Title:
title
Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment - Consider transmittal of text amendments to the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Exhibits removing approximately 67 acres, located on the northeast corner of Deleon Street and Florida Avenue, from the Charter Rural Boundary and Rural Area, to state reviewing agencies, pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S. (Strawberry Lane LLC/Manager Chris Dorworth, Applicant) District 2 - Zembower (Maya Athanas, Principal Planner)
end
Agenda Category:
Public Hearing Items
Department/Division:
division
Development Services
body
Authorized By:
Mike Rhodes Development Services Director
Contact/Phone Number:
Maya Athanas, 407-665-7388
Background:
I. Description of Request and Standard of Review
Strawberry Lane, LLC (“Applicant”) is requesting the removal of the following fourteen (14) parcels (“Subject Property”) from the Seminole County Charter Rural Area and to amend the Rural Boundary (collectively “Rural Area” or “East Rural Area”):
25-20-31-5BA-0000-036A
25-20-31-5BA-0000-0360
25-20-31-5BA-0000-053A
25-20-31-5BA-0000-0530
25-20-31-5BA-0000-0540
25-20-31-5BA-0000-054A
25-20-31-5BA-0000-055A
25-20-31-5BA-0000-0550
25-20-31-5BA-0000-0560
25-20-31-5BA-0000-056A
25-20-31-5BA-0000-0340
25-20-31-5BA-0000-034A
25-20-31-5BA-0000-033A
25-20-31-5BA-0000-0330
The Subject Property consists of approximately sixty-seven (67) acres total. The application submitted to the County is very specific in requesting that the Subject Property only be removed from the Rural Area. At this time, the Applicant is not requesting a change to the land use or zoning designation of the Subject Property. However, the Application (attached as exhibit titled “Application”) includes a conceptual plan showing a proposed subdivision with a density of 2.03 dwelling units per net buildable acre and proposed restrictive covenants. Since the Application is requesting removal from the Rural Area with no associated zoning or future land use map amendment, the County is not considering the proposed development covenant or conceptual plan included in the Application.
The Rural Area was adopted as a part of the Seminole County Charter (“Charter”). Any proposed amendment to the Rural Area must meet the standards established in Section 5.2 of the Charter and demonstrate compliance with the Standards for Amending the East Rural Boundary set forth in the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan (“Comprehensive Plan”), pages FLU-12 and FLU-13. Section 5.2(B) of the Charter provides:
The Board of County Commissioners may remove property from the "Rural Area" and amend the Rural Boundary accordingly, by ordinance whenever, in the opinion of the Board, such a change is necessary. Any vote to remove property from the Rural Area, however, shall only be by Supermajority vote of the Board of County Commissioners.
Section 5.2(D) of the Charter gives the Seminole County Board of County Commissioners (“Board”) the power to “enact ordinances to implement” Section 5.2. Implementation of the standard to remove property from the Rural Area was adopted by ordinance in the Comprehensive Plan. The Standards for Amending the Charter Rural Boundary, as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, pages FLU-12 and FLU-13 (“Standards”), require a showing of demonstration of need, a locational analysis of the amendment request and a showing of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and regional plans. Staff’s analysis of these Standards is in Section IV. below.
Further, in River Cross Land Company LLC v. Seminole County case, the court specifically found that Section 5.2 of the Charter incorporates the Comprehensive Plan by reference and the standards for amending the Rural Boundary and removing property from the Rural Area must be read in congruence with the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. River Cross Land Co., LLC v. Seminole County, 376 So.3d 717 (table), 2023 WL 9511246 (Fla. 5th DCA Mar. 21, 2025).
Given the above, the Applicant’s request to amend the Rural Boundary and remove property from the Rural Area must meet Section 5.2 of the Charter and the Standards for Amending the Charter Rural Boundary in the Comprehensive Plan (attached as exhibit “Standards for Amending the Charter Rural Boundary”) to be approved by the Board.
