, y'all. Caitlin Apgar, Planning and Development Services again for the record. The applicant is requesting the approval for a rezone from A1 agriculture to R3A multiple family dwelling for a 70-unit townhome development on approximately 11.97 acres located on the west side of Tatra Street north of West Chapman Road. The property currently has a zoning designation of A1 agriculture and a future land use of medium density residential. This future land use supports the proposed R3A zoning district. The medium density residential future land use allows for a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per net buildable acre. The property currently exists as a single family home. The applicant proposes to develop the site as a townhome development having a maximum of 70 units. The applicant is proposing a net buildable acreage of seven acres total after mitigating for wetlands and compensating for floodplain, which would allow the 70 units maximum based on the medium density future land use. The site is located within Seminole County's utility service area and will be required to connect to utilities. The site proposes access onto Tatra Street, which is classified as a local road. Tatra Street is not approved to county standard and does not meet county right-of-way standards for width, as it only provides 40 feet of right-of-way. 50 feet of right-of-way is required for new development for residential units of 50 lots and above, as per the Seminole County Engineering Manual, Section 1.11.1a. Tatra Street is a publicly dedicated right of way that is not within the county's maintenance system, but is available for emergency maintenance as defined and described in the Seminole County Administrative Code. A sidewalk does not currently exist along Tatra Street, therefore the developer will be required to build a five foot wide sidewalk along the property frontage. Buffers are required adjacent to Tatra Street and State Road 417. Buffers are demonstrated on the development plan are in compliance with the existing standards of the Seminole County Land Development Code. Specific buffer components and composition will be determined at final engineering. 25% open space is required in the R3A zoning district. The developer proposes to maintain approximately 28.17% of the site as open space. The school impact analysis provided for the proposed project concluded that zoned elementary and high schools are currently over capacity. However, per the adopted interlocal agreement between the district and Seminole County, the school district analysis concluded that the students generated by the project for the adjacent concurrency service area would at this time be able to be accommodated without exceeding the adopted level of service. The development was evaluated with Seminole County Land Development Code for consistency as required per Section 20.7. Section 5.20 authorizes utilization of the Seminole County Public Works Engineering Manual for Transportation Standards Review. As mentioned, Section 11.1 requires a 50-foot right-of-way width for residential developments containing 50 lots or more in the urban area. The public right-of-way requirement of the Public Works Engineering Manual bases values for the required right-of-way on allowing sufficient space for ADA-compliant sidewalks, utility installation, and adequate road width whilst maintaining ability to transition to natural grade of adjacent properties. The proposed development provides access from a wide of way that is not meeting the minimum width, which impacts the ability for adequate grading and compliance with infrastructure requirements for the projected 70 units. These deficiencies create potential safety concerns for existing and future residences. Further, the Land Development Code specifies that new developments must provide for adequate supply of streets and ensure provision of safe ingress and egress in new land development. The inadequacy of the right-of-way width does not allow for compliance with the Seminole County Land Development Code. The proposed development was also evaluated for consistency with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan. While the current feature land use is compatible with the R3A zoning, the proposal does not meet the medium density feature land use intent of minimizing traffic on local roads and does not uphold transportation policies 1.3.3 and 2.3.5 due to the insufficient right-of-way width. The applicant conducted a community meeting on February 27th, 2026. An additional community meeting was held on April 21st, 2026. Details of both community meetings have been provided in the agenda package. Please also advise there has been an addition to the opposition letter that was already published in the original agenda. The supplemental attachment has been included in the hard copy agenda that you guys have tonight. Staff requests the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the Board of County Commissioners deny the ordinance enacting a rezone from A1 Agriculture to R3 Multiple Family Dwelling as per the motion projected on the slide above. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there questions of staff? Okay, very good. Is the applicant present?

Hello, Chris Leppert with Kimley Horn, 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 600, Orlando, Florida, 32801. And thank you, commissioners, for being here tonight. I did have a couple of slides to share as well.

Thank you.

I'm assuming I don't have control, right, with this thing? It's only three slides, so I mean I can just... Oh, perfect. Awesome. Awesome, thank you. So again, this is a request to rezone from A1 to R3A for higher density. Just wanted to include a couple other graphics. This one shows a little bit more defined the area that we've got identified for the stormwater management areas and the compensating storage that was spoken about earlier, as well as some of the green space that we proposed to get to the 70 units. And then, you know, there's a portion of Tatra Street that is outside of our project area. It's in between another parcel and an FTOT pond. And so that existing width is 40 feet. And we would be able to provide a sidewalk for the – future tenants in this property. And so we would be able to provide enough width to have the utilities, the street and one sidewalk. And so the purpose of this slide was to show, you know, we would have to get 10 feet to provide a second sidewalk on the east side. And this one as well just kind of shows how that 10 feet on the east side would look adjacent to our proposed roadway. And then with that, our request would be for a motion to approve the rezoning request subject to the following conditions. So we know there may be some items that we're deficient on, but we would ask that these be conditions so that we can move forward to BCC. And so that would be... The applicant shall demonstrate final engineering plan compliance with applicable stormwater management and drainage requirements satisfactory to the Seminole County engineer. And the also applicant shall provide an additional 10 feet of right-of-way for dedication to Seminole County for the construction of the Thatcher Street right-of-way improvements. That concludes my presentation and available for any questions. Also with me I have our land use counsel and my client, Altman Living. We have a representative from Altman Living here as well.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Do we have any questions of the applicant?

What's a pavement width that you currently have designed?

