Minutes - Planning and Zoning Commission

Tim Smith, Richard Jerman, Carissa Lawhun, Mike Lorenz, Brandy

Present

Ioppolo, and Lourdes Aguirre

Dan Lopez

Absent

Opening Statement

The meeting convened at 6:00 PM with Chairman Carissa Lawhun leading the Pledge of

Allegiance. The Chairman then introduced each Board and Staff member present and read

the procedure for conducting the meeting and voting.

Staff Present

Mike Rhodes, Development Services Director; Joy Giles, Planning Manager; Neysa Borkert,

Deputy County Attorney; Jim Potter, Development Review Engineering Manager; Annie

Sillaway, Principal Planner; Kaitlyn Apgar, Senior Planner; Hilary Padin, Planner; and Tammy

Brushwood, Clerk to the P&Z Board.

Accept Proof of Publication

Motion by Vice Chairman Brandy Ioppolo, seconded by Commissioner Mike Lorenz, to

approve the Proof of Publication. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0.

Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Jerman, Commissioner

Lawhun, Commissioner Lorenz, Commissioner Ioppolo, and

Commissioner Aguirre

Aye:

Commissioner Lopez

Absent:

Approval of Minutes

Motion by Commissioner Tim Smith, seconded by Vice Chairman Brandy Ioppolo, to approve

the July 1, 2026 minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0.

Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Jerman, Commissioner

Lawhun, Commissioner Lorenz, Commissioner Ioppolo, and

Commissioner Aguirre

Aye:

Commissioner Lopez

Absent:

NEW BUSINESS

Technical Review Items:

Approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plan for the Skywater Subdivision containing three

(3) residential lots on 25.24 acres zoned A-1 (Agriculture), located on the west side of

Lake Markham Rd, north of Markham Rd; (Tom Faber, Applicant); District5-Herr

(Kaitlyn Apgar, Senior Planner).

Kaitlyn Apgar, Senior Planner, presented this item as stated in the Staff report. She

further stated that the subject properties have a Suburban Estates Future Land Use

designation allowing a maximum of one (1) dwelling unit per net buildable acre. The

proposed density of 0.71 units per acre complies with this limit. The properties are

zoned A-1 (Agriculture), which requires a minimum lot size of one (1) acre and a

minimum lot width of 150 feet (150’. The proposed lots meet these standards.The

subdivision reconfigures three (3) existing single-family lots and proposes a total of

three (3) dwelling units.

Potable and reclaimed water service will be provided by Seminole County, and

wastewater will be handled by onsite septic systems. The properties are located

within the Markham Road, Longwood-Markham Road, and Lake Markham Road

Scenic Roadway Corridor Overlay. Each lot must maintain a forty-foot (40')

undisturbed landscape buffer along the Lake Markham Road frontage, which will be

shown on the Final Plat.

Wetlands and floodplain areas are located along the western portion of the site at

the rear of the proposed lots. The applicant will delineate these areas at the time of

Site Plan and building permit review, as well as on the Final Plat. Each lot retains

frontage on Lake Markham Road. A twenty-foot (20') right-of-way dedication along

the eastern frontage will be provided by the applicant, as required by Seminole

County Public Works.

Staff requests approval of the Skywater Preliminary Subdivision Plan.

Tom Faber, representing the applicant, stated that he had no further comments and

was available for questions.

No public comments were provided in favor or in opposition to this request.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Brandy Ioppolo, seconded by Commissioner

Lourdes Aguirre, to approve the Skywater Preliminary Subdivision Plan. The motion

passed unanimously, 6-0.

Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Jerman, Commissioner

Lawhun, Commissioner Lorenz, Commissioner Ioppolo, and

Commissioner Aguirre

Aye:

Commissioner Lopez

Absent:

Public Hearing Items:

Tatra Townhomes Rezone - ***CONTINUED FROM THE JULY 1, 2026, P&Z

MEETING*** - Consider a Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to R-3A (Multiple Family

Dwelling) for a seventy (70) unit townhome development on approximately 11.97 acres,

located on the west side of Tatra St, north of W Chapman Rd; (Z2025-016); (Chris

Leppert, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.); District1-Dallari (Kaitlyn Apgar, Senior

Planner).

Kaitlyn Apgar, Senior Planner, presented the item as outlined in the Staff report.