As the local planning agency, pursuant to Section 163.3174, F.S. and Section 7.2 of the Seminole County Land Development Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to make recommendations to the Board on adoption of proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendments. Since the request would amend certain Future Land Use (“FLU”) Exhibits of the Comprehensive Plan (attached as exhibit “FLU Element Exhibits”), the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to review the request and provide a recommendation to the Board.
In conducting its review, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and ultimately the Board, must evaluate the Standards through consideration of Applicant submitted data and analysis including; needs analysis statements, economic impact statements, environmental impact statements, and land use compatibility analyses. If removal of the Subject Property from the Rural Boundary is approved, this documentation is required to be submitted to state reviewing agencies as support documents relating to the text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
County staff has reviewed the Applicant’s submittal for consistency with the Standards outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and determined the Standards have not been affirmatively met. Staff recommends the request be denied due to insufficient data and analysis to support removal from the Rural Area, as further discussed below.
II. The Rural Area
General Information
The Rural Area is approximately 67,114 acres of land, a majority of which has Future Land use designations for rural use. Approximately 46% of the East Rural Area is publicly owned (31,022 acres +/-). According to the County’s GIS data, 672 parcels in the Rural Area have an agricultural tax classification, which totals 16,028 acres, and accounts for approximately 44% of the privately owned land in the Rural Area.
Comprehensive Plan Adoption
The County’s first Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1977, and land located in today’s East Rural Area were mostly designated as the General Rural Future Land Use designation, encouraging one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres, while allowing one (1) dwelling unit per acre. The General Rural Future Land Use designation was established for rural uses and attendant nonresidential uses, residences on five (5) acre sites, and recreational or low intensity uses.
Adoption of the 1987 Seminole County Comprehensive Plan Interim Plan Update (repealing the 1977 County Comprehensive Plan) designated General Rural and Suburban Estates Future Land Use designations, defined as one (1) dwelling unit per acre, predominantly over lands comprising today’s East Rural Area (Ordinance 87-14, December 8, 1987).
In 1991, the Comprehensive Plan was updated pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985, later codified into Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (“1991 Update”). During transmittal of the update to the Florida Département of Community Affairs (“DCA”), the DCA objected to the proposed amendments contained in the 1991 Update stating that allowable residential densities in the East Rural Area would encourage the proliferation of urban sprawl and leapfrog development beyond urban service areas in violation of Chapter 163, F.S. The DCA’s objection is attached as exhibit “July 1991 ORC Report.” In response to the objections and findings of the DCA, the County commissioned an independent study titled the 1991 East Seminole County Rural Area Plan to address DCA’s concerns. Incorporation of the recommendations in the 1991 East Rural Area Plan into the Comprehensive Plan resulted in withdrawal of the DCAs objections to the 1991 Update to the Comprehensive Plan.
The 1991 Update established the Rural-3, Rural-5, and Rural-10 future land use designations, as recommended in the 1991 East Seminole County Rural Area Plan, and included a study area boundary separating the County’s urban area from the East Rural Area. Adoption of these three (3) rural designations was in response to DCA’s finding that allowing one (1) dwelling unit per acre in the East Rural Area would constitute urban sprawl and recommended larger lot sizes to remove DCA’s objections.
In addition to these rural future land use designations, the County included policies to (a) establish agricultural primacy; (b) provide for rural cluster development; (c) provide a scenic roadway overlay; (d) provide methods for the provision of water and sewer service; (e) protect natural resources; and (f) manage rural neighborhoods.
Charter Adoption
In 2004, Ordinance 2004-36 adopted an amendment to the Charter to: (a) adopt a Rural Boundary as more delineated on that certain map titled "Rural Boundary Map" and dated August 10, 2004; and (b) adopt a Rural Area as described in that certain Legal Description titled "Legal Description for Rural Area,” both of which are on file in the official records of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners and in the FLU Exhibit of the Comprehensive Plan.
Ordinance 2004-36 also gave the Board the power to remove property by ordinance whenever, in the opinion of the Board, such a change is necessary and to adopt implementing ordinances concerning the Rural Boundary and Rural Area. This amendment to the Charter was approved by the voters of Seminole County on November 2, 2004.