Yeah, our design would include a 24-foot wide pavement section, two 12-foot wide lanes, plus curb and gutters on both sides.

40 feet. Oh, you designed it.

The width of the right-of-way would be 40 feet.

Understood. I just asked for the pavement width. Pavement would be 24 feet plus curb and gutters. And utilities, where are you putting those? Is there no easements in the right-of-way, or what are you trying to do there?

We still have water on one side of the road and sanitary on the other side of the road. That's what we have preliminary planned at this point. Our final design would come after the rezoning, but we would anticipate storm down the middle, sanitary on one side, water on the other.

Outside the paved area?

The sanitary and the water would be outside the pavement, yes, sir. Okay, thank you.

I have a question. With these modifications, is this an adult, no children condominium development? And if not, how does that solve the issue of the Seminole County Public School being at maximum capacity?

Yeah, so I mean, this would be a single family, children welcome, families welcome, families encouraged development. The Seminole County Schools has capacity for this development. That was reflected in the documents provided. When we originally, just to clarify too, when we originally looked at this project, we looked at the max density of 118 units. After working over the past year with staff and everything, we've brought that number of units down to account for stormwater, open space, everything.

So this is inaccurate when it says it's over capacity?

The recommendation of the staff. There's capacity with concurrency service areas. Okay.

What the school board analysis did was analyze 118 units and said there's capacity. We're having fewer units, so clearly there's capacity.

So the modification does address that? Okay. Yes, ma'am. That was my question. It does. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm Hal Cantor. I'm an attorney with the Lowndes Law Firm and I'm at 215 North Eola, Orlando.

Thank you. Are there any other questions of the applicant?

What is the status of if you want to get a recommended approval, go forward to the commission, but you'll be held in abeyance until you have the road worked out? Is that what you're asking?

Yeah. What we're doing, I'm glad you asked that, Mr. Dermott. What we've asked for, if you go through the staff report, you understand that the engineering department has said they're concerned about flooding and everything else like they should be, but we're not at final engineering. So in the staff report, it says we have to show final engineering that we meet all the standards of the county, which is fine. Well, if we are asking for your approval as opposed to a denial, then that's why I have the condition at time of PSP, we'll demonstrate to the engineering department that we meet their requirements. We also plan, we have a couple of alternatives to acquire the additional right-of-way. In like measure, I provided that at the time of PSP approval, again, same time we have final engineering, we have to have provided the 10 additional feet for dedication to Seminole County so that we're providing a road right-of-way that's compliant with your comprehensive plan. We're not asking for any waivers or reductions. What we're doing is moving the time for providing the right-of-way because we've got two alternatives that can take a little time to do. We're just moving it to the same time, PSP, final engineering. And the county is in control of it the whole time. We can't develop unless we have the additional 10 feet.

Okay, anything else? Okay, very good. We'll give you a chance for rebuttal. Thank you. I have a comment card here. Mr. Archie. Okay.

Hello, P&Z Commission. My name is Clay Archie. I reside at 1780 West Chapman Road, which is right at the corner up front at Chapman and Aloma. We also own 1800 West Chapman Road, which is just behind us further down front on West Chapman. I come to you today just to introduce myself, Clay Archie again. We've lived there in this little enclave area of Slavia since 2008, but the family history goes back to all the way, we're members of the Duda family, all the way to when they settled not far in this general area in 1912. So anything that happens in this area, I will tell you, is near and dear to our heart. We are master plan community developers over in Brevard County. I'm sure you know of that. And I've worked over there. I've worked for Lenar Land in Orlando. I've seen good developments and I've seen bad developments. I don't consider this a bad or I consider this a bad development. And from the get go, I want to start with I hope you get to review and I'm going to review and hopefully pick it with a fine tooth comb. The community meeting is one of the, to me, the core tools that a developer can use to engage with the community. This one was held on a Friday night from 6 to 8 p.m. I'll go ahead and round that up to the weekend. It's a very convenient time. The project manager didn't show up until 7 o'clock. There was great technology issues. I've seen plenty of good ones. I've seen bad ones and this was worse than bad. They tried to make it up. There's a lot of questions that still I feel like are unanswered from the applicant and their project team including One of the main things that hasn't been said right now is what is adjacent land just south of this. Less than 1% of lands in Seminole County are industrial and we have a brand new amazing state-of-the-art facility, Owl Road Steel, that took a long time to get to fruition just south of this that uses this road. Three shifts a day, semi-tractor trailers, lots 80 to 90 employees. Our life has changed. I understand that, but I have four young children that they aren't always out there in that road. Well, they're not anymore because that's changed. The question is, we talk about safety, and where is this one sidewalk going to lead out to this new corridor that hasn't been proven for safety? We are adjacent to the trail out right in front of our house, the Cross Seminole Trail. These folks in this are going to want to access that trail by getting out on this industrial corridor, and I just... I want you to think about the safety side of this, and as the applicant said, yeah, we're family-friendly and all. You've got little kids trying to ride their bikes out, and you're going to be steering them in 18-wheelers. And I can send, for the record, pictures every day that I get because that's one of my greatest concerns in this development. Again, I think that the applicant, there's a lot more to this, and I'm running out of time. They have not done what they needed to do to build significant trust with the community. So I just...

Thank you. Are there any other members of the audience that would like to speak in favor or in opposition to this item? Okay. Applicant rebuttal?

