Board of County Commissioners on 2026-08-11 1:30 PM - Aug 11, 2026

Good afternoon, everyone. By my clock and the clock of SGTV, it is 1.30, and I will call this meeting to order. Tuesday, August 11th, the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. And first up in our agenda is Dr. Shabir Kirmani from the Masjid al-Hai Mosque, and we would love for you to do our invocation as well as lead us in the pledge. Thank you, sir. In the name of God, the most compassionate, the most merciful, God, source of wisdom and mercy, we gather here for a deep trust for the betterment of our community and our neighbors, and to do that, which is be good stewards for our society. I invite and I call and invoke upon and remember the words of Imam Ali, the Prophet's vice-gerent and his deputy, when he wrote a letter to Malik al-Ashtar and said how to govern over Egypt. And he said, fill your heart first with mercy and kindness of the people, the same way that you expect God to have mercy and compassion upon you. And he said to remember that all are your neighbors and your brethren in faith as well as in humanity. Let us reflect on the works of and the efforts of Abraham in his pursuit of truth, Moses in his pursuit and ability to speak truth to power, Jesus in filling the heart with mercy, and Muhammad reminding us of having the concept of responsibility for those who we are custodians and stewards of. I pray that we all have wisdom to make the right decisions today, to do that with peace, integrity, tolerance, and also appreciation for our neighbors. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you so much for joining us this morning. Yeah. And when every eligible citizen has the opportunity to make their voice heard. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed that we, the Board of County Commissioners of Seminole County, Florida, do hereby proclaim August 18, 2026, as Women's Right to Vote Commemoration Day in Seminole County, Florida, and encourage all eligible voters to honor the legacy of the 19th Amendment by participating in the 2026 primary election and exercising one of our nation's most fundamental rights, the right to vote. Adopted this 11th day of August 2026. Second. I have a motion and four seconds. Is there a discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Hearing none opposed, I will ask us to join you, all you ladies, join us on the floor for a picture. We had so many different folks here represented today for that picture. We had members of the Sally Harrison chapter of the National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution. We had members of the Seminole County League of Women Voters and, of course, members from the Seminole County Supervisor of Elections. It was hard to tell who was who in that mix, but what a great turnout and so wonderful to have everyone here. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair. All right. This brings us to the consent agenda portion of our program. Are there any additions, deletions, or modifications? Chairman, no. No modifications at all. So as presented. Board members, anything to pull? I have nothing. No. Are there any public comment requests? No, ma'am. Madam Chair, I'd prefer to make a motion. Please do. A motion to approve items two for the constitutional officers and items three through seven of the county manager's consent agenda. Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. That takes us to the public hearing portion of the agenda. Before we go there, I am going to point out that on that consent agenda, we actually did have a reengineering proposal that reduced costs by about a million and a half dollars, and we are often accused of only exceeding cost schedules. So I thought I would just point that out