Supermajority Requirement for Removal
Section 4.2 B of the Charter sets forth the procedures for amending the Charter via the Charter Review Commission (“CRC”). Amendments to the Charter through the CRC process require the Board to appoint a 15-member CRC at least 12 months before the general elections every 6 years. Once appointed, the CRC is tasked with reviewing the Charter and bringing forward any proposed amendment(s) it deems advisable for placement on the general election ballot.
In August 2023 the Board approved a 15-member CRC. This CRC first convened on October 5, 2023 and continued meeting through June 20, 2024. During this period, the CRC held three (3) public hearings May 2, May 16, and May 30, 2024 to receive public input on two proposed Charter amendments. After receiving input from the public and upon further discussion and deliberation, the CRC voted, by a majority of its members, to put two (2) Charter amendments on the ballot. One of those amendments, to Section 5.2 B, requires a supermajority vote of the Board to remove property from the Rural Area and amend the Rural Boundary accordingly. As required by Section 4.2 B of the Charter, this amendment was placed on the November 2024 ballot by resolution of the Board and approved by the voters of Seminole County.
III. Site Analysis
The Subject Property is approximately sixty-seven (67) acres, located south of Lake Jesup, east of SR 417, and wholly within the Seminole County East Rural Area. There are fourteen (14) parcels total, with six (6) of those being zoned A-3, and eight (8) being zoned A-5. All fourteen (14) have an agricultural exemption from the Seminole County Property Appraiser’s office for bonafide agricultural operations. Per the Applicant’s submittal, Part IV of the Petition, “This is a cattle pasture. It has been plowed, planted, harvested, and grazed for decades.” The subject properties are not located withing the County’s water or sewer service area.
The total linear feet of the perimeter of the Subject Property is approximately 10,446 feet. Of that area, approximately 1,282 feet of the Subject Property is located across the street from the Preserve at Black Hammock subdivision and approximately 283 feet of the Subject Property is located across the street from Southern Oaks subdivision. Both subdivisions are located across a public road and neither share a property boundary with the Subject Property. Approximately 8,240 feet of the Subject Property’s boundary is adjacent to land designated for Rural uses in the County and 601 feet is adjacent to land with a FLU designation of Rural Residential in the City of Winter Springs. Therefore, the majority (85%) of the Subject Property’s boundary is adjacent to land designated for rural uses.
There are six (6) parcels (totaling approximately 29.65 acres) that physically share property boundaries with the subject property, all of which are zoned agriculture, all of which are within the boundary of the East Rural Area, and five of which have agricultural exemptions for bonafide agricultural uses.
Both the A-3 and A-5 zoning districts allow single family residences and various agricultural, public and civic uses. Based on the approximate acreage, the subject property could potentially be developed as a 17-unit subdivision under the existing zoning and Future Land Use (“FLU”) designations. This could be achieved through a standard subdivision, or through clustering, which would allow individual residential lots to be as little as one (1) acre, so long as the density is consistent with that allowed by the FLU designations, in this case R-3 and R-5.
The A-3 zoning could allow up to 9.56 units, and the A-5 zoning could allow up to 7.65 units. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code allow rural subdivisions and have unique standards to encourage clustering, which allow smaller lot sizes and the protection of natural resources. In addition, the A-3 and A-5 zoning districts allow various other uses related to agricultural activities. Given the foregoing, there is current development potential on the Subject Property within the Rural Area.
IV. Staff Analysis on the Request and the Standards for Amending the Rural Boundary
Any proposed amendment to the Rural Boundary to remove property from the Rural Area must meet the standards in the Charter and demonstrate compliance with the Standards for Amending the East Rural Boundary contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The following is Staff’s analysis of the Applicant’s submittal and the Standards that must be met.
Standard A: Demonstration of Need:
Standard A requires that data and analysis be provided to document that:
1. additional urban lands are needed to accommodate population, housing or employment projected for the horizon year of this Plan, based on the population projections used by the current version of the Comprehensive Plan;
2. additional lands are required to support affordable, workforce or obtainable housing opportunities and choices in proximity to employment opportunities and public transportation or that such amendment is needed to achieve the adopted redevelopment goals of the County because of the lack of suitable redevelopable or vacant land within the urban area;
3. additional lands are required to support the adopted economic development goals of the County because of the lack of suitable vacant or redevelopable land within the urban area; or
4. that additional lands are required to provide for a critically needed public facility, such as a public school, because of the lack of suitable vacant or redevelopable land within the urban area.