So, yeah, I mean, we had two community meetings, right? We understood that Friday afternoon was what the closest facility had available at the time. And so we offered up another meeting. So that was not a requirement of the county, but that was us trying to do everything we could to listen to the neighbors and answer questions that we could. As far as the... uh... the traffic and and uh... concerns about uh... the industrial to the to the south i mean we you know we understand that that is an industrial area uh... kimmy horn designed the road for Chapman improvements and was part of the Al Rowe steel project. So we're very familiar with that project and everything with regards to this project would comply with the Seminole County traffic requirements. As far as if there's any safety items that were identified as we go to final engineering, then those will obviously be implemented at that time. So this is a request for rezoning at this point. And so the, you know, the design at this point is preliminary in nature.

Let me point out, too, this land is non-industrial. It's designated for residential, which is an appropriate use. And you frankly want to have living spaces near places of employment. So this is a good plan and a good idea. And I'm sorry that there were problems with the community meeting. That happens sometimes. But I think that we're in compliant with your code and your comp plan, subject to our providing the engineering and the additional right-of-way. So we request your approval under those circumstances.

Thank you very much.

I have another. Go ahead. Your first condition, I don't particularly like the way it's written, actually. It says you'll demonstrate final engineering plan compliance with applicable stormwater, et cetera. Why don't you reword that? Seminole County Engineering has approved your conceptual drainage plan. I don't know what demonstrating final engineering compliance necessarily means. It's demonstrated if Seminole County Engineering signs off and says, yes, your conceptual drainage plan works.

excellent point it should say if y'all adopted thank you uh shall obtain approval of final engineering uh from the seminal county engineer would that be solve that um you're going to do final engineering then before the psp is approved correct i mean we've got to do that to get the psp

Based on that, yes, you wouldn't ordinarily. I'm sorry? No, you wouldn't necessarily have to have final engineering, I don't think, before the PSP. You get the PSP approved, followed by engineering. Is that Caitlin?

I can speak on that.

Yeah.

Hi.

Sorry, guys.

Thank you. It is our standard procedure to complete the PSP, and you can submit them concurrently, but it's PSP, final engineering, engineering.

PSP first, final engineering.

Will this project, it's a multi, it's a townhome development you guys are planning on plotting? Okay, so yeah. Plotting, yes. So that would be a big one too. If you were plotting, then you would be PSP.

PSP, then final engineering, then plot.

And we want the PSP approved before we can approve the final engineering.

Well, that's what he's saying, final engineering. So I said conceptual engineering.

you can submit a conceptual engineering plan with your PSP, if that works.

Well, it should say, she'll obtain approval of its final engineering plan consistent with requirements of Seminole County regulations. There's a lot of different ways to say it, I think, to get where you're going. Have I made you happy yet?

No, it's not. I'm trying to just make sure that the county is okay. I actually have. I just didn't like to demonstrate. I wanted to get approval.

If y'all would approve this generally in the way that has been suggested, I really do have a detailed proposal for the county attorney to look at, but I think it was premature to hand out, but it would deal with a much broader definition of what you're acquiring. Thank you. I object to that, please, because it's not held in the bill.

I'm sorry, we can't have any comments from the audience at this point.

If he was objecting to a document, I have. I'm not submitting it into the record. I'm just suggesting that as this goes forward, there'll be more detailed documentation. That's all.

We understand that, thank you. Are there any other questions to the applicant, Caitlin?

I got a question for staff again.

Okay, sure. I think Caitlin wants to say.

Caitlin, if with that modification to the first proposed condition of the engineering plans and then the road right away and so forth, would staff be okay with that if we conditionally approve this and set it forward?

It's my understanding that we can't condition a straight zoning district, which this is. Is that correct, Naysa? That's correct. So we can't place conditions on the rezoning approval. It's just the zoning district at this time that's at hand.

Well, we're only approving the zoning. We're not approving their site plan. That's correct. That's right. Was the site plan going to come back to the P&Z? No. Where's it going to go? PSP will come back to P and Z. PSP comes back to us, which is the county commission doesn't see it again.

Correct.

Hmm. So how, let's see, how does it, how does the commission ever finalize zoning?

This is a straight, this is the straight rezoning to R3A. So it would. Without conditions. Without conditions. So there are no conditions. No conditions.

All the conditions are contained in the R3, in the zoning district itself. So unlike PDs where we put together the zoning on our own, conventional zoning districts, the conditions are already contained in the code for them. So there are no conditions attached to it because the restrictions are in the code.

But it says at the top, motion to approve rezoning request subject to the following. So if they never perform on either one of those two things or one of them, does that mean the rezoning is no good either?

No, because we don't allow for conditional rezoning.

But it says motion to approve rezoning.

This is the applicant's document. That's the applicant's document. I understand.

Well, we've got to come up with some language here, I think.

If it helps, their development would be held to all the standards of the land development code, including the right of way with. So if they don't meet that at time of PSP, at time of final engineering, it won't be approved by staff.

But you recommended denial with conditions, okay, because these conditions weren't met. You're now telling me that it's okay just to rezone it with straight zoning.

No, we didn't. The county is recommending denial, period.

Okay.

And I will say this just to, I mean, I will speak to this. Typically when we have straight zonings come through, we look at all these things. And if the road has to be brought up to county standard, it's brought up to county standard As far as paving, adding in sidewalks, that happens when we get down the road. The problem here is there is no ownership of the right-of-way. The right-of-way doesn't exist. They have to go and will be dependent on adjacent property owners to get that with. So they can't do that now.

That's understood. Understood.

