Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Kingsbridge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council schedules Kingsbridge PUD hearing after resident files wetland complaint; developer offers to remove disputed fence
Summary
Oviedo council set a June 15 public hearing for a proposed amendment to the Kingsbridge PUD affecting Reformed Theological Seminary property. A resident told the council he filed a complaint with the St. John's River Water Management District over a collapsed fence in a protected wetland; the applicant's counsel said the developer would remove or replace the fence as directed.
Oviedo’s City Council on June 1 set a June 15 public hearing to consider Ordinance 1766, a zoning map amendment and second amendment to the Kingsbridge planned unit development that would allow dormitory-style housing on portions of the Reformed Theological Seminary property.
The amendment, described by planning staff as a rework of 1995 PUD rules, maintains the existing 120 dwelling-unit cap but limits development by number of beds (a maximum of 163) and preserves at least 30% open space and existing conservation tracks, staff said.
Why it matters: the proposal changes how density is measured on about 63.16 acres and would allow dormitory housing on identified tracts, a use the city said was contemplated in earlier approvals but is now being refined. Staff recommended, and council approved, scheduling a second-reading public hearing to give the community a formal forum to comment.
A separate, contested issue surfaced during public comment. Resident William Ryan told council he had filed an environmental compliance complaint with the St. John's River Water Management District alleging roughly 100–175 feet of chain-link fence along the southern boundary (identified in staff materials as Track J) had collapsed into a protected wetland and that the landowner—identified in staff materials as the seminary—had not maintained the fence for years. Ryan urged the city manager to "immediately freeze all administrative coordination directives and building clearances specifically regarding the perimeter fence infrastructure within tracks H & J until the St. John's River Water Management District completes its official environmental compliance audit." (William Ryan, public commenter)
City staff responded that the PUD amendment before council affects different tracts than the fence cited by Ryan and that the fence concern appears to be a separate code-enforcement and state-regulator issue. City Attorney Garrett Rose and staff said the matter should be resolved with St. John's and through staff follow-up rather than as part of the current PUD hearing process.
The applicant’s counsel, Michael Grind of Shutts & Bowen, told council the property owner is prepared to "do with the fence whatever you would like done with the fence including removal or replacement," adding that the owner's preference would be removal if an alternative barrier still satisfied the development-agreement requirement to prevent canal access to Long Lake. (Michael Grind, attorney for RTS)
What happens next: Council directed staff to coordinate with the applicant and the St. John's River Water Management District and continue to process Ordinance 1766 for a public hearing on June 15, 2026. At that session staff said it will return with options for council consideration; any regulatory action by St. John's remains independent of the city’s land-use process.
Provenance: City staff presentation, introduction of Ordinance 1766 and discussion of the fence and regulatory complaint at the June 1 meeting. The applicant’s offer to remove or replace the fence was made on the record during public comment and applicant remarks.