She explained that the property is zoned A-1 (Agriculture) with a Future Land Use

designation of Medium Density Residential, which supports the proposed R-3A

zoning. The Medium Density Residential designation allows up to ten (10) dwelling

units per net buildable acre. The property is currently developed with one (1)

single-family home. The applicant proposes a townhome development with a

maximum of seventy (70) units.

The applicant anticipates seven (7) net buildable acres after accounting for wetland

mitigation and floodplain compensation, which would support the proposed seventy

(70) units under the Future Land Use density standards. The site lies within

Seminole County’s utility service area and will be required to connect to County

utilities.

Access is proposed from Tatra Street, a local road that currently does not meet

County standards. The road provides only forty feet (40’) of right-of-way, while fifty

feet (50’) is required for new residential developments with fifty (50) lots or more,

per the Seminole County Engineering Manual Sec. 1.11.1(a). Tatra Street is publicly

dedicated but not maintained by the County, although it is available for emergency

maintenance as defined in the Seminole County Administrative Code. A sidewalk

does not currently exist along Tatra Street; therefore, the Developer will be required

to construct a five-foot-wide (5’) sidewalk along the site frontage.

Buffers are required along Tatra Street and SR 417. These buffers are shown on

the Development Plan and meet the standards of the Land Development Code.

Buffer details will be finalized at the Final Engineering stage. The R-3A zoning

district requires 25 percent open space, and the Developer proposes to preserve

approximately 28.17 percent of the site as open space.

The School Impact Analysis indicates that the zoned elementary and high schools

are over capacity. However, per the adopted Interlocal Agreement, the School

District determined that students generated by the project can be accommodated

within the adjacent Concurrency Service Area without exceeding the adopted level

of service.

The development was reviewed for consistency with the Land Development Code,

including Section 20.7 and Section 5.20, which incorporates the Public Works

Engineering Manual for transportation standards. As noted, Section. 1.11.1(a)

requires a fifty-foot (50’) right-of-way width for urban residential developments of fifty

(50) lots or more. The insufficient right-of-way width on Tatra Street prevents

compliance with infrastructure, ADA sidewalk, grading, and utility requirements

needed to safely support the proposed number of units. These deficiencies create

potential safety concerns for existing and future residents. The Land Development

Code also requires new developments to provide adequate streets and safe ingress

and egress; Tatra Street does not meet these standards.

The proposal was further reviewed for consistency with the Seminole County

Comprehensive Plan. Although the Future Land Use supports R-3A zoning, the

project does not meet the intent of the Medium Density Residential designation to

minimize traffic impacts on local roads and does not comply with Transportation

Policies 1.3.3 and 2.3.5 because of the insufficient right-of-way.

Community meetings were held on February 27, 2026, and April 21, 2026. Details of

both meetings were included in the agenda package. A supplemental opposition

letter was added to the agenda and distributed in hard copy.

Staff requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve and refer the

Tatra Townhomes Rezone to the Board of County Commissioners, per the motion

provided.

Chris Leppert of Kimley-Horn presented the item and provided slides illustrating the

request to rezone the property from A-1 to R-3A to allow higher density. He

explained that stormwater management, compensating storage, and green space

areas have been incorporated to achieve the proposed seventy units. He noted that

a portion of Tatra Street outside the project area, located between another parcel

and an FDOT pond, has an existing right-of-way width of forty feet (40’). The

applicant can provide one (1) sidewalk, utilities, and adequate street width but would

require an additional ten (10) feet of right-of-way to accommodate a second

sidewalk on the east side.

The applicant requested approval of the rezoning subject to their conditions allowing

the project to proceed to the Board of County Commissioners. The conditions

include demonstrating Final Engineering Plan compliance with applicable storm

water and drainage requirements satisfactory to the Seminole County Engineer, and

providing an additional ten (10) feet of right-of-way for dedication to Seminole

County for Tatra Street improvements, but at the Final Engineering stage, not at the

rezoning stage.

Present with Mr. Leppert were the applicant’s land use Counsel, Hal Kantor, and

other representatives.