Go ahead, Mr. Cantor. Well, I was just going to say, if the PSP has to be approved by this body and come back here, then I would just simply ask that you approve the rezoning. And when it comes back for the PSP, we will have to meet those conditions, whether you say it or not. If it's already incorporated in the code, then we have to comply with the code and we really don't need any conditions. And we can't develop the property unless we come back here with the final engineering done and with the additional right of way accommodated. So I would ask that you approve it. I have to comply with the terms of your PSP requirement in any event. I don't need conditions because they're already incorporating the code, correct?

That's correct. What you're saying is correct, yeah. You could approve this. Subject to? Then not even subject to. You could approve it. It has to meet the standard when it comes in to develop. It has to meet the standard. but you're rezoning it to a district that they can't develop it unless they get this additional right-of-way from adjacent property owners. So you could approve it. What Mr. Cantor is saying is correct.

Let me ask. You may have already said this. If we deny this, what's the next step for you guys?

We're very mad at you. And we cry. We understand. And then we go appeal it to the Board of County Commissioners.

Well, they go to the Board. You're not the final decision-making body. The Board makes the final decision. So they'll get your recommendation of approval or denial, whatever that is, and the Board will make the decision.

Understood. Which happens in any event. Thank you. I frankly did not know we came back here for PSP. And then it doesn't go to the Board. But we know what our requirements are. And we have several ways to solve them.

Okay, do we have any other questions? Any discussion? I would say for discussion that I think that some of the concerns raised by staff and also by the speaker are valid. And I appreciate the applicant providing us a pathway, an option. here to approve or recommend approval, but I just don't think that these mitigate the concerns raised in the staff report for tonight. So that's my two cents.

Well, except that they can't develop anyway. So what good, I mean, if we approve the rezoning, that saves them time. I sympathize with what he said about that. that they don't have another 60, who knows how long, to solve the problems.

The problem is then it's rezoned and the next person has the same issue.

It can't be developed until they solve specifically the road problem.

You would have to obtain the right-of-way.

Yeah. If they don't solve the road problem, you're never going to be developed anyway.

And that would be with the neighbors, right?

I think we toss it upstairs. I'll make a motion that we recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to approve the rezoning of file number 20260604 from A1 to R3A multifamily dwelling. located on the west side of Tetra Street, north of West Chapman Road. That's my motion. Second.

Okay.

Any further discussion or vote? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Nay. Okay. It passes. Then we'll move on to item number three. Jane Society Special Exception. Hillary Payton.

