Commissioner seeks zoning review, not a moratorium, after public outcry over rural church development

Commissioner Kelly Simrad (District 5) asked the Orange County Board of County Commissioners Dec. 3 to direct staff to analyze a potential gap between the county code and voter‑approved protections for rural areas after widespread public comment about a planned church in east Orange County.

Simrad told the board she was not seeking a moratorium on church development. Instead she sought a policy solution because the county’s 1957 code allows churches as a by‑right use on A‑2 (agricultural) property, while rural settlements within the new voter‑approved rural boundary must follow a more public review process that includes the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA).

The public comment period that followed the ceremonial items became focused on one site: a proposed CrossLife Church campus on Lake Pickett Road. Dozens of residents, pastors and attorneys spoke. Speakers who opposed permitting the church on a by‑right basis raised concerns about flooding, septic systems, traffic, light and noise, and compatibility with the rural character. Many residents asked that applications for churches within the rural boundary be required to go through the BZA special‑exception/compatibility review used for rural settlements.

Pastors and church members said they support serving the community and do not want to be singled out. CrossLife East representatives said they had purchased a parcel they believed permitted a church by right and had submitted a conservation‑area determination; they asked the board not to take actions that would impair the congregation’s previously permitted development rights.

Mayor Jerry Demings and county staff advised the board to allow staff and the county attorney to research the legal interplay between the rural‑boundary charter amendment, Orange Code and state law before any binding action. County administration suggested returning to the board with a workshop that would present options and legal analysis. Staff proposed Feb. 11, 2025, as the earliest available date for a full work session; commissioners and staff agreed to that timetable during the meeting.

Commissioner Simrad said the intent is consistency: if churches in rural settlements are subject to BZA review, then similar intensity uses on A‑2 land within the rural boundary should be examined for compatibility, or the board should identify a clear legal reason not to require similar review. Several commissioners asked staff to prepare comparisons to neighboring counties and to identify whether a definition such as “megachurch” or thresholds based on floor‑area ratio or trip generation would be useful for policy drafting.

The board made no ordinance change Dec. 3. Instead the commission directed county planning, environmental and legal staff to brief the board at a February work session with options that could include an ordinance, zoning code updates as part of Orange Code/Vision 2050, or other remedies to close any gap. Commissioner Simrad emphasized she is not seeking immediate moratorium action and asked the public for patience while staff prepares a legal and policy analysis.

Ending: Commissioners set a February 11, 2025, work session (staff indicated Feb. 11 or 25 were possible dates; Feb. 11 was flagged as the first available) to review legal options and technical definitions for handling high‑intensity places of worship and similar uses in the rural boundary. In the meantime the board did not take any ordinance or moratorium action and left existing permitting rules in effect for pending applications.