Commissioner Richard Jerman asked what the current pavement width is in the

applicant’s design. Mr. Leppert responded that the plan includes a 24-foot pavement

section consisting of two (2) twelve-foot (12’) lanes with curb and gutter on both

sides, within a forty-foot (40’) right-of-way. Commissioner Jerman asked where

utilities would be located, and Mr. Leppert stated that water would be placed on one

side of the road and sanitary sewer on the other, outside the paved area. He noted

that this is the preliminary design, with final engineering to follow the rezoning.

Commissioner Lourdes Aguirre asked whether the proposed modifications would

result in an adults-only condominium development, and if not, how the project would

address school capacity concerns. Mr. Leppert responded that the development

would be a traditional single-family community open to families and children. He

stated that Seminole County Public Schools has capacity for the students generated

by the project, as reflected in the submitted analysis. He noted that the applicant

initially evaluated a maximum density of 118 units but reduced the number to

seventy (70) units after coordinating with Staff to accommodate storm water and

open space requirements. Chairman Lawhun added that capacity exists within the

applicable concurrency service area.

Commissioner Richard Jerman asked whether the applicant was requesting

approval to advance to the Board of County Commissioners while the road work

remained unresolved. Mr. Kantor responded that the project is not yet at the Final

Engineering stage, which is when full compliance with County standards must be

demonstrated. He stated that compliance will be shown at the Preliminary

Subdivision Plan (PSP) stage, concurrent with Final Engineering. The applicant has

several options to obtain the additional right-of-way and, at PSP approval, must

provide the ten feet (10’) of right-of-way required for dedication consistent with the

Comprehensive Plan. He clarified that no waivers or reductions are being

requested; rather, the applicant seeks to align the timing of the right-of-way

dedication with Final Engineering. He noted that the project cannot proceed without

an additional ten (10) feet.

Public comment in opposition included remarks from Clay Archey of Oviedo, a

master-planned community developer in Brevard County and for Lennar Land in

Orlando. He stated that he considers the project a poor proposal and expressed

concerns about the applicant’s community meeting, noting it was held on a Friday

evening, the project manager arrived late, and significant technical issues occurred,

leaving many questions unanswered. He further stated that less than one percent

(1%) of land in Seminole County is industrial and that Alro Steel, a new facility

located just south of the property, operates three (3) shifts per day and employs

80-90 people who rely on this corridor. He expressed concerns regarding safety

along the corridor, particularly with potential trail access from the development to

the Cross Seminole Trail. He stated that the applicant has not established sufficient

trust with the community.

Mr. Leppert, in rebuttal, stated that two (2) community meetings were held and that

the only available venue for the first meeting was on Friday evening; a second

meeting was offered to accommodate those needing an alternative time. He

acknowledged the industrial nature of the area and noted that Kimley-Horn

previously designed roadway improvements for Chapman Road and participated in

the Alro Steel project. He stated that all required traffic and safety standards will be

met at Final Engineering and implemented at that stage. He emphasized that the

request before the Board is solely for a rezone and that the current design is

preliminary.

Mr. Kantor stated in rebuttal that the property is designated for residential use, not

industrial, and that residential development is appropriate near employment centers.

He described the proposal as a sound plan and acknowledged issues with the

community meeting. He stated that the project complies with the Code and

Comprehensive Plan, subject to providing the required engineering and additional

right-of-way, and requested the Board’s approval of the rezoning.

Commissioner Jerman stated that he did not agree with the wording of the first

condition, which requires the applicant to demonstrate Final Engineering Plan

compliance with storm water and related standards. He suggested revising it to

indicate that Seminole County Engineering must approve the conceptual drainage

plan. Mr. Kantor agreed and stated that the condition should reflect that the

applicant will obtain Final Engineering approval from the County Engineer. He noted

that Final Engineering will be completed before the Preliminary Subdivision Plan

(PSP), as required for PSP approval. Commissioner Jerman acknowledged the

clarification, noting that this sequencing aligns with what the applicant is proposing,

though it is not the standard process.

Kaitlyn Apgar, Senior Planner, stated that the County’s standard procedure is to

complete the Preliminary Subdivision Plan first, followed by Final Engineering and

then Plat. She clarified that PSP approval must occur before Final Engineering

approval and noted that a conceptual engineering plan may be submitted with the

PSP.

Mr. Kantor stated that there are several ways to phrase the condition and that, if the

Board approves the request generally as discussed, he has a detailed proposal

ready for the County Attorney’s review. He noted that it was premature to distribute

that document but that it provides a broader definition of the required compliance.

