Minutes - Planning and Zoning Commission

Richard Jerman, Carissa Lawhun, Dan Lopez, and Brandy Ioppolo

Tim Smith, Mike Lorenz, and Lourdes Aguirre

Present

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,

Dagmarie Segarra, Deputy Development Services Director, Neysa Borkert, Deputy County

Attorney, Joe Lofaso, Assistant County Engineer, Joy Giles, Planning Manager, Annie

Sillaway, Principal Planner, Kaitlyn Apgar, Senior Planner, and Tammy Brushwood, Clerk to

the P&Z Board.

Accept Proof of Publication

Motion by Vice Chairman Brandy Ioppolo, seconded by Commissioner Dan Lopez, to approve

the Proof of Publication. The motion passed unanimously, 4-0.

Commissioner Jerman, Commissioner Lawhun, Commissioner

Lopez, and Commissioner Ioppolo

Aye:

Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Lorenz, and Commissioner

Aguirre

Absent:

Approval of Minutes

Motion by Commissioner Richard Jerman, seconded by Commissioner Ioppolo, to approve

the June 3, 2026 Minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 4-0.

Commissioner Jerman, Commissioner Lawhun, Commissioner

Lopez, and Commissioner Ioppolo

Aye:

Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Lorenz, and Commissioner

Aguirre

Absent:

NEW BUSINESS

Public Hearing Items:

Tatra Townhomes Rezone - ***REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE TO THE AUGUST

5TH 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.) District 1 - Dallari (Kaitlyn Apgar, Senior

Planner)

Kaitlyn Apgar, Senior Planner, stated that the applicant is requesting a continuance of

this item. Chairman Carissa Lawhun stated that one public comment card was received

and she asked the audience if any member would like to speak that cannot make the

next meeting in August. No one responded. The meeting was continued to the August

5, 2026 P&Z meeting.

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

Dan Lopez to Continue the Tatra Townhomes Rezone to the August 5, 2026 Planning

& Zoning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 4-0.

Commissioner Jerman, Commissioner Lawhun, Commissioner

Lopez, and Commissioner Ioppolo

Aye:

Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Lorenz, and Commissioner

Aguirre

Absent:

Mission BBQ Special Exception - Consider a Special Exception to allow a restaurant

within 1,000 feet of a school to obtain an alcohol license in the PD (Planned

Development) district on 0.57 acres, located on the south side of W Lake Mary

Boulevard, east of Sun Drive; BS2025-06 (William Leahy, Applicant) District 4 -

Lockhart (Kaitlyn Apgar, Senior Planner).

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

further stated that the property has a Future Land Use of Commercial and a zoning

designation of PD (Planned Development). The restaurant is part of an existing

shopping center and is identified in the ETOR PD as Lot 2 of Tract D. The Mission

BBQ establishment currently operates an existing bonafide restaurant and requests the

Special Exception in order to serve beer and wine for on-site consumption. A bonafide

restaurant is considered an establishment where the majority of sales and profit is from

the serving of meals and not from the serving of alcoholic beverages, per Seminole

County Land Development Code (SCLDC) Sec. 30.6.6.2 (a)(1). Sec. 30.6.6.2(b) of the

SCLDC requires that any establishment selling alcoholic beverages for on-premise

consumption shall maintain a minimum separation distance of 1,000 feet (air-line

measurement) from lot line of the establishment to the nearest lot line of the school.

The subject property is approximately 501 feet from the closest school known as the

Arbor School of Central Florida, and thus does not meet the 1,000-foot separation,

requiring the Special Exception. The proposed development is consistent with the

Special Exception criteria as stated in the following slides and Staff report. The subject

property is within an established shopping plaza where there are other restaurants and

commercial uses of similar nature. The requested Special Exception for an alcohol

license is consistent with the commercial nature of the area and is ancillary to the

property’s function as a restaurant. Considering the property is within a shopping plaza,

traffic patterns and calculations have already been accounted for to support the

commercial use. The site gains access via the internal drive aisle that connects to Sun

Drive, thus reducing any curb cuts onto a main arterial. Adequate parking meeting

SCLDC standards is currently being provided on-site. The existing restaurant is

consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the Commercial Future Land Use

allows for a variety of commercial establishments intended to be located along major

roadways. Lake Mary Boulevard is a principal arterial roadway, therefore the restaurant

meets this intent. Within this planned shopping center and along the W Lake Mary

Boulevard corridor exists numerous restaurants that serve alcohol. The subject

property is not in proximity to residentially developed areas. This area is considered a

major commercial node and the ancillary serving of alcohol by a bonafide restaurant is

considered customary in practice. In compliance with Seminole County Land

Development Code, the Applicant conducted a community meeting on May 1, 2026.

Details of the community meeting have been provided in the agenda package.

Staff requests the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the Board of County

Commissioners approve the Special Exception and associated Development Order,

per the following motion:

Based on Staff’s findings and the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the

Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request meets the identified portions of the

Land Development Code and recommends the Board of County Commissioners

approve the Special Exception and associated Development Order to allow, with

conditions, a restaurant within 1,000 feet of a school to obtain an alcohol license in the

PD (Planned Development) district on 0.57 acres, located on the south side of W Lake

Mary Boulevard, east of Sun Drive.

