Commissioners continue Seminole Science charter school expansion after public concerns on traffic, noise and buffering

The Seminole County Board of County Commissioners continued a request by Seminole Science Charter School to add grades 9–12 and build a new 73,198‑square‑foot, two‑story campus on roughly 7.85 acres near North Ronald Reagan Boulevard and State Road 1792, moving the matter to a date‑certain of March 25, 2025.

The proposal would reclassify the site on the county future land use map to Planned Development and rezone parcels from A‑1 agriculture and C‑2 general commercial to PD. Senior planner Annie Silaway told the board staff found the plan consistent with the land development code and comprehensive plan and said the applicant had agreed to several conditions, including restrictions on access, additional buffering and lighting limits.

Why it matters: opponents raised repeated concerns about morning and afternoon traffic spillover onto 1792 and Ronald Reagan Boulevard, noise from school athletic activity and the proximity of school facilities to adjacent residences. Commissioners asked for enforceable, written changes to the development order and a traffic monitoring plan before final action.

Staff presentation and applicant proposal Annie Silaway, senior planner, summarized the request and told commissioners the site is partly designated Mixed Use Development and Low Density Residential and that the proposed PD would permit the two‑story school building, a recreational field and associated parking and queuing. Silaway said the Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval with added conditions, including no access onto Pew Street or North Road and shielding for field lights.

Brent Spain, attorney for the applicant, described the project site, the proposed master plan and the operator's record. Spain said the planned campus would initially phase in ninth grade and that the maximum enrollment across grades 6–12 under the development order would be 970 students. He said the project provides over 4,400 feet of on‑site queue storage—"which equates roughly to 79 vehicles queued"—and that the applicant's traffic assessment and a follow‑up Synchro analysis show no expected queuing spillover onto the adjacent roadways.

Public comments and neighborhood concerns More than a dozen residents and speakers came forward, nearly all from the Lake Mary Woods area, to oppose or request changes. Attorney Curtis Wilson, a nearby property owner, said current spillover from the existing campus already fills the right lane of State Road 1792 at peak times and described behaviors such as drivers using neighborhood streets to turn around. He said the existing school produces loud field‑day noise and that a significant expansion would multiply that impact.

Multiple neighbors asked for stronger physical buffers and a masonry wall rather than a 6‑foot vinyl or PVC fence. One resident noted the plan shows the school building 81 feet from the nearest residence and requested that the building be shifted further from homes or that the field be relocated. Concerns also included the sufficiency of parking for older students, the potential for non‑school rentals of the recreational field, and evening lighting.

Applicant responses and proposed concessions Spain and representatives from Seminole Science said the team had already agreed to several of the P&Z suggested conditions and offered additional commitments during the hearing: a prohibition on field lighting, no outdoor speaker systems (except for emergencies), and a pledge that the recreational field not be rented to third parties. Spain said the applicant would change the 260‑foot fence on the north boundary to a masonry wall at the neighbors' request and that the applicant was willing to commit to continued traffic monitoring after the school opens to verify whether further mitigation is needed.

Board reaction and action Commissioners pressed for written, enforceable commitments and for more detail about traffic staging, parking counts, buffering and noise mitigation. District Commissioner (motion maker) said she would not support a development order that allowed field lighting; the applicant agreed to a written prohibition. After extended discussion the board voted to continue the item to a date‑certain meeting so staff and the applicant could return with revised, documented conditions. The continuation was set for March 25, 2025.

Next steps The applicant was asked to meet with neighbors, provide updated development‑order language reflecting the concessions, and produce a monitoring and enforcement plan for traffic, noise and field use. Commissioners said they expect any additional conditions to be included in the packet for the March 25 hearing.