He added that more detailed documentation will be submitted as the project

progresses.

Commissioner Jerman asked whether modifying the first proposed condition

regarding engineering plans and right-of-way would be acceptable to Staff if the

Board conditionally approved it. Ms. Apgar responded that conditions cannot be

applied to a straight zoning request, which is what is before the Commission.

Commissioner Jerman noted that the Board is only acting on the zoning and not the

Site Plan, and Ms. Apgar confirmed this. Deputy County Attorney Neysa Borkert

added that all conditions applicable to straight zoning are contained within the

zoning district itself, with no additional conditions, as the Code provides the

necessary restrictions. Ms. Apgar stated that the applicant will be held to all Land

Development Code standards, including right-of-way width, and that failure to meet

these standards at PSP and Final Engineering would result in Staff not approving

the development. Commissioner Jerman questioned how rezoning could be

appropriate if Staff recommended denial based on unmet conditions. Ms. Borkert

clarified that Staff is recommending denial without conditions. She noted that

straight rezoning typically accounts for required improvements, such as paving or

sidewalks, but in this case the necessary right-of-way does not exist, and the

applicant depends on adjacent property owners to secure it, which is not presently

feasible.

Mr. Kantor, speaking for the applicant, stated that the Board may approve the

rezoning tonight, and the applicant will meet all required conditions at the PSP

stage, as those standards are already contained in the Code. Ms. Borkert confirmed

this, noting that the Board may approve the rezoning, but the project must meet all

development requirements when it advances. She added that the applicant cannot

proceed without securing the additional ten feet of right-of-way from adjacent

property owners, which is necessary for development under the proposed zoning.

Commissioner Tim Smith asked what the next step would be if the request were

denied. Ms. Borkert stated that the Board of County Commissioners will make the

final decision and will consider the Planning and Zoning Commission’s

recommendation of approval or denial.

Board discussion followed.

A motion was made by Commissioner Richard Jerman, seconded by Commissioner

Tim Smith, to approve and refer the Tatra Townhomes Rezone to the Board of County

Commissioners. The motion passed 5-1.

Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Jerman, Commissioner Lorenz,

Commissioner Ioppolo, and Commissioner Aguirre

Aye:

Commissioner Lawhun

Commissioner Lopez

Nay:

Absent:

Jain Society Special Exception - Consider a Special Exception to allow an existing civic

assembly use to expand in the A-1 (Agriculture) and R-1AA (Single-Family Dwelling)

zoning districts on 1.93 acres, located on the northwest corner of Citrus Street and

Laura Avenue; (BS2025-02); (Jain Society of Central Florida, Applicant); District3 -

Constantine; (Hilary Padin, Planner).

Hilary Padin, Planner, presented the item as outlined in the staff report. She stated

that the existing civic assembly development consists of two buildings: a

4,622-square-foot single-story worship hall with approximately 112 seats, and an

8,065-square-foot single-story multi-purpose building. The applicant proposes to

demolish the 8,065-square-foot building and construct a 15,043-square-foot

two-story multi-purpose building in its place. The new building would include a

dining hall and serving kitchen on the first floor, and multi-purpose meeting and

meditation rooms on the second floor, including a 160-seat auditorium. This civic

assembly use is classified as a community facility intended to serve a larger

population and geographic area than neighborhood-level facilities.

The primary operating hours are Sundays from 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., with the

worship hall available to members daily. The applicant has acquired two (2)

adjacent lots at the rear of the site to provide 50 additional parking spaces. With the

existing 32 spaces, the site will have 82 spaces total, exceeding the required 68

spaces by 14 spaces under the Seminole County Land Development Code

(SCLDC). All SCLDC regulations, including buffering and site lighting will apply.

The new building is proposed within the existing footprint, which does not meet the

minimum 50-foot front yard setback, and the applicant will be required to obtain a

front yard setback variance from the Board of Adjustment if this request is approved.

The proposed new parking area on the west side of the property will be accessed

from W. Highland Street and will require improvements by the applicant.

Staff has received six (6) letters of opposition, five (5) from properties within 550

feet of the site. An additional letter of opposition received today was provided on the

dais. In accordance with SCLDC Sec. 30.3.5, the applicant held a community

meeting on April 24, 2025, and a second required meeting on May 4, 2026,

following the proposal of the additional parking lot. Details of both meetings are

included in the agenda package.