Commissioner Richard Jerman addressed Staff that he was disappointed that

(courtesy) notices were sent to everybody based on the required Code distances, but

they didn’t notify either one of the schools and he asked why they didn’t.

Commissioner Jerman further stated that he guesses the schools are far enough back

that they didn’t make the list. He asked if we heard from any of the schools, and Ms.

Apgar responded that she had not.

Deborah Maine, for the applicant, of Lake Mary, Florida, stated that she is representing

Mission BBQ. She further stated that based on their other Mission BBQ locations, the

sale of alcohol is less than 1% of their sales. They are trying to compete with the

surrounding restaurants who offer beer and wine with a meal.

No one from the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to this request.

Public comment was closed.

Based on Staff’s findings and the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the

Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request meets the identified portions of the

Land Development Code and recommends the Board of County Commissioners

approve the Special Exception and associated Development Order to allow, with

conditions, a restaurant within 1,000 feet of a school to obtain an alcohol license in the

PD (Planned Development) district on 0.57 acres, located on the south side of W Lake

Mary Boulevard, east of Sun Drive.

Motion by Vice Chairman Brandy Ioppolo, seconded by Commissioner Dan Lopez, to

approve the Mission BBQ Special Exception. The motion passed unanimously, 4-0.

Commissioner Jerman, Commissioner Lawhun, Commissioner

Lopez, and Commissioner Ioppolo

Aye:

Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Lorenz, and Commissioner

Aguirre

Absent:

Kentucky Street Special Exception - Request for a Special Exception for a proposed

143-foot communication tower and four (4) variances to the required separation

distance from properties with existing single family use, located on the north side of

Kentucky Street, approximately 1,700 feet east of Skyway Drive; Z2025-15 (Mary Doty

Solik, Applicant) District 5 - Herr (Annie Sillaway, Principal Planner).

Annie Sillaway, Principal Planner, presented this item as stated in the Staff report. She

further stated that the request has been evaluated in accordance with the provisions of

the Seminole County Land Development Code including;

1. Section 30.6.7, which establishes performance standards for communication towers

including setbacks and separation from uses between towers and height;

2. Section 30.3.1.5(a), which establishes the Special Exception criteria, applicable

additional use standards and the A-1 criteria;

3. Section 30.6.7.3(b), Table 1, which establishes the variances criteria for

communication towers, including aesthetic impacts, compatibility with abutting

properties, additional provisions per section 30.6.7.1(b);

4. Consideration of Section 30.43(3), which establishes the standard variance criteria

applicable to all variance requests.

The Applicant is requesting approval of a Special Exception to construct a 143-foot

monopole communication tower designed to accommodate up to three wireless

carriers. The property has a Future Land Use designation of Higher Intensity Planned

Development-Airport and is zoned A-1 (Agriculture). The subject property is

approximately 1.67 acres meeting the minimum required lot size and lot width of the

A-1 zoning district. The Applicant proposes to place the communication tower in the

northeast corner of the vacant site. A Special Exception is required for communication

towers within the A-1 zoning district. The Special Exception request shall be evaluated

for compliance with all applicable sections of the Seminole County Land Development

Code (SCLDC). Pursuant to Sec. 30.6.7.3, communication towers must maintain a

minimum separation distance (from existing single family residential uses) of 200 feet

or 300% of the height of the tower, whichever is greater, unless a variance is granted.

Such variance may be approved upon findings that the proposed tower minimizes

aesthetic impacts and remains compatible with surrounding properties. The proposed

tower height is 143 feet, which requires a separation distance of 429 feet. Four (4)

variances are being requested from the required separation distance of 429 feet,

measured from the outer extremity of the base of the communication tower to the

property line of the parcel that has an existing single-family residential use. The tower

is proposed to be located approximately 111 feet from the nearest property line of a

residential use. The remaining three (3) residential parcels are located at a distance of

141 feet, 307 feet, and 308 feet from the base of the proposed communication tower.

The applicant has obtained consent from all affected property owners for the reduced

separation distance. The Board of County Commissioners may approve the request if it

is determined that the use requested meets the Special Exception criteria. The

proposed 143-foot monopole communication tower would negatively impact the

character of the surrounding residential area with its encroachment intensified by the

minimum separation distance of only 111 feet from the nearest residential property line.

While the tower would generate de minimis traffic and telecommunications facilities are

allowed within the HIP-AP Future Land Use designation, its proximity to nearby

residences creates adverse effects despite its passive nature and limited noise.

Although the tower meets the A-1 zoning district’s required side and rear setbacks, it

does not meet the required 429-foot separation from four adjacent residential

properties.

The subject property and surrounding parcels are zoned A-1, but the HIP-AP Future

Land Use designation signals a long-term transition away from agriculture toward

airport compatible development. As this area grows, new uses will align with that

direction rather than agricultural activity.