Good evening. Hillary Payton, Planning and Development. This item is a request for a special exception for the Jane Society to allow an existing civic assembly use to expand in the A1 and R1AA zoning districts on 1.93 acres located on the northwest corner of Citrus Street and Lorish Avenue. The existing Civic Assembly development is comprised of two buildings, a 4,622-single-story worship hall containing approximately 112 seats and an 8,065-square-foot single-story multipurpose building. The applicant proposes to demolish the 8,625-square-foot multipurpose building and construct a 15,043-square-foot two-story multipurpose building in its place. The proposed new building will contain a dining hall with serving kitchen on the first floor and several multipurpose meeting and meditation rooms including a 160 seat auditorium on the second floor. The civic assembly use is classified as a community facility which is designed to accommodate a larger number of people for a wider geographic area than neighborhood facilities. The facility primary operates on Sundays from 10 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. However, the worship hall is available to members during the day, seven days a week. The applicant has acquired two adjacent lots to the rear of the site to provide 50 parking spaces for the use of the facility. Combined with the existing 32 spaces, the property will have a total of 82 parking spaces. The required parking count for this assembly use is 68 parking spaces, including the additional proposed parking lot. The site will provide an excess of 14 spaces above the minimum requirement under the Sunwell County Land Development Code. The site must also meet all regulations under the Land Development Code such as buffering and site lighting. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing multi-purpose building and construct a new multi-purpose building in the same footprint. The existing footprint does not meet the minimum required front yard setback of 50 feet. Therefore, the applicant must obtain a front yard setback variance from the Board of Adjustment in the event that this request is approved to construct the new building within that same footprint. The proposed parking addition on the west side of the property is to be accessed from West Highland Street, which will require improvements by the applicant. Staff has now received a total of six letters in opposition, five of which are located within 550 feet of the subject site and are reflected on the support and opposition map on the screen. An additional letter of opposition was received today and placed on the dais for your consideration. In compliance with Seminole County Land Development Code section 30.3.5 community meeting procedures, the applicant conducted a community meeting on April 24th, 2025. An additional community meeting was required to be held upon the proposal of the additional parking lot, which was held on May 4th of 2026. Details of the community meeting have been provided in your agenda package. Section 30.3.1.5 subsection A of the Seminole County Land Development Code states that certain criteria must be met for the Board of County Commissioners to approve a special exception request. Staff finds that the request does not meet the following criteria. Number one, the use requested is not detrimental to the character of the area or neighborhood or inconsistent with the trend of development in the area. The Jane Society is located on the corner of Sitges Street and Laura Avenue, which are classified as local roads within a residential neighborhood. The existing trend of development in the area is single-family residential with a 40-acre county park on the north side. A community civic assembly is intended to accommodate a larger number of people than a neighborhood civic assembly facility for a wider geographic area. A 15,403 square foot, two story community civic assembly facility directly abutting a neighborhood of single story, single family homes is not in character with the trend of development. Number two, the use requested does not have an unduly adverse effect on existing traffic patterns, movements, and volumes. Although the additional parking would help alleviate the existing on-street parking concerns, it does not necessarily address the potential increase in traffic associated with the expansion of the facility. The proposed parking lot would provide additional on-site parking and is expected to reduce the existing overflow parking along the surrounding right-of-way. However, the proposal would increase the size of the multi-purpose building by 6,978 square feet, which is an approximately 87% increase. introducing dining halls, meeting rooms, and meditation rooms. These additional facilities could substantially increase the number and frequency of people attending activities on the site, particularly if multiple areas are being used concurrently. Therefore, while the additional parking may address the existing parking deficiency, the expanded intensity of the Civic Assembly use could increase traffic volumes and vehicle movements within the surrounding neighborhood. Number four, the use requested will not adversely affect the public interest. Within the A1 zoning district, civic assembly is a common use that typically supports the surrounding residential community. The established facility is located on approximately 1.3 acres, and the addition of the two rear lots increases the site to approximately 1.9 acres. The additional parking is necessary to support the continued use of the existing facility. However, the proposal also includes replacement of the existing 8,065 square foot single-story multi-purpose building with a 15,043 square foot two-story building, an increase of 6,978 square feet. Although a condition of the development order will limit the total occupancy of the site to no more than 160 people at any given time, the proposed expansion would substantially increase the scale and intensity of the use. The site is primarily accessed by local residential roads that also serves a county park, and the proposed two-story building would be inconsistent with the predominantly single-story, single-family character of the surrounding neighborhood. Under the additional use standards in the Land Development Code, staff finds that the request does not meet the following review criteria for civic assembly use. Number one, protects residential neighborhoods. The facility's vehicular use areas will be required to include buffering from adjacent residential property to minimize potential impacts. However, the proposed structure, due to its size, is incompatible with and will adversely affect the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. Number two, traffic. This community assembly facility is accessible only from two-lane local residential roads and therefore does not satisfy the requirement that access be provided from a collector roadway with four or more lanes or from an arterial roadway. The property is located at the intersection of three local roads and has an established history of parishioners parking across sidewalks and within the right-of-way. including in front of nearby residences. Staff received six letters in opposition based on existing traffic and parking concerns, one of which provide photographs and a video documenting these conditions. This property is located in the A1 zoning district, which requires that additional criteria be met. Staff finds that the request does not meet the following criteria. Number one, the request is consistent with the general zoning plan of the rural zoning classification. The proposed expansion of the existing facility is not consistent with the already established use and character of the area as previously discussed. Number two, the request is not highly intensive in nature. The existing civics assembly use together with the proposed expansion is highly intensive in nature relative to the size and use of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The proposed building's height, scale, and capacity would be inconsistent with the predominantly single story, single family residences surrounding the property. Staff is recommending denial of the request, but if the board votes to recommend approval, staff finds that in addition and staff requests that in addition to the typical conditions of approval for special exceptions, that the site be limited to 160 people at any given time, there'd be no outdoor amplification of sound without a permit and that the site be required to connect to public potable water services and the city of Altamont sewer services if it's available. Staff requests the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners denial of the special exception and associated development order to allow an existing civic assembly use to expand in the A1 and R1 AA zoning districts located on 1.93 Lakers, located on the northwest corner of Citrus Street and Laura Avenue. This concludes my presentation. Question is of staff.

I'm unclear. The site plan proposed, it has that existing building to remain, it says.

Correct.

And then it shows the other building in the back. All your square footage calculations, do they include both of those buildings or just the one new one?

What's under consideration is the new building. That's... the larger multi-purpose building on the southern end of the property. The existing temple was taken into consideration for parking counts.

It was? Yes. Okay, that was going to be my next question. Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Any other questions of staff? Is the applicant present?