Section 30.3.1.5(a) of the Seminole County Land Development Code outlines the

criteria required for approval of a Special Exception. Staff finds that the request

does not meet Criteria 1, 2, and 4.

1. The use requested is not detrimental to the character of the area or

neighborhood or inconsistent with trends of development in the area.

o The Jain Society is located on the corner of Citrus 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 facility is intended to accommodate a larger

number of people than a neighborhood civic assembly facility for a

wider geographic area. A 15,043 square foot, two (2) story community

civic assembly facility directly abutting a neighborhood of single-story

single-family homes is not in character with the trend of development.

2. The use requested does not have an unduly adverse effect on existing traffic

patterns, movements and volumes.

o 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

approximately an 87% increase, introducing dining hall, 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 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

residential neighborhood.

4. The use requested will not adversely affect the public interest:

o Within the A-1 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 (2) 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 serve a county

park, and the proposed two (2) 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:

1. Protects residential neighborhoods.

o 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.

2. Traffic.

o This community assembly facility is accessible only from two (2) lane local

residential roads and therefore does not satisfy the requirement that

access be provided from a collector roadway with four (4) or more lanes,

or from an arterial roadway. The property is located at the intersection of

three (3) 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 (6) letters in opposition based on

existing traffic and parking concerns, with one (1) providing photographs

and a video documenting these conditions.

This property is located in the A-1 zoning district, which requires that additional

criteria be met. Staff finds that the request does not meet the following criteria:

1. The request is consistent with the general zoning plan of the rural zoning

classifications.

o The proposed expansion of the existing facility is not consistent with the

already established use and character of the area as previously

discussed.

2. The request is not highly intensive in nature.

o The existing civic 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 recommends denial of the request. However, if the Board votes to recommend

approval, Staff requests that, in addition to the standard conditions applied to

Special Exceptions, the site be limited to a maximum occupancy of 160 people at

any given time, that no outdoor amplification of sound occur without a permit, and

that the site be required to connect to public potable water and to the City of

Altamonte’s sewer services, if available.

Staff requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend denial to the

Board of County Commissioners of the Special Exception and associated

Development Order to allow expansion of an existing civic assembly use within the

A-1 and R-1AA zoning districts on 1.93 acres located at the northwest corner of

Citrus Street and Laura Avenue.

Commissioner Richard Jerman asked whether Staff’s square-footage calculations

for parking included both buildings on the site. Ms. Padin responded that the

existing temple was included in the parking analysis.

Marc Jones, representing the applicant on behalf of the Jain Society, and their

engineer, Nimesh Bhavsar of Om Engineering Services, addressed the conditions

for approval. He stated that the applicant is not proposing a new use; the facility has

operated at this location for 25 years. The request seeks to improve the existing

building, and Staff has found the proposal consistent with the Low Density

Residential Future Land Use designation. He noted that the new parking plan

provides sufficient capacity for current and future needs and that the proposed

occupancy limit of 160 exceeds their typical attendance. Weekend attendance

averages approximately 80 people, and recent special events have ranged from 120

to 156 attendees, all below the proposed cap.

He explained that the expansion is vertical rather than outward and acknowledged

concerns raised at community meetings regarding building height and second-floor

visibility. He stated that such issues can be addressed during site plan review. The

applicant is willing to connect to city water and sewer services and is agreeable to

Conditions A through H. Mr. Jones emphasized that community input has positively

shaped the project. Parking was the primary concern raised by residents, and the

applicant paused the project for ten months to secure two additional lots to

construct a parking area that resolves the issue.

He noted that the letters of opposition were submitted shortly after the first

community meeting, before the revised parking plan was presented at the second

meeting. He stated that although some residents remain opposed, the parking issue

has been addressed. He also pointed out that the site is adjacent to Sanlando Park,

a 40-acre facility that hosts large events generating significant traffic, which the

surrounding roads already accommodate. He reiterated that the existing use has

operated for 25 years without proposing changes to its activities. He stated there is

no outdoor sound amplification, and any lighting concerns will be addressed during

site plan review. He affirmed that the applicant agrees to all conditions of approval

and requested the Board’s approval so the project may proceed to the next phase,

with remaining concerns to be addressed during site plan review.