Staff evaluated the request against the six (6) required variance criteria as follows:

1) While the proximity of the surrounding residential properties limits tower

placement on the site, Staff does not find these conditions to be unique or

substantially different from other similarly zoned properties;

2) Staff finds the need for the variance results from the Applicant's decision to locate

the tower on a site that cannot meet the required residential separation distance;

3) Staff finds the approval would not confer a special privilege, because the variance

process is available to all similarly situated properties under the same standards;

4) Staff finds the strict application of the Land Development Code would not deprive

the property of rights commonly enjoyed by other A-1 properties, as the site

retains all permitted uses within the zoning district, and the Applicant is

responsible for demonstrating unnecessary hardship;

5) While the Applicant has located the tower in the northeastern portion of the

property to maximize separation from nearby residences and has obtained letters

of support from the affected property owners, Staff finds the property retains

reasonable use without the variance;

6) Staff finds the request is not in harmony with the intent and purpose of Chapter

30, because it substantially reduces the required residential separation distance

established to protect compatibility and minimize visual impacts. Although the

proposal includes a monopole design and an eight-foot opaque fence, Staff finds

these mitigation measures are not proportional to the magnitude of the requested

reduction and does not support approval of the variance.

Staff finds that the proposed communication tower generally satisfies the Special

Exception criteria of Section 30.3.1.5, however, the requested variance would

substantially reduce the required 429-foot residential separation distance,

undermining the compatibility and visual protections established by the Land

Development Code and proposed mitigation measures do not adequately offset the

magnitude of the requested reduction. Staff recommends denial of the requested

variances and the associated Special Exception. If the Board chooses to proceed

with the approval of the variance request, Staff requests that the Planning and

Zoning Commission approve and refer the Special Exception to the Board of County

Commissioners as per the following motion:

Based on Staff findings and evidence received at the hearing, the Planning and

Zoning Commission finds the proposed Special Exception is not detrimental to the

character of the area and will not adversely impact the public interest with the

inclusion of the following Special Exception conditions:

1) The proposed communication tower is to be designed as a monopole and will not

exceed 143 feet, including antennas and lightning rod.

2) Any improvements and/or additions to the proposed tower shall be submitted for

approval to the County.

3) No signage or advertising shall be permitted on the proposed tower, unless

otherwise required by law.

4) The proposed tower shall not be artificially lit, except to ensure human safety, or

as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which the Applicant is

providing for the OrlandoSanford Airport.

5) Prior to the issuance of Building permits, the Applicant shall obtain approval of a

site plan that meets all other applicable Code requirements, including Chapter 40

of the Land Development Code, from the Development Review Committee

(DRC).

6) Any Special Exception granted shall expire one (1) year after approval unless a

development permit, based upon and incorporating the Special Exception, is

obtained within the one (1) year period. One six (6) month extension may be

granted by the Board of County Commissioners (SCLDC 30.3.6).

The Applicant conducted a community meeting on April 8, 2026 and the details are

included in the Board’s agenda package.

Staff requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board

of County Commissioners deny the requested variance due to the required

separation distance between the proposed communication tower and existing

residential development. Because the Special Exception is contingent upon approval

of the variance, Staff cannot support the Special Exception, unless the associated

variances are granted. Therefore, Staff recommends the following motion:

Based on Staff’s findings and the testimony and evidence received at the hearing,

the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the requested variances do not

satisfy the applicable criteria of the Seminole County Land Development Code, as

presented by Staff, and recommends denial of the requested variances. Because

approval of the Special Exception is contingent upon approval of the variances, the

Planning and Zoning Commission further recommends denial of the Special

Exception.

Neysa Borkert, Deputy County Attorney, made a clarification from the slide presented,

that if the Board decides to approve the request, the slide shown are the conditions that

Staff would suggest be associated with the approval. Those conditions can be found in

the agenda packet on page 88 of the Development Order.

Mary Doty Solik, for the applicant, of Orlando, Florida, stated that she is legal counsel

for C4 Towers, who is the tower developer in this application. Tim O’Shaughnessy is

the Principal of C4 Towers and is also in the auditorium tonight. Ms. Solik provided a

background on the location using a map shown on the overhead screen, cited property

owned by the City of Sanford, surrounded on the north and east and stated it is

intended for utility uses. She further stated the area is already sort of an industrial use

affecting this particular neighborhood. They pushed the tower location to the northeast

corner of the property in order to move it as far away from the residents as possible. It

is a 139 foot tower with a 4 foot lightning rod, which makes it a total height of 143 feet.

Multiply that by 300%, and that gives the setback of 429 feet. They have FAA approval

for a 155 foot tower, but if they did that they would increase the variance length on the

four (4) properties to the east and southwest, which then they wouldn’t meet the

variance to the residential structure on this property. She advised her client to lower the

height in order to minimize the variances; at least to not have to need one from the

residential property (shown on the screen). It is a 70’ by 70’ leased area, 60’ by 60’

compound. The tower has a 38’ fall zone radius, in the unlikely event of a tower failure.