The Comprehensive Plan requires that data and analysis be in the form of needs analysis statements and/or economic impact statements. The Applicant’s submittal does not include the required data and analysis to demonstrate compliance with Standard A, nor does it provide a needs analysis or an economic impact statement. In Section IV, Threshold Four, Standard 2 of the Applicant’s “Petition”, the Applicant cites the 2025 Shimburg Center for Housing Studies report in an attempt to show that there is a 1,945-unit deficit in workforce housing (0-120% AMI) within the County. However, there is no accompanying data or analysis to support that the housing deficit is in Seminole County alone, or that undeveloped land outside the Rural Area could not accommodate for the development of these units. The Orlando-Kissimmee-Sandford MSA, where the deficit exists, includes all of Lake, Orange, Osceola and Seminole Counties. Thus, the 1,945-unit deficit is spread over all four counties and may or may not reflect the potential deficit in Seminole County. This one data point, without any further data or analysis, does not demonstrate that additional land is required to support affordable, workforce or obtainable housing opportunities.
Section IV, Threshold Four, Standard 2 of the Applicant’s “Petition” also cites the County’s Envision Seminole 2045 report and states there is a projected need for approximately 45,000 additional housing units by 2045. While this is correct for the entire incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County, the Applicant asserts from this that there will be a shortfall in single-family residences within unincorporated areas of the County. However, the Applicant provides no data and analysis to support this assertion and it is factually incorrect.
The horizon year of the Comprehensive Plan is 2045 and the population projections are based on the County’s vision plan: Envision Seminole 2045. The County is expected to grow by 90,000 residents by 2045. This growth includes both unincorporated Seminole County and the incorporated cities. The County commissioned more localized projections which estimated an increase of approximately 40,000 residents* in the unincorporated areas. (*Final Report: Population Projections by Jurisdiction, Traffic Analysis Zone, and Utility Service Area, The Balmoral Group. June 26, 2020.) This is little less than half of the anticipated growth and is equivalent to approximately 16,000 housing units that would need to be constructed in unincorporated Seminole County to meet demand by 2045.
The overall conclusion of the Envision Seminole 2045 plan was that the current future land use designations in unincorporated areas of the County can accommodate the growth projected through 2045. This conclusion was based on several key assumptions including that all vacant land designated for residential development is developed at 80% or more of the maximum adopted future land use density.
Section IV, Threshold Four, Standard 2 of the Applicant’s Petition states that “Seminole County’s population is projected to grow from 477,455 (2021) to 554,387 by 2040, 16% increase requiring substantial additional residential land.” This statement is also incorrect and unsupported by data and analysis. As provided above, the Envision Seminole 2045 plan concluded that the current future land use designations in unincorporated Seminole County can accommodate growth through 2045. Therefore, no “substantial additional residential land” is required as asserted by the Applicant.
Since the Envision 2045 Plan, the County has continued analyzing the housing market and its needs and has adopted additional housing development options to address affordable, workforce and obtainable housing and to facilitate development in achieving maximum residential densities:
• Missing Middle Zoning District and Design Standards
• Affordable Housing Density bonus
• Alternative Design Standards
• Un-combination of platted lots
• Increased accessory dwelling unit allowances
However, even without the utilization of the above density bonuses or alternative design standards, the existing land use and zoning designations in unincorporated Seminole County are sufficient to provide the 16,000 dwelling units necessary by the year 2045.
Based on staff’s analysis of the GIS data concerning zoning and unimproved property only within the Rural Area, there is approximately 4,590 dwelling units available to be built in the Rural Area on the privately owned land at this time. Further, each unit is entitled to construct an accessory dwelling unit which could double the number of dwelling units within the Rural Area.