No one from the audience spoke in favor of this request.

Public comment was received in written form in opposition to the request, including:

· Richard Smith of Altamonte Springs, citing concerns regarding increased traffic.

· A petition signed by 35 residents residing on W. Citrus Street, W. Highland

Street, Laura Avenue, and W. Orange Street, expressing opposition due to the

proposed two-story expansion, the increased square footage, the removal of two

parcels containing native trees and wildlife, and the loss of existing green space.

· Pam Hardy of Altamonte Springs, expressing general opposition to the

expansion plan.

· Patrick Naas of Altamonte Springs, opposing the removal of trees and the

construction of a parking lot within a residential area.

· Judith Smith of Altamonte Springs, opposing the proposed development due to

incompatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood and concerns

regarding potential decreases in property values.

Public Comment was received from speakers at the meeting in opposition to the

request as follows:

• Blain Wyner - Opposed due to the size and scale of the proposed two-story

building, impacts to privacy and backyard views, incompatibility with the residential

neighborhood, increased traffic, concerns regarding parking lot access, and

precedent for future development.

• Jose Rivera - Lives directly across from the site; concerned about the building’s

height dominating his view, changes to neighborhood character, reduced property

values, increased visitors, traffic, noise, and lighting; expansion viewed as too large

and burdensome to surrounding homes.

• Sandra Keegan - Cited maintenance concerns (gate left open, garbage cans out),

unresolved parking issues, and lack of a confirmed agreement with the County.

Stated the proposed two-story building is not suitable for a residential area and

submitted a petition.

• Scott Wells - Adjacent property owner; concerned about reduced privacy and

property values, second story overlooking his yard, lack of road access for proposed

parking, and loss of the existing tree buffer that currently mitigates park noise.

• Diane Naas - Long-time resident; stated the expansion would make the structure

appear non-residential, removal of trees would change neighborhood character, and

new parking lot lighting would negatively impact a street that currently has no

lighting.

• Dwayne Hardy - Lives two lots west of the site; believes the building would appear

commercial and incompatible with the neighborhood, concerned about increased

lighting and traffic, loss of expected conservation area behind his property, and

potential need for screening such as a brick wall to maintain privacy.

Public Comment was closed.

Marc Jones provided rebuttal comments, stating that there is a misunderstanding

regarding the right-of-way and the trail head and clarified that neither the bike trail

nor the trail head will be affected by the proposed project. He explained that the City

of Altamonte Springs requested the bike trail connection to the park and agreed with

the County that, if access to the two parking lots is required, the City would be

responsible for providing the necessary roadway improvements. He emphasized

that this road work is part of an agreement between the City and the County and

does not alter the bike trail.

Mr. Jones noted that the two parking lots will be secured and closed when not in

use, either with an electric gate or another closure method. He also stated there

was an informal agreement with County Parks and Recreation regarding parking

and that he has email documentation confirming this. He explained that a 25-foot

buffer is planned between Mr. Hardy’s property line and the parking lot which will be

heavily landscaped. Similar buffering is intended along other boundaries of the

property; however, the project has not yet reached the phase where those details

are finalized.

Commissioner Richard Jerman asked for clarification on the height of the proposed

building, noting that it appeared taller than a typical two-story structure. Mr. Jones

responded that the building is a standard two-story design, though he did not have

the exact height available. He stated that there is nothing in the Code that restricts a

two-story building on this property.

Commissioner Lourdes Aguirre stated that she has worked extensively with various

organizations, ministries, and churches, and she values and supports them.

However, she emphasized that the primary goal must be to ensure a positive impact

on the community. She noted that the reality is that a two-story building would

amplify the neighbors’ concerns and that the expansion would result in increased

activity and more people in the area.

A motion was made by Commissioner Lourdes Aguirre, seconded by Vice Chairman

Brandy Ioppolo to deny and refer the Jain Society Special Exception to the Board of

County Commissioners. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0.

Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Jerman, Commissioner

Lawhun, Commissioner Lorenz, Commissioner Ioppolo, and

Commissioner Aguirre

Aye:

Commissioner Lopez

Absent:

CLOSING BUSINESS

Director's Report

No report.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:20 PM.