The access comes off of Kentucky Street and runs along the southern boundary of the

property and to the eastern property line. This is an area that is zoned Agriculture with

some residential structures in that location. There is an underlying High Intensity Airport

Future Land Use, which means that this area will be in transition. The Agricultural

zoning is really more like a holding pattern. An elevation drawing of the tower was

provided, with three (3) co-locators at 139’ feet made of steel, which is about the most

that can go on the tower. There are only three (3) licensed carriers left in the

marketplace, with a T-Mobile anchored tower. There will be space on the tower

available for AT&T and Verizon as their needs and budgets allow. They anticipate that

all three (3) carriers will end up on this pole. There will be an 8’ opaque fence at the

bottom, with landscaping around the compound, and they meet all of the performance

criteria related to fencing, landscaping, property line, and setbacks. She read the

SCLDC Section 30.6.7.3(b)(3), regarding separation distances that may be reduced by

the Planning Manager when written consent as set forth in a recordable instrument is

obtained from all property owners within the applicable separation distance. She further

stated that there are four (4) properties that have a residential structure on them that

are within the applicable setback distance. These properties submitted notarized

written approval consent forms for the project, however the Planning Manager refused

to reduce the separations. She stated that only one of the four properties has a

homestead exemption. The other properties are owned by investors, LLCs, or

corporations, and not family homesteaded. She further stated that the Code requires

the setback from the outer base of the tower to the property line on which the

residential structure is located. Their engineer measured the actual distance from the

base of the tower to the actual structure on each of the properties. Most of the

properties are long and irregularly shaped properties and because of that there are

different numbers that can be calculated. When Staff states that they don’t support the

variance because they don’t meet the intent of the Code, the visual impact buffer to the

structures, there are unique circumstances that demonstrates on three of the four

properties that the distance between the tower and the structure exceeds the 429’.

There really is buffering there and they have met the intent of the Code when it comes

to the buffering and separation between the tower and the structure itself. None of

these structures face the tower, rather they face Jesup or Kentucky. They would argue

that they have met the intent of the Code and that there are unique circumstances

given the layout of the properties and locations of the homes that demonstrate they are

meeting the setbacks. Also, every single one of the property owners have okayed the

project and signed notarized written consent for the project. There are not many

choices (for cell towers) in the area. They cannot provide service to the area and meet

a setback anywhere else due to the dense residential nature of the area. Ms. Solik

stated that they do meet the variance criteria and cited each condition and in summary

have satisfied the intent of the Code along with the affected properties consent.

No one spoke in favor of this request.

The following persons spoke in opposition to this request:

1. Ravichandra Sathari, of Sanford, stated that they live just south of the proposed projec

in River Run Preserve, which is a dense community. Their opposition includes Staff’s

detailed reasons provided, how it (adversely) affects the value of their property, and

they don’t want to see the tower from their property.

2. Raghu Kundurthi, of Sanford, lives southwest of this property. He stated that he come

from a telecommunications background. The type of the wavelength provided by these

providers is important and why none of the cities in the country would ever allow an

urban area or close to an urban area that is densely populated, like this area, to be

picked as a site for a cell tower. Also, all of the wireless providers are to have towers

completely camouflaged and decorated with canopies. (remainder of comments

inaudible)

Opposition to this request was received in writing from the following:

1. Kiran Kumar Sankaramanchi of Sanford

2. Ravichandra Sathari Mallikarjuna, of Sanford

3. Ravichandra Pasala, of Sanford

4. Ranpraddeep Nallain (spelling illegible)

5. Purna Naga Mallika Nagamothu, of Sanford

6. Bala Sankar, of Sanford

7. Praveen Kumar Nukala, of Sanford

8. Tanmeeya Seh (name not legible), of Sanford

Public comment was closed.

Mary Doty Solik, in her rebuttal, stated the following:

The cell tower generates very little traffic once it is constructed; one vehicle trip per

quarter, per carrier to inspect the tower in a light duty vehicle. The High Intensity Airport

Future Land use of that area will generate far more traffic in the future than the cell

tower ever will. A dense area is what drives the need for the cell tower. These (towers)

need to be where the people are for cell coverage available to the people who live

there. She did some more measurements and the first row of homes south of Kentucky

Street is over 650’ away from the tower and therefore meets the residential separation

requirement from the tower. That setback is the means for addressing visual impact,

which they far exceed from the residents to the south.

Tim O’Shaughnessy, for the applicant, of Orlando, FL, stated that there is a real

coverage need in this area. He spent a long time looking for the right property for the

cell tower. He is from Seminole County and went to school here. He cares about the

people in this neighborhood. He spoke to the neighbors in the area and this is the best

he could find for the tower property location to fill the need for the area.

Commissioner Richard Jerman asked Staff what the underlying land use is to the east

of this property in Sanford.

Dagmarie Segarra, Deputy Development Services Director, responded that the Future

Land Use for Sanford is Airport Industrial and Commerce. This property is also

included in the small area study that the County did a few years ago, which was

designated as a mixed use area.

Commissioner Jerman stated that there was approval from the four impacted property

owners, and he is concerned that there is a demand for towers, however, he doesn’t

want to set a precedent. The distance provided by the applicant is quite a bit of a

distance, but looking from the property line, which is what the Code says, it’s

approximately a 75% variance. He is worried about the precedent they set, as the need

is big for more towers. He isn’t quite sure what to do and would like the Board’s input.

Vice Chairman Brandy Ioppolo stated she feels the same, and agrees with Mr.

Jerman’s comments. She tries to put herself in the situation whether she’s a

homeowner or a tenant, and she doesn’t want to look at a tower, even though they are

trying to make it look nicer.

Commissioner Dan Lopez commented that the purpose of a Special Exception is

because the request doesn’t meet the Code. In his opinion, as long as the people who

are directly affected aren’t opposed to it then the variance contributes to the

community. The benefits outweigh the concerns for establishing a precedent. He

supports the project.