In addition to the existing entitlements, the County has administrative processes, such as the lot split and minor plat processes, which allow residential properties to be split into two (2) or four (4) lots administratively as long as minimum lot size and density are met. These processes are allowed within and outside of the Rural Area.
Given the foregoing, the Applicant has not met Standard A and has not demonstrated that additional land is needed to accommodate development within the County. Staff issued comments to the Applicant requesting data and analysis to support Standard A. Staff’s response to the initial application is attached as exhibit “County Initial Response Document.” The Applicant provided a response to staff comments on August 21, 2026 (attached as exhibit “Applicant Resubmittal”); however, no data and analysis was included in the resubmittal addressing Standard A. Thus, the application does not affirmatively meet Standard A.
Standard B: Locational Analysis of Amendments
Standard B requires that data and analysis be provided to conduct a locational analysis showing all the following:
1. Availability of facilities and services, and the orderly, efficient and cost-effective provision of service, given that the level of service for potable water and sanitary sewer in the East Rural Area is on-site service, and that availability of public school capacity in the East Rural Area is limited;
2. Fiscal capacity to provide adopted levels of service;
3. Protection of environmental and natural resources, including regionally significant natural areas.
a. Analysis that the amendment would not negatively impact the interconnected system of wetlands/uplands that exist in the East Rural Area and provide a high quality mosaic of regional significance. This analysis must describe how the amendment protects the wetlands/uplands systems, including:
1. Retaining the connectivity of wetlands;
2. Retaining/Improving the ecological quality of wetlands; and
3. Retaining the functional and structure values of the types of wetlands in the East Rural Area.
b. If amendment to the East Rural Boundary is approved, developments shall avoid impact to wetlands to the maximum extent possible by utilization of clustering and other special techniques;
4. Contiguity to existing boundary and urban development patterns so as to discourage urban sprawl; and
5. Adequate transitions to maintain compatibility with adjacent, existing communities.
Subsections 1 and 2 require demonstration of availability of facilities and services, and fiscal capacity to provide adopted levels of service. Section II, subsection II.E. and Section IV, Threshold Four, Standard 3 of the Petition indicates there is water and sewer availability from City of Winter Springs, City of Oviedo, and Seminole County. However, availability letters from either the City of Winter Springs or the City of Oviedo have not been provided with the Application. Seminole County does not have water or sewer lines in the area to serve the parcels. Thus, the Applicant has not shown that utilities are available to the Subject Property.
Additionally, other facilities and services may include, but are not limited to, emergency services, school capacity, and solid waste service. The request did not address these, nor did it provide any confirmation or data to show that these services would be available to the Subject Property with the necessary capacity. Staff issued a comment to the Applicant requesting a utility availability letter(s) and information to demonstrate availability of services. The Applicant provided a response to staff comments on August 21, 2026; however, a utility letter was not included in the resubmittal. Thus, the Application does not provide the data and analysis required to show the availability of facilities and services to the Subject Property if removed from the Rural Area as per subsections 1 and 2 of Standard B.
Subsection 3 requires the request to demonstrate protection of environmental and natural resources, including regionally significant natural areas, and avoidance of impact to wetlands to the maximum extent possible by utilization of clustering and other special techniques.
The environmental report supplied by the applicant and conducted by Bio-Tech consulting (“Environmental Report”) indicates the presence of an eagle’s nest on an adjacent parcel and the 330 ft buffer required for the eagle’s nest encroaches onto five (5) of the parcels included in the request. Further, the Environmental Report indicates that wetlands are present on two of the parcels and connects to wetlands on two (2) adjacent parcels not included in the request. The Environmental Report indicates the Subject Property is located in the crested caracara, snail kite, and scrub-jay consultation areas. There is a regulatory floodway along the entire western boundary of the Subject Property
Part II.B of the request states the “Property is fully developable land.” However, the wetland delineation provided by the applicant and completed by Bio-Tech Consulting Inc. shows the presence of wetlands. Wetlands and floodplain cannot be counted towards the net buildable area of the site.