Good evening, board. Mark Jones here on behalf of the Jane Society. With me as well is our engineer, Nimish. Nimish Bausar with Ohm Engineering Services. Nimish is going to jump in for any technical stuff. I didn't bring any slides. Can you go back? Leave the one with the conditions of approval, please. Leave that one up there. I'm just planting a seed for you guys. This special exemption, what I'd like the board to understand, we're not proposing a new use here. This isn't like a new development coming in here. These folks have been here for 25 years. They're not changing the way they do things. They're seeking to improve the building that they're doing it in. I want to point to some facts that supported approval in the staff's plan. And the first one is that the staff expressly found that this request is consistent with the low density future land use designation because houses of worship are a special exception available in the the FLU on this part. So the existing church is there and it's been there for 25 years. We're not asking for anything that isn't inconsistent with the future land use. They noted the parking surplus. We've got enough parking spaces with this new plan to cover all of our uses and look forward into the future. The occupancy The number 160 is above our current attendance rates. On average, these folks have about 80 people that come on the weekends. They have three to four special events, four special events this year with the hopes of maybe having a fifth. Those events bring in This year, the attendances were 120, 148, and I think 156. All of them were below the capped occupancy that the staff said that they would be willing to put as a condition of approval. It is in the same footprint. So again, we're not asking to build a larger facility outwards. It's going up one floor, which some of the concerns we heard at the community meetings were, well, it's a second floor building. It's going to be looking down into our backyards. There's things that can be done to address that in the site plan phase once we get the next step down the road. The applicant is ready, willing, and able to connect to city water, to connect to city sewer. The conditions of approval we're okay with. In fact, we're okay with A through H on these conditions of approval. I want to address the community meetings. We did have two community meetings in this one. And this project is a perfect example of how community meetings work and how they can affect a positive change in a project. When we first met with the city, Personally, I didn't understand the temperature of the room. When we got into the community meeting, it became very clear that parking was the primary concern of the residents of the community. They brought the pictures in. I saw them for the first time. The client had told me, yeah, we got parking issues. Oh, it was bigger than I thought. We took that feedback, and we put ourselves on pause for almost 10 months trying to find a solution. The solution... was the additional lots that were purchased to create a parking lot. It absolutely solves the problem. You heard it. We have a surplus of 14 additional spaces. So no longer will there be cars up and down the roadways. They will be on site in a buffered parking structure. The six letters in opposition that staff referenced, they all came about a week after the initial community meeting. So they voiced their displeasure with the parking and we addressed it. We had a second community meeting and we showed them the plan. These people are going to get up and tell you they still don't like it. I understand that completely. But the parking issue is addressed, and it was addressed since the time of the first meeting and the second meeting, and the plan reflects that. There was one, I think, letter that came in today that Hillary shared with me. A gentleman had concerns about increased traffic because he uses a walker. I get it. The thing that staff did not address here, this property is right next to San Lando Park. It's a 40 acre park, 25 tennis courts. San Lando Park has, this year alone, had 10 events that were tennis tournaments that brought in Based on, and I will openly admit, I chat GPT'd this, folks, so I did verify the sites on it, though, and it does. A tournament will have a cap of 140 entrants or 75 entrants in it, and these are junior tournaments. So juniors don't drive themselves. Their parents and spectators drive. The estimated people at these events is upwards of 300 people 10 times a year. So these two lane roads, they are already handling the traffic all the time. And again, we've been here for 25 years doing this stuff as well. The roads can handle what's going on. We're not proposing anything different. And to be frank, The Jane Society, on their highest special event, was 160 people. This isn't like they're not growing exponentially. They want to have a larger facility so they're not cramped on top of each other when they do have their events. A lot of these other ones, noise abatement, they don't do any outside amplifications. The lighting stuff, again, all these things will be addressed at the site plan phase. We are totally fine with all these conditions of approval and we're asking the board to approve it so we can move to the next phase. And the concerns that have come up at the community meeting and future concerns that come up, they can be addressed at the site plan phase. I will reserve for rebuttal.

Are there questions of the applicant? Any questions to the applicant? Okay. We have some members of the public who would like to speak on this item. I will give you a chance for a rebuttal if you'll just hang out there. We also have a couple of other comment cards that I'll pass around to the board that don't wish to speak. But while we're doing that, I'll call Blaine Weiner.

Right. Thank you, guys. So good evening. My name is Blaine Weicker. I'm here with my wife, Michelle. We live at 337 West Citrus Street. We're the second lot east of the Jane Society. I do have a picture. I don't know if you guys want to look at it, but from our backyard, we currently can see the structure just barely over our fence line. I want to start by saying we don't have anything against the Jane Society or its members, and none of this is about the religion. Our concerns are about the size and the impact of the proposed two-story building in a strictly residential neighborhood. The request before you isn't a simple renovation. It's an expansion that will introduce a larger two-story structure in a neighborhood that's predominantly single-story homes. We chose to limit this neighborhood because it's peaceful, it's got a lot of beautiful nature, it's very private, and it's a lot of smaller-scale homes on bigger lots. So we have a lot of privacy and space. We have the following concerns. The height and the scale of the two-story building will feel out of place. And from my backyard, we'll be able to see the second story almost entirely, as you can see. This structure will also change the character of the neighborhood and potentially deter future buyers of homes nearby. Privacy, there will be direct views into our entire backyard. This is personally for me. We're about to have a baby girl. This is my biggest pet peeve with the whole thing. I shouldn't have to sacrifice my privacy. That's what we bought the home for. The traffic, they did mention the traffic. I will say the parking has gotten a lot better. The traffic has not gotten a lot better. For a small two-lane residential road, the traffic is still there, especially with the park. i don't think the the traffic problem has been mitigated and i do want to make the point that the two lots behind them that they're proposing to park on it looks like in their proposed plan they're going to use the brand new trailhead to extend West Highland Street, which was just put in, I think, less than a year ago, maybe. And to me, that's a major downgrade. There's so many people that walk and run on that. We walk our dogs. We ride our bikes. I just personally think it's going to be a massive downgrade, and they're going to take away a huge aspect of the neighborhood. With a potentially increased congregation comes the need for more parking, as we can see. I do not agree with the proposal to turn the two lots that are located behind residential homes and less than the two-year-old bike trail, turn all that stuff into a parking lot. It just doesn't make sense to me. I want the commission to consider the precedent that sets special exemptions should only be granted when the proposed use and scale are compatible with the surrounding areas, which I feel like we all can agree it maybe is not. The approval of this two-story building in the middle of our established neighborhood can change the expectations for what can happen on properties nearby or for churches' properties in the future. We kindly ask the Commission to reject this special exemption. Thank you, guys.

Thank you. Jose Rivera. Come on up. State your name and address for the record.

