Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Plat topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

DRC reviews second submittal for Orlando Apopka Commerce Center plat; applicant absent

3662460 · June 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Apopka Development Review Committee considered a second submittal to plat an existing industrial building at the Orlando Apopka Commerce Center. Staff said legal comments were met; only surveyor comments remained. The applicant did not appear. Departments raised no major objections.

The Apopka Development Review Committee on June 4 reviewed a second submittal to plat an existing industrial building at the Orlando Apopka Commerce Center, a property with future land use designated industrial and zoning PD.

“Good morning, everyone. So this is a plat for an industrial building, the, for the Orlando Apopka Commerce Center and the future land uses industrial and zoning is PD. The building already exists. The all legal comments have been met, and all there is is comments from the surveyor,” said Amir Hamza, the project manager.

Hamza and other staff said the applicant was not in attendance for the hearing. No department raised outstanding policy objections at the meeting. Community development recorded no further comments; police had none. Public services limited remarks to the surveyor’s outstanding comments, and fire staff asked for the site address to confirm details.

Hamza described the site location as just south of U.S. 441 and west of State Road 429, with access from Wesley Drive. Staff characterized the submittal as a plat of existing buildings likely intended to allow separate sale or parceling of those buildings.

No motions, votes, or formal approvals were taken at the DRC meeting. The record shows departmental review comments were either satisfied or limited to technical survey items; the applicant’s absence left no applicant responses on the record.