Staff issued a response to the applicant, notifying them that to comply with Standard B, subsection 3, the request must demonstrate how the on-site wetland will be protected and include an analysis as to how the request will not negatively impact the interconnected wetlands/uplands system in the East Rural Area. The Applicant provided a response to staff comments on August 21, 2026; however, the response included information that is not accurate. In particular, as it relates to the wetlands on the property, the response dated August 21, 2026 states “The two systems are discrete and internally bounded, surrounded on all sides by upland pasture within the Property.” The wetland map provided by the Applicant and produced by Bio-Tech Consulting indicates the wetlands appear to be connected to an adjacent property (parcel 25-20-31-5BA-0000-0350) not included in the request.
However, the applicant’s response dated August 21, 2026, also states “…consistent with the Plan’s own policies, post-development wetland and floodprone areas will be dedicated to the County as a conservation easement, placing both systems under permanent protection in the County’s own hands.” This statement appears to discuss “post-development wetlands,” while a following statement in the response indicates the mitigation and development of the wetlands. If the applicant agrees to place a perpetual conservation easement over the existing wetlands rather than mitigate them, it could be determined the request meets Standard B subsection 3.
Subsection 4 requires contiguity to existing boundary and urban development patterns so as to discourage urban sprawl. As stated in Section II of this staff report, the R-3 and R-5 FLU designations were adopted to discourage Urban Sprawl. Urban Sprawl is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as:
a development pattern characterized by low density, automobile dependent development with either a single use or multiple uses that are not functionally related, requiring extension of public facilities and services in an inefficient manner and failing to provide a clear separation between urban and rural uses. The future land use element and any amendment to the future land use element shall discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl.
The Comprehensive Plan also lists primary indicators that a plan or plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of Urban Sprawl.
The removal of the Subject Property from the Rural Area and the continuation of the development pattern of the adjacent subdivisions (Preserve at Black Hammock and Southern Oaks) would be Urban Sprawl by definition of the Comprehensive Plan and the State (see objection A.10.e on pages 20-22 of the ORC Report dated July 15, 1991), because it would require the extension of public facilities and services to current and historic rural uses and would not provide a clear separation between urban and rural uses. Currently, there is a defined boundary and separation between the Rural Area and more urban uses by DeLeon Street and Florida Avenue. Granting this request would clearly move that boundary and result in Urban Sprawl. The Application does not meet Standard B subsection 4.
Subsection 5 requires the application to demonstrate adequate transitions to maintain compatibility with adjacent, existing communities.
The Subject Property surrounds two parcels that would remain in the Rural Area, which are indicated on the exhibit titled “Map of Subject Property” ( parcel numbers 25-20-31-5BA-0000-035A and 25-20-31-5BA-0000-0350). Further, five of the six parcels that share property lines with the Subject Property have an agricultural exemption from the Seminole County Property Appraiser. The removal of the subject properties without the removal of parcels 25-20-31-5BA-0000-035A and 25-20-31-5BA-0000-0350 would create an enclave of rural land use, separated from the remainder of the Rural Area and ongoing agricultural uses.
Staff issued a response to the Applicant requesting a land use compatibility analysis to determine whether the request meets Standard B, subsection 5. The Applicant provided a response to this comment with its August 21, 2026 resubmittal and included a heading titled “LAND USE COMPATIBILITY AND TRANSITIONS ANALYSIS.” However, it did not provide a land use compatibility analysis with the adjacent rural parcels. The mere assertion of compatibility with adjacent properties without a land use compatibility analysis is not sufficient data and analysis to meet Standard B subsection 5.
Standard C: Mandatory Consistency with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Plan and Regional Plans
Standard C requires that data and analysis be provided to show consistency as follows:
1. Any proposed amendment to the East Rural Boundary must undergo an assessment of consistency with applicable goals, objectives and policies of this Plan, the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council’s Strategic Regional Policy Plan, and the Central Florida Regional Growth Vision.