Vice Chairman Ioppolo stated that she knows we need more cell towers with the

growing population, but thinks there is another location for it.

Based on Staff’s findings and the testimony and evidence received at the hearing,

the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the requested variances do not

satisfy the applicable criteria of the Seminole County Land Development Code, as

presented by Staff, and recommends denial of the requested variances. Because

approval of the Special Exception is contingent upon approval of the variances, the

Planning and Zoning Commission further recommends denial of the Special

Exception.

Motion by Vice Chairman Ioppolo, seconded by Commissioner Richard Jerman, to

deny the Kentucky Street Special Exception. The motion passed by the following vote:

Commissioner Jerman, Commissioner Lawhun, and Commissioner

Ioppolo

Aye:

Commissioner Lopez

Nay:

Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Lorenz, and Commissioner

Aguirre

Absent:

Isola Retail PD Major Amendment Rezone - Consider a Rezone from PD (Planned

Development) to PD (Planned Development) to allow outdoor storage in conjunction

with Building 2 only, as shown on the Master Development Plan, within the Isola Retail

PD, on approximately 3.25 acres, located on the west side of Longwood Lake Mary Rd,

300 feet north of Ronald Reagan Blvd; (Z2026-04) (Robert Isola, Applicant) District4 -

Lockhart (Annie Sillaway, Principal Planner)

Annie Sillaway, Principal Planner, presented this item as stated in the Staff report. She

further stated that the Applicant is requesting a rezone from PD (Planned

Development) to PD (Planned Development) to allow outdoor storage exclusively to

Building 2 within the Isola Retail PD. The subject property has an Industrial Future

Land Use designation, which allows a maximum intensity of 0.65 Floor Area Ratio

(F.A.R.). The intent of the Industrial Future Land Use designation is to provide

appropriate locations for a variety of heavy commercial and industrial uses oriented

toward wholesale distribution, storage, manufacturing, and other industrial uses. On

February 8, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Isola Retail PD,

permitting C-3 (Heavy Commercial and Very Light Industrial) uses while prohibiting

certain uses, including, but not limited to, marine sales and service, mechanical

garages, and outdoor storage. The Applicant is requesting approval to include the use

of outdoor storage on the developed site, limited to the southwest portion of the

development and restricted to the tenant occupying Building 2. The proposed outdoor

storage area will not impede or adversely affect on-site traffic circulation within the

existing developed site with access coming off of Longwood Lake Mary Road. An

existing dumpster enclosure is located within the proposed outdoor storage area and

will remain in place. The Applicant has provided a letter of acceptance from Waste Pro

confirming that the proposed additional fencing around the storage area is acceptable,

provided that adequate access to the dumpster enclosure is maintained for service and

collection operations to ensure uninterrupted service. Waste Pro has identified the

conditions for continued service, which includes:

1. the dumpster enclosure and surrounding storage area must maintain adequate

maneuvering and access space for service vehicles during scheduled collection

times;

2. a gate combination, lock code, or other approved access methods must be

provided for the exterior gate to allow drivers access to the dumpster enclosure

for servicing, as necessary; and

3. the proposed outdoor storage will not add any impervious area; therefore, the

applicant is not required to modify the existing storm water pond.

The existing development meets the review criteria for the PD. The PD zoning is

consistent with the Industrial Future Land Use and such that C-3, permitted within the

Isola Retail PD, typically allows outdoor storage of parts, supplies, and materials within

an enclosed or fenced area. The Applicant is exceeding the arbor requirements of the

Code by proposing to install three (3) southern magnolia trees, each with a minimum

three inch (3”) caliper and a minimum height of ten feet (10’), around the outdoor

storage area. Also, they will provide five (5) bicycle parking spaces near the front of the

site to accommodate customers and employees who use bicycles for transportation.

The Applicant meets Sec. 30.8.5.3 (d) (1-4) of the Planned Development Criteria. The

proposed Planned Development zoning classification is compatible with the

surrounding industrial development and is consistent with the allowable use and

intensity provisions of the Industrial Future Land Use designation, that includes

adequate buffering, an opaque fence, to provide visual screening from Longwood Lake

Mary Rd and adjacent properties. Staff finds the requested PD zoning classification to

be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant conducted a community

meeting on April 27, 2026 with details of the community meeting provided in the

Board’s agenda package. The Isola Retail PD Major Amendment Rezone is proposed

to be heard on August 11, 2026 by the Board of County Commissioners.

Staff requests the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the Board of County

Commissioners adopt the Ordinance enacting a Rezone from PD (Planned

Development) to PD (Planned Development) as per the following motion:

Based on Staff’s findings and the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the

Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request meets the identified portions of the

Seminole County Land Development Code and recommends the Board of County

Commissioners adopt the Ordinance enacting a rezone from PD (Planned

Development) to PD (Planned Development), and approve the associated Addendum

#1 to the Development Order and Master Development Plan, on approximately 3.25

acres, located on the west side of Longwood Lake Mary Rd, 300 feet north of Ronald

Reagan Blvd.

John Frith, for the applicant, of Frith and Associates, is the engineer for the project.

They concur with Staff’s notes and approval. He and the owner, Bob Izollo, are

available if there are any questions by the Board.

