Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PLDRC forwards zoning ordinance changes on special exceptions to County Council with recommendations after commissioners flag multiple by‑right conversions
Summary
The commission voted unanimously to forward a county‑wide zoning ordinance amendment that reorganizes which uses require public hearings; commissioners asked County Council to consider retaining hearings for several uses proposed to become by‑right and requested staff note specific concerns.
Commission sends draft special‑exceptions ordinance to County Council with a list of recommended adjustments and requests for review; commissioners emphasized public input, local area plan integrity and clarity about Osteen planning rules.
The Land Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission unanimously voted to forward Ordinance 2025‑20 — a county‑initiated rewrite of Chapter 72 that reallocates which land uses require public hearings — to County Council for final action, while formally asking council to consider a set of clarifications and to retain public‑hearing review for some uses staff proposed moving to by‑right approval.
Why it matters: The ordinance reorganizes hundreds of zoning references to try to reduce duplicative hearings and to clarify which uses require County Council approval versus administrative review or Planning & Land Development Regulation Commission (PLDRC) review. Commissioners supported the overall intent to streamline processes but raised detailed objections to specific proposed "by‑right" conversions in the Osteen local plan and other districts.
Staff and purpose of the ordinance Staff said County Council directed a review of Chapter 72 to reduce the number of public hearings required for special‑exception uses and to reorganize which approving body hears each use. PLDRC had reviewed an earlier draft and the ordinance returned with staff changes. The ordinance affects multiple zoning districts across the county and amends eight sections of the zoning code. Staff recommended forwarding the ordinance to County Council with a recommendation of approval.
Commission feedback: Osteen and by‑right conversions Commissioner Emily Bush led a long, item‑by‑item set of concerns about several proposed by‑right conversions for uses inside the Osteen local plan — for example, allowing certain automotive uses, car washes and drive‑through restaurants without a public hearing in the Osteen Mixed Use Village (OMV) and Osteen Commercial Village (OCV). Bush argued those conversions ran counter to the Osteen local plan’s intent for mixed‑use village character and said communities in Osteen had previously asked for more careful public review.
"I have some significant concerns with the some of the proposed by‑right changes," Bush said during discussion, citing a list of uses where she recommended PLDRC scrutiny or retained County Council review.
Other commissioners raised similar concerns about poultry and dairy operations in smaller‑lot agricultural zoning (A‑3 and A‑4), large retail greater than 15,000 square feet, riding stables and certain public‑utility structures. Several commissioners asked staff to compile the specific list of uses the commission wanted to keep subject to public hearing and to transmit those items to County Council as recommended adjustments.
State preemption question One commissioner queried a bill pending at the state level (Senate Bill 180) and whether its emergency‑management provisions nullified local code changes. County legal staff said the ordinance was drafted with SB 180 in mind and that, as written, it would not create new restrictions that conflict with state law. Staff clarified that if the governor signs the bill the ordinance would be unaffected because the draft was written not to be more restrictive in ways SB 180 would preempt.
Outcome and direction to County Council PLDRC voted unanimously to forward Ordinance 2025‑20 to County Council for final action, and commissioners asked that the submission include a memorandum listing the specific by‑right conversions they asked Council to review or retain as special‑exception items. Commissioners also asked staff to notify the commission of County Council hearing dates and to allow PLDRC members to attend and speak. Staff said County Council hearings were expected in early August and that, because the ordinance changes a list of uses, council would likely hold two hearings including an evening session.
Ending: Commissioners said they favored streamlining where it reduces redundant hearings, but they insisted on preserving community review for uses that could alter a neighborhood’s character — particularly inside local plan areas such as Osteen.