Hi, good afternoon. Thank you for the time. My name is Jose Rivera. I live at 406 West Citrus Street. My property is located directly across the street from the proposed expansion site. As one of the close property owners, my property will be uniquely and disproportionately affected compared with all the other homes. I'm deeply concerned about the significant negative impact this project will have on my property and the surrounding residential homes. The proposed expansion would introduce a substantially taller building than what currently exists. The new structure would dominate the view from the front of my home and permanently changing the character of the neighborhood. and blocking the open views that currently exist. These changes would diminish the visual appeal of my property and some of the other properties and negatively affect the marketability and resale value. Beyond the visual impact, I'm also concerned a larger facility definitely will attract more visitors, resulting in increased traffic. We already talked about the traffic. The parking demand, the noise, the outdoor activities and lighting. These impacts are incompatible with the quiet residential character of our neighborhood and will reduce the quality of life of our nearby homeowners. While I respect the James Society and its role in the community, I believe that this inspection is too large for its current location and it places an unfair burden on the surrounding residential properties. the interests of the nearby homes should also be considered. For this reason, I respectfully request that the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board deny the special exception application. Thank you for considering my comments and protecting the character and integrity of our neighborhood.

Okay, thank you. Sandra Keegan.

Hi, my name is Sandra Keegan. I live at 416 West Citrus Street. I have been there since 2003, so just after they purchased and were starting to build. So there are two buildings on that property. One is their temple, and one is a residential house that has been kind of modified for their event center. I'm all for churches and nothing against the Jane Society. They've been fine. They don't take particularly good care of their property. They have fenced it all in, although they have trouble keeping it, I guess, locked up, whether that's because it's an electronic gate or whatever. So it's open quite a bit. Garbage cans are out. It's not particularly adding to the neighborhood when owners don't take care of their properties very well. But what's disturbing is we did meet a year ago, and we brought up two things. One was the parking, because they would park on the street. Their parking lot wasn't big enough. And at that time, we were also told that they had an agreement with the county to use the parking in San Lando Park. So some people did park in San Lando Park after our meeting they put up no parking signs and they talk to their congregation and whether they configure the internal parking lot to accommodate additional parking, I don't know, but I know that we didn't see the cars, but we did see the people parking and they still do. They park in the San Lando Park and they walk to the church. Now, the county says we didn't agree to that, but it's clearly going on. So, The second concern that we brought up a year ago was you saw the plans. That doesn't look like a building that goes in a residential area. It's god-awful, and it's a two-story building. And if it was your neighborhood, I'm sure you would not particularly care for it. There was nothing brought up about these two lots here. last year. So since then the church has purchased those but also since that time the bike path was put in and the bike path starts at the end where Highland is entering into San Lando Park. So the city owns that and our understanding is that the city asked the county and Hillary or someone can speak to this if they could put a bike path in. And the county said, yes, you can put the bike path in, but if anybody wants access, you're going to have to pay for it. Well, we know it's going to be the taxpayers that pay for that. I do have pictures of it if you guys want to take a look. I also have a petition for the streets surrounding.

You can leave it with our clerk, and we'll take a look at it, but we're out of time.

Okay.

Thank you. Scott Wells.

Did you want me to, did you guys want to look at the pictures or?

If you email them to the clerk, she'll make sure that we have them in the record.

Okay.

Yeah. My name is Scott Wells and I occupy the property that is exactly adjacent to, so it's this lot here. And my concern is with the two-story structure. People have already addressed the parking and all that, and that's another issue. But I think that having that looming over my home would adversely affect my property values. At the present time, I'm faced with a solid eight-foot fence, and that covers all of the I'm going to say sidewall of the building, but the roof is still a bit visible above that, and it's close, and I have photos also that would show that. The addition of another story would dramatically... impinge, I mean it would be looking down over my backyard. So that doesn't feel appealing to me. The other part is at the time that we purchased the property, those two lots in the back, which they want to turn into parking, there was no road access. There was no trail. Highland Avenue ends right there. So that drawing is kind of disingenuous. It does not go through at all. And there is no road right away at the present time. So they would need to create that in order to get to their parking space. And primarily what I appreciated about our particular property at the time we purchased it, which was 10 years ago, was that we had that open space that was continuous all the way to the park. and that's going to change dramatically by allowing even just the construction of the parking space whether people are using it or not. So we already get a fair amount of noise from stuff that happens in the park and the large amount of trees and shrubbery and whatever in between do act as a noise buffer and if they put the parking spaces in there that'll all be gone. The other thing is when they put the bike path through there, they also cleared out a lot of trees and shrubs and whatever along the way. So that has had a negative impact as far as noise reduction. So my recommendation would be not to have them build a two-story structure there and increase the traffic and the parking in that area. Thank you.

Okay. Is there any other member of the audience who'd like to speak in favor or in opposition to this item?

Go ahead and state your name and address. My name is Diane Nass, 415 West Citrus Street, Altamont Springs, Florida. I have lived on that street for 39 years with my family. I've raised six children, and now I have grandchildren coming by, often 11 grandchildren. Another one on the way. And we go to the park a lot. And they've never said anything about the church, but it's just the feeling that I have that it's just the residential area. You know, it looks like a home the way the church is now, except when you go around and you see their church, which is fine. But when you change the way they want to put the two-story up, and it does not look like it's going to be another house. It's going to look so different. And also, I ditto everything that everyone has set up here, too. But what I'm saying also is we don't have streetlights on our street. We never did. It never bothered me. But now you put a parking lot back there with lights, I mean, that changes everything. And even knocking down all the trees, it's going to change everything when you drive by. It's totally different. That's just my opinion here. And I agree with all the parking for the cars. Just everything that everyone has said, I agree. But I just wanted to bring it to your attention when my grandchildren walk to the park, which we love. Also, the parking lights that they're talking about putting up there. That definitely changes things at night. And also, you don't know, or we wouldn't know, if someone were to come over there and maybe park there overnight, a car. It doesn't have to be from the church. It could be anyone. I had one time someone park. They built a tent in my backyard one time. I noticed it. It was camouflage-type tent. I called the police right away, and they came and they made the man leave. But you just don't know. You know, just something like that also. Because we're secluded kind of back there where we are. And we really like it where we're at. So, thank you very much. Thank you.