No one from the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to this request.

Public comment was closed.

Based on Staff’s findings and the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the

Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request meets the identified portions of the

Seminole County Land Development Code and recommends the Board of County

Commissioners adopt the Ordinance enacting a rezone from PD (Planned

Development) to PD (Planned Development), and approve the associated Addendum

#1 to the Development Order and Master Development Plan, on approximately 3.25

acres, located on the west side of Longwood Lake Mary Rd, 300 feet north of Ronald

Reagan Blvd.

Motion by Vice Chairman Ioppolo, seconded by Commissioner Dan Lopez, to approve

the Isola Retail PD Major Amendment Rezone. The motion passed unanimously, 4-0.

Commissioner Jerman, Commissioner Lawhun, Commissioner

Lopez, and Commissioner Ioppolo

Aye:

Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Lorenz, and Commissioner

Aguirre

Absent:

Sanford Commerce Center Small Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment and PD

Major Amendment Rezone - Consider a Small Scale Future Land Use Map

Amendment from Commercial to Industrial and a Rezone from PD (Planned

Development) to PD (Planned Development) for a proposed 144,000 square foot

commercial and industrial flex space warehouse development on approximately 17.23

acres, located on the south side of Orange Blvd, and approximately ½ mile east of

Oregon St; (Z2026-06/02.26SS.01) (S. Brent Spain, Esquire, Applicant) District 5 - Herr

(Annie Sillaway, Principal Planner)

Annie Sillaway, Principal Planner, presented this item as stated in the Staff report. She

further stated that on November 15, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners

approved a request for a Small Scale Future Land Use Amendment from Commercial

to Industrial on approximately 9.9 acres, along with a Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to

PD (Planned Development) on approximately 22.3 acres, known as the Orange

Boulevard PD. The purpose of the request was to allow commercial uses permitted

under the C-1 (Retail Commercial) and C-2 (General Commercial) zoning districts on

Lots 1-4, and to allow industrial uses permitted under the C-3 (Heavy Commercial and

Very Light Industrial), and M-1A (Very Light Industrial) zoning districts only on Lots 2

and 3. In 2024, Lot 1 was removed from the PD, reducing the acreage from 22.3 acres

to 17.23 acres and was re-platted to combine Lots 2-4 into Lot 2. The purpose of this

land use amendment and rezone is to allow those C-3 and M-1A uses throughout the

entire PD on Lot 2 instead of restricting those uses to a designated area. The Applicant

is retaining the original entitlements previously approved by the Board, including but not

limited to: a maximum Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of 0.65; a maximum building height of

thirty-five (35) feet; and a building setback of one-hundred feet (100’) for a two-story

building, and a one-hundred fifty feet (150’) setback for a three-story building along the

west perimeter adjacent to the residential Bookertown neighborhood. The previously

established prohibited uses also remains in effect, including mechanical garages,

lumber yards, construction companies with outdoor storage, highway striping

companies, paint and body shops, office showrooms without assembly or

manufacturing, and service stations with gas pumps as an accessory use, and

communication towers. The Applicant is also maintaining the existing twenty-five-foot

(25') landscape buffer along the western portion of the site to preserve the established

buffer. In addition to retaining these entitlements, the Applicant is proposing three (3)

modifications to the PD:

1. Vacating the western seventy-foot (70') platted access, drainage, and utility

easement to allow expansion of the proposed flex-space warehouse building,

which would otherwise encroach into a portion of that easement; and

2. Amending the Future Land Use designation on the portion of land previously

known as Lot 4 of the Orange Boulevard PD, from Commercial to Industrial and

adding permitted uses consistent with the C-3 and M-1A zoning district; and1.

3. Increasing the west perimeter building setback from the previous fifty (50) feet to

sixty (60) feet for a one-story building.

The Applicant is also requesting a parking reduction as follows:

Per the Seminole County Land Development Code

· Manufacturing Concerns and Warehouses: with one (1) space per two (2)

employees, plus one (1) space for a company vehicle; and

· General Business/Retail/Office: The first 10,000 sq. ft. is four (4) spaces per

1,000 sq. ft. and above 10,000 sq. ft. are three (3) spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.

Per the Applicants proposal:

· For Warehouses: 0.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet

· For General Business/Retail/Office: 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet.

Due to the allowable mix of uses onsite, Staff does not support the parking reduction

as proposed by the Applicant and recommends the following:

Staff proposes: a minimum parking ratio of two (2) parking spaces per 1,000 square

feet. This recommendation reflects the wide range of permitted uses proposed within

the Sanford Commerce PD. Because these uses vary in intensity, staff determined that

a consistent minimum parking ratio of two (2) spaces per 1,000 square feet is

appropriate and can be reasonably met by all permitted uses within the district.

Access to the subject site is proposed through Lot 1 to the north, which connects to

Orange Blvd, an urban major collector road. Orange Blvd currently operates at a level

of service A or B, depending on direction and time of day, and has programmed

improvements in the County's five year Capital Improvements Program. The developer

will be required to construct a sidewalk extending to the north boundary line of the

subject site, allow the future developer of Lot 1 (adjacent to the north) to complete the

remaining sidewalk segment and connect it to the existing sidewalk along Orange Blvd.