Standard C requires that the proposed amendment must undergo an assessment of consistency. After reviewing the initial request and the applicant’s resubmittal dated August 21, 2026, the following analysis of the applicable Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies, the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council’s Strategic Regional Policy Plan, and the Central Florida Regional Growth Vision has been completed by staff:
OBJECTIVE FLU 3.1 and OBJECTIVE FLU 3.2: PRESERVE RURAL CHARACTER IN EAST SEMINOLE COUNTY: These Objectives require the County to implement and enforce policies and programs designed to preserve and reinforce the positive qualities of the rural lifestyle presently enjoyed in Seminole County, particularly the East Rural Area as defined in Objective 3.2, and thereby ensure the rural lifestyle is available to future residents. The removal of approximately 67 acres from the Rural Area does not appear consistent with this Objective as it removes property with a current and ongoing bonafide agricultural use from the Rural Area and proposes future residential development, according to the conceptual site plan submitted, at a density of over two (2) dwelling units per acre. This would be approximately a 700% increase in the allowable number of residential units and would not preserve the current rural character of the Subject Property.
Policy FLU 3.1.1 Rural Character of the East Rural Area: states “The County shall preserve the rural character of the East Rural Area in accordance with Objective FLU 3.2 Preserve Rural Character In East Seminole County and all applicable policies within this Goal.” The removal of approximately 67 acres from the Rural Area does not appear consistent with this Policy for the reasons stated above.
Policy FLU 3.2.2 Protection of Natural Resources: The applicant’s resubmittal dated August 21, 2026 states “The proposal protects the natural resources actually present. The wetlands on the Property were professionally delineated by Bio-Tech Consulting at the Applicant’s own initiative; the conceptual plan avoids and buffers them.” If the existing wetlands are placed in a perpetual conservation easement dedicated to the County, it could be determined the request is consistent with this Policy.
OBJECTIVE FLU 3.3 PRESERVE EXISTING RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS: Requires the protection of existing rural character in established, existing, large-lot residential neighborhoods within the specified East Rural Boundary and rural neighborhoods within the urban area of Seminole County. The applicant’s response dated August 21, 2026, stated “No rural neighborhood is degraded, encroached upon, or altered by the proposal, because no rural neighborhood adjoins it.”
However, the County’s analysis finds this statement to be false. Only 15% of the Subject Property’s boundary is located across the street from the Preserve at Black Hammock and Southern Oaks subdivisions which are residential subdivisions and not rural neighborhoods. These properties are also located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the cities of Oviedo and Winter Springs, respectively and not in unincorporated Seminole County. The six parcels that physically share property boundaries with the Subject Property all are zoned Agriculture, all are within the boundary of the Rural Area, and five have agricultural classifications for bonafide agricultural uses. Approximately 85% of the Subject Property is adjacent to land with rural land use designations. Thus, a majority of the Subject Property’s border is adjacent to agricultural and rural residential uses, not urban uses and therefore, the request is not consistent with this Objective.
OBJECTIVE FLU 3.4 MAINTAIN THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND RURAL USES: identifies agricultural, rural, and nature-based businesses as economic generators that contribute to the County’s long-term food security, maintain open lands, and preserve rural character. It states, “The County shall encourage the preservation of agriculture, rural, and nature-based uses as an economically viable long- and short-term use of land in rural areas.”
The Applicant’s Petition states “The proposal affects no functioning agricultural economy. The Property’s agricultural status consists of a cattle grazing lease of the kind maintained for tax-classification purposes - the same status held by adjoining parcels - and its removal from the Rural Area neither converts productive farmland nor impairs any agricultural operation on any other parcel.”
To qualify for the agricultural tax classification, Section 193.461(3)(a) F.S. requires information to be submitted to the property appraiser to establish that the property is being used for bona fide agricultural purposes. “Bona fide agricultural purposes” is defined as “good faith commercial agricultural use of the land.” See Section 193.461(3)(b), F.S. A property with an agricultural tax classification is required to be used for commercial agricultural purposes to avail itself of the tax exemption. Thus, the Applicant’s claim that no agricultural business operations are being conducted on the Subject Property are false as the Application states there is an ongoing agricultural use on the Subject Property and the Subject Property has had the agricultural tax classification for a number of years.