Okay. Any other members of the audience who'd like to speak?

Good evening. My name is Dwayne Hardy. I live in 413 West Citrus Street, two lots west of the proposed part of the building in this lot. And the proposal of adding this second story to the building in the proposed elevations that we've seen will just make this building look like a business model type of a situation in a residential neighborhood. It's going to change the complexity of our neighborhood and street, and along with all the other comments that people along the street and the neighborhood have mentioned, we just feel like we want to keep our neighborhood status quo and not to increase the footprint of traffic and lighting and being in the position that I am bought this property in 1999 with the understanding that the lot behind me would be a conservation lot. trees and animals and the nature aspect of it is something that we as a family appreciate it and if they come in and knock this whole lot down with trees and put in parking lots it's going to certainly affect my view for my backyard and and if proposed parking lot would be arranged and I would certainly require a brick wall or something to eliminate visibility into my backyard as a result of having a parking lot there. So it is my recommendation that this proposal be denied to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, anyone else? Seeing none, we will close public comment and allow the applicant an opportunity for a rebuttal.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. There's only a few things I want to touch on. One is the misunderstanding with the right-of-way and the trailhead. Nothing is changing with the bike trail and the trailhead. The history there, Highland Street, the right-of-way does, in fact, go all the way down to the end, just past the red line. corner here. It's a platted right-of-way and it's City of Altamont Springs property. I've had discussions with the city manager and the city engineer of Altamont Springs. The city wanted this bike trail connecting the county trail to the park. And they cut a deal with the county. The county said, sure, you can do it.

But if access is ever needed to these two lots here, the city was on the hook for providing the road.

So that is an agreement that's been provided to staff. It is a written document agreement between the city and the county. So I've talked to the city manager and the city engineer, and they have confirmed that they will make the improvements for the roadway back to these two future parking lots. The bike trail will not be affected. There is enough, well, I take that back. They may have to make adjustments to the sizing of the, of the setbacks in the grass, but the bike trail is staying in place. There is enough room to put in an access road to these lots. So I tried to explain that at the community meeting. I apologize if I didn't do a good enough job, but the bike trail is not affected by this. The parking lot, the nice lady just said she was concerned that somebody may do overnight parking there. We discussed at the community meeting. The members have agreed those lots will be closed off when they're not in use, either by electric gate or some kind of gate. They'll not be left open so that people can get in there and park. They don't want that themselves. They certainly wouldn't want that for the neighborhood. I just want to say it because there was an inference that there may not have been an agreement to park at San Orlando Park. There was an informal agreement with the county and Parks and Recreations. I have the email. I've provided it to the staff. They said it wasn't good enough and I agree with them. That's why we've moved forward with the parking lot agreement. But the Jane Society did have an informal agreement with Parks and Rec. So they have not done anything wrong. The parking lot, the gentleman asked about a wall. What we have proposed, there's a 25-foot buffer between his property line and the beginning of the parking lot, and we're going to landscape the heck out of it. High landscape buffer, he likely won't even be able to see the parking lot. And same thing for the rest of the boundaries of this property. The intent is to buffer as much as possible. I mean, we're not at that phase yet. That's in the site plan phase. All those, the landscaping design, the building design, these are conceptual plans that we have put in front of them. We did get comments at the public meeting to make it look more residential. We changed this color scheme. I think there's still likely to be some changes to the plan as it gets to the site plan phase, but that's the next phase.

I think it's it from the applicant.

Do we have any questions to the applicant, staff?

I do. Can you tell me the building height as proposed? I know I see it's an auditorium, so it looks higher than a normal two-story building. Can you tell me what the height is?

I can't tell you the exact height, but I believe it is just a two-story building.

It looks taller than that. You don't know what you're proposing?

I don't know the exact height. We're the civils, but I can get that back to you.

It is in the agenda packet. I will note that there's nothing in the code restricting a two-story building at this property.

I understand that, but you are up against R1AA, which does have height restrictions. The R1AA is the parking lot. I understand.

Yeah, there's nothing going to be constructed on the parking lot. There are two zoning categories. The parking lot is the... I understand. Okay.

Any other questions in board discussion?

I'd like to make a comment and a motion. My comment is I've worked for 30 plus years with organizations, ministries, churches, and I love them all and I want them all approved. Number one is as long as the first goal is to achieve what this whole auditorium is complaining about is to really be able to be effective. and impact in a positive way. The reality is having a two-story, multiplying, this is gonna amplify all of their concerns because a building by nature of just multiplying the size is gonna draw in more people. which is what you want. You want to impact, but you want to impact in a positive way. And that's why I would move in to a motion of the request of the staff that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the Board of County Commissioners denial of the special exemption in the associated development order as per the following motion based on the staff's finding and the testimony and the evidence received in the hearing. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request that does not meet the identified portions of the Land Development Code and recommends the Board of County Commissioners to deny the special exemption and associated development order to allow the existing church to expand in the A1 Agriculture and R1AA single-family dwelling zoning districts on approximately 1.93 acres located on the northwest corner of Citrus Street and Laura Avenue.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Recommend tonight. All right. That closes our public hearing items. Into closing business, Joy, do you have anything tonight for the board? I do not. Does the board have anything further to discuss? Meeting adjourned.