The Applicant has met the PD Review criteria for the requested Small Scale Future

Land Use Map Amendment and PD Major Amendment, allowing C-3 and M-1A uses

consistent with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan. Although residential uses lie

to the west, the north and east are established with industrial development, reflecting

the area’s broader pattern of Heavy Commercial and Industrial uses. The PD sets limits

on F.A.R., uses, setbacks, buffers, and height, and the Applicant provides added

benefits including CPTED features, an innovative flex-space warehouse supporting

economic development, and a substantial west-side buffer adjacent to the

neighborhood. The project meets the Arbor Code requirements and adds internal

pedestrian and bicycle connections to Orange Blvd. The subject property does not

have existing trees on site; however, the developer proposes to plant a substantial

buffer along the west perimeter of the development adjacent to the existing residential

neighborhood. As an infill project, the proposed development is consistent with the

Central Florida Regional Growth Vision. It also supports Policy TRA 2.4.3, which

promotes infill development to maximize the efficient use of the existing transportation

network within urban areas. Additionally, the project is consistent with Policy FLU 5.4.6,

which encourages employment and industrial uses adjacent to residential areas,

provided compatibility is maintained. To ensure compatibility with the adjacent

Bookertown neighborhood, the Applicant will provide a 25-foot landscape buffer and an

increased building setback of at least 60 feet along the western portion of the site. Staff

finds the proposed Industrial Future Land Use designation and PD zoning classification

consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant had a community meeting on

May 14, 2026 and the details have been included in the Board’s agenda package. This

item is scheduled to be heard at the August 11, 2026 Board of County Commissioner’s

meeting.

Staff requests the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the Board of County

Commissioners adopt an Ordinance enacting a Small Scale Future Land Use Map

Amendment and concurrent Rezoning Ordinance per the following two motions:

Based on Staff’s findings and the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the

Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request meets the identified portions of the

Comprehensive Plan and recommends the Board of County Commissioners adopt the

Ordinance enacting a Small Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from Commercial

to Industrial.

Based on Staff’s findings and the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the

Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request meets the identified portions of the

Seminole County Land Development Code and recommends the Board of County

Commissioners adopt the Ordinance enacting a rezone from PD (Planned

Development) to PD (Planned Development), and approve the associated

Development Order and Master Development Plan on approximately 17.23 acres,

located on the south side of Orange Blvd, approximately ½ mile east of Oregon St.

Drew Thigpen, for the applicant, with Pelican Industrial, in Charlotte, NC, presented this

item. He is one of four owners and founders of Pelican Industrial. This is a $30M total

cost to deliver from project design through occupancy. They estimate it will generate

$250K annually in new tax revenue. They are committed to deliver this project in a

single phase in under one year. This is a job creating product for Seminole County.

Their company focuses on a hybrid project called shallow bay, light industrial,

commercial service, or flex space; which this project straddles shallow bay/warehouse

and single story suburban office. Mr. Thigpen continued with his presentation on the

appearance of the buildings, and showed the exhibits and slide presentation on the

overhead. He stated that they build all of their projects without knowing who will lease.

The outward facing exterior will be an office appearance, along Orange Boulevard and

I-4. The adjacent Bookertown neighborhood will not be able to view the loading

activities, as they oriented the buildings perpendicular to the neighborhood, with a 25’

landscape buffer and 10’ screening walls between them. The four (4) storm water

ponds have already been constructed and approved by St. Johns River Water

Management District (SJRWMD), which they tie into. They are a three lot site with two

(2) of the lots allowing for C-3 and M-1A uses, with their desire to make one

comprehensive plot that has all of these shared uses. They will work within their site

plan layout to increase the minimum current 50’ building setback to the west, up to 60’,

by adding an additional 10’ buffer away from the neighborhood. One item they weren’t

able to get consensus on with Staff was the parking. Staff requested they provide two

spaces per 1,000 square feet. They think what they’ve provided is already significantly

over-parked for their proposed tenants, which they weren’t able to accommodate,

which is 280+ required spaces. Their tenants typically have 75% of the space as

warehouse with 25% office. Their traffic engineer analyzed this site and determined the

required parking is 167 spaces compared with the 161 spaces calculated. They are

confident they will have more than enough parking. They request the Board’s support

for the parking reduction. They are just shy of the 144,000 sf, which is142,800 sf. In

summary, they are focusing on supporting local service space tenants by investing

$30M to create $250k per year in tax revenue for the County.

No one from the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to this request. Public

comment was closed.

Vice Chairman Brandy Ioppolo asked Staff about the minimum parking requirements of

two (2) spaces, as it doesn’t mention in the request about the change of the parking

spaces. Neysa Borkert, Deputy County Attorney, responded that Staff is putting forth

their motion, which is based on the Development Order containing what the Code

requires for parking, which is two (2) spaces per 1,000’. If the Board wants to approve

this item, but instead chooses to use the applicant’s methodology for parking, than the

Board would need to be include that language into the motion. Otherwise, it would

remain per Staff’s request with the two (2) parking spaces per 1,000 sf, as presented

by Staff.

