Osceola commissioners continue Forest Drive rezoning after residents raise traffic and safety concerns

The Osceola Board of County Commissioners on Monday voted to continue action on a rezoning request for roughly 6.58 acres near Forest Drive, Orange Lane and Lake Lane after residents urged the board to consider traffic, safety and neighborhood compatibility.

The item — Ordinance 2025-43 implementing ZMA 24-56, which would change the property's zoning from Residential Manufactured Housing (RMH) to Community Center Perimeter (CCP) — was pulled from the consent agenda for discussion and then continued to a future meeting. Commissioner Arrington moved to continue the item and Commissioner Booth seconded; the board set a new hearing date of Oct. 20 at 5:30 p.m. in the commission chambers. The motion carried unanimously.

The rezoning is a required step to make the zoning conform with the parcel’s existing comprehensive-plan future land-use designation as “community center,” staff said. County staff and the applicant emphasized the vote would not authorize construction; site-level approval and required improvements would follow later steps if the board ultimately approves a rezoning.

Residents who live adjacent to the site said the change would bring denser development and worsen traffic on already-congested local streets. “At what cost?” said Mackenzie Montez, a longtime Forest Drive resident, urging commissioners to weigh impacts on “the very few quiet neighborhoods left in the county.” Montez described long commutes, high speeds on narrow neighborhood roads, limited sidewalks and minimal street lighting.

Judy Weeks, who said she has lived at 3465 Forest Drive for 54 years, told the board a traffic study was not current. “It took me almost 10 minutes to make the turn,” she said of a recent left turn onto John Young Parkway during morning traffic. Weeks also said the tract contains large oak trees and expressed concern that development would hurt property values and neighborhood character.

Ray Stangel, community development administrator, described code requirements for any development of the parcel. “Our land development code requires an applicant [to] improve the roadway frontage on their property and extend that to the nearest roadway that meets current county or state or city standards,” he said, and added that applicants must bring travel lanes and right-of-way to county standards or acquire additional right-of-way if necessary.

Corey Carpenter, Community Development, said staff held a community meeting on April 23, 2025, where 23 residents attended and staff received five written comments opposing the project. Carpenter and Stangel also explained that, under the county’s zoning table (Table 3.3), a property with the parcel’s future land‑use designation may only rezone to a limited set of zoning districts; in this case staff identified Community Center Perimeter as the compatible district.

The applicant, attorney Brent Spain, said the owner group (New Earth Properties, LLP, and Rockville Real Estate, LLC) cannot build under the current RMH zoning for new development and is seeking a rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan. Spain said the applicant expects any future site development plan to propose single‑family attached townhomes two stories in height, and noted the comprehensive plan sets a minimum density of 8 dwelling units per acre for the designation; he said that minimum density translates roughly to about 52–53 units on the site.

During questioning commissioners pressed staff on likely roadway improvements, the possibility of a plan development (PD) zoning as an alternative, and whether sidewalk or off-site improvements could be required at site plan review. Stangel said code allows staff to request sidewalks up to 200 feet off-site or require corridor improvements as part of a project’s development plan; if right-of-way is insufficient, additional acquisition would be required.

Commissioners also noted the property had been before the board in 2023 and had drawn neighborhood opposition then. Commissioner Arrington moved to continue the matter so staff and the applicant could evaluate PD options and other refinements before the board takes a final vote. The board set the continuation for Oct. 20 at 5:30 p.m.

The continuance preserves an opportunity for additional analysis of access, sidewalks, right-of-way requirements and the form of development that might return to the board. If the board later approves a rezoning, applicants will still be required to submit a site development plan, a traffic impact analysis and any off-site improvements or right-of-way dedications required by the land development code.