The Applicant states the Subject Property is currently used for cattle grazing. The removal of cattle grazing land could have an economic impact on the leaseholder and owner of the cattle and the Subject Property owner. The Application did not provide an economic impact statement as to the effect of removal of the Subject Property from the Rural Area on the economic viability of long and short term agricultural uses as required by this Objective. Without quantifiable data and analysis, the County cannot find the request to be consistent with this Objective.
The Central Florida Regional Growth Vision (“How Shall We Grow?”) is a vision plan that was used to write the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council’s Strategic Regional Policy Plan (“Policy Plan”).
Principle 1 of How Shall We Grow is to preserve open space, recreational areas, farmland, water resources, and regionally significant natural areas. As a method to achieve this principle, How Shall We Grow suggests that development be focused in existing centers and other areas that not pose significant risk to environmental resources and that reduce overall land required to support future growth. Further, it encourages sustainable agriculture by suggesting agriculture remain a viable option for our land to provide food supply and to serve export markets. Local governments, land owners, and farmers should work together to promote the importance of agriculture, to retain suitable lands in agriculture, and to ensure that farming remains economically and environmentally viable.
Policy 4.6 of the Policy Plan is to promote agriculture as a viable land use and integral economic industry.
For the same reasons as stated in the analysis for consistency with OBJECTIVE FLU 3.4 of the Comprehensive Plan, the Application is not consistent with Principle 1 of How Shall We Grow or Policy 4.6 of the Policy Plan.
V. Conclusion
According to the plain language of the Comprehensive Plan, the Standards are required to be evaluated by means of the preparation of needs analysis statements, economic impact statements, environmental impact statements, and land use compatibility analyses. With the exception of the environmental data and analysis provided, the Application does not provide the required data and analyses to meet the Standards and support removal of the Subject Property from the Rural Area. Given the foregoing analysis, staff finds as follows:
Standard A Demonstration of Need: The request does not affirmatively meet this standard. The request was not supported by appropriate data and analysis.
Standard B Locational Analysis of Amendments: Service and facility capacity was not addressed to meet subsections 1 and 2. The request may meet subsection 3 by dedication of a perpetual conservation easement over the existing wetlands. Data was provided for subsection 3 in the form of environmental mapping. The removal of the Subject Property from the Rural Area and the continuation of the development pattern of the adjacent subdivisions would be Urban Sprawl by definition of the County’s Comprehensive Plan and the State and thus, does not affirmatively meet subsection 4. The Applicant provided assertions as to potential compatibility with adjacent subdivisions, based on the Applicant’s conceptual plan, but did not submit a land use compatibility analysis and consider the adjacent rural lands. The mere assertion of compatibility with adjacent properties without a land use compatibility analysis is not sufficient data and analysis to meet subsection 5. The request does not affirmatively meet all subsections of the standard.
Standard C Mandatory Consistency with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Plan and Regional Plans: The request did not affirmatively prove consistency with the Comprehensive Plan or Regional Plans.
The request was found to be inconsistent with OBJECTIVE FLU 3.1 and OBJECTIVE FLU 3.2: PRESERVE RURAL CHARACTER IN EAST SEMINOLE COUNTY, Policy FLU 3.1.1 Rural Character of the East Rural Area, OBJECTIVE FLU 3.3 PRESERVE EXISTING RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS, and OBJECTIVE FLU 3.4 MAINTAIN THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND RURAL USES. Without quantifiable data and analysis, the County cannot find the request to be consistent with these Objectives and Policies.
The request may be found to be consistent with Policy FLU 3.2.2 Protection of Natural Resources through a perpetual conservation easement dedicated to the County.
The request was found to be inconsistent with Principle 1 of The Central Florida Regional Growth Vision and Policy 4.6 of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council’s Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Without quantifiable data and analysis, the County cannot find the request to be consistent with this Principle and Policy.
Requested Action:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny transmittal of the text amendments to the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Exhibits removing approximately 67 acres, located on the northeast corner of Deleon Street and Florida Avenue, from the Charter Rural Boundary and Rural Area to state reviewing agencies, pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.