Commissioner Richard Jerman asked Staff if they looked at their other projects with

how many parking spaces they’ve used in similar flex space projects and Staff

responded they did not. Mr. Jerman commented that what the applicant proposed

could be more than adequate based on their experience in flex space use in other

locales. Deputy Development Services Director, Dagmarie Segarra, responded that we

did not specifically look at their projects, but based on previous experience and data

when development in a flex space combines uses from C-1 to Industrial, they find that

market driven retail uses, such as daycares, gyms, and churches, is what we see in

this area. Staff’s concerns are that if those types of C-1 uses are also allowed in this

PD, there could be a problem with parking. Mr. Jerman stated that if there aren’t

enough parking spaces then people won’t lease the space. He asked if any

suggestions were made by Staff to the applicant on how they could provide the

additional parking spaces on the site plan. Ms. Segarra responded that their

recommendation is for the ratio proposed and Staff did not agree with what the

applicant proposed. She further stated that it is hard to determine and agrees that there

typically is 25% office space on this type of development, with mostly the C-1 uses

being general retail, of which could have a greater impact, or 10-20% of the total

square footage of the development. The middle ground arrived at was based on what

the Code requires and what the applicant proposes. The office space in the applicant’s

experience is 25% office and 75% industrial.

Mr. Thigpen stated that everything Dagmarie stated is totally correct. One thing that is

unique about their product, especially from a parking standpoint, is if a church comes to

the site, that could change the 75% warehouse and 25% office to be the opposite.

Their need for the rear-loading space, which is 170’ between buildings, would then be

eliminated and strip the “rear-loading” space if additional parking was needed. They

rarely have to do it, but it is a significant amount of paved, readily available parking that

they can grab and use if needed. The 0.5 F.A.R. that was mentioned, they are 0.2

F.A.R., so the only way to make more parking work is to add more square footage.

Their proposal is the least impactful way that they can make this project work.

Commissioner Dan Lopez asked if they do have a tenant who needs to add more

parking, what is their estimate on the number they could add on any of the overflow

loading areas. Mr. Thigpen responded approximately eight (8) in the loading area,

which would be 130 additional parking spaces, with no parking in an interior spine road,

maxed out between buildings two and three, that would be another 50 parking spaces.

They are heavily focused on this being a warehouse heavy product. What they don’t

want to see is the creep of starting with 20% office and then 30%, then 100% office,

which no one in the real estate world wants right now. Mr. Lopez stated that 10-15

years down the line, the future tenants may change. There is a significant different with

over a 100 parking spots between what the Code states and their proposal.

Vice Chairman Ioppolo stated that she agreed and they don’t know the mix of office

versus industrial uses right now. If they have the opportunity to make additional

parking spaces, why don’t they stripe it now so it isn’t an issue. Mr. Thigpen responded

that they expect loading operations there, and not parking. He offered to add a

project-wide office use “cannot exceed a 50% cap”, then if the world changes with

another use, the established cap will be there. They could also put together a proposed

striping plan to meet the threshold.

Chairman Carissa Lawhun stated that she heard the concern for parking to be more

related to C-1 uses. Dagmarie Segarra responded that was correct and the C-1 uses

are already entitled from the existing PD. It was their recommendation to limit the retail

uses.

Mr. Thigpen stated when they say office, he is focusing on the actual build-out, or the

footprint of office, so if 50% of the space was office with cubicles, bathrooms, and a

kitchen for C-1 or C-2, that is the amount of space that they will need for parking and

what they’ve seen happen in other places. As mentioned, with a cap on the actual

amount of office space, since that’s largely what dictates the parking need.

Commissioner Jerman stated that he thinks Staff was a little heavy handed on what

they asked for, but at the same time, he thinks the applicant is a little light. He further

asked the applicant if they could commit to a minimum of 200 spaces. Mr. Thigpen

responded that if they would stripe them in a proposed loading court stripe plan, he

would be okay with that. They can’t accommodate anything more from a dedicated

parking only standpoint. They could show it from an overflow parking standpoint, and

which are totally accessible for pedestrian access in the building’s rear. Some people

have made these buildings entirely office and they’ll take out the rear load door and put

in windows, so it’s totally doable. There are a lot of overhead power lines that bracket

this site and limited with how it can be laid out. They can do a proposed augmented

parking plan that shows where they can stripe the loading to get to a higher number of

parking spaces.

Further discussion ensued regarding the parking plan.

Dagmarie Segarra proposed a recommendation for the Board, providing the applicant

agrees, to make a motion to approve the project as proposed to include that Staff will

continue to work with the applicant to determine the uses and maybe limiting more of

the uses from the retail side, in order to find a happy medium to be completed by and

before the BCC hearing. The applicant responded that they would support that option.

Motion by Commissioner Dan Lopez, seconded by Vice Chairman Brandy Ioppolo, to

approve the Sanford Commerce Center Small Scale Future Land Use Map

Amendment and PD Major Amendment Rezone, with the condition that Staff and the

applicant will continue working together to determine the appropriate number of parking

spaces, per Staff's recommendation. The motion passed unanimously, 4-0.

Commissioner Jerman, Commissioner Lawhun, Commissioner

Lopez, and Commissioner Ioppolo

Aye:

Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Lorenz, and Commissioner

Aguirre

Absent:

CLOSING BUSINESS

Director's Report

Development Services Director’s Report - Dagmarie Segarra stated the Land Development

Code update will be heard for the second reading by the Board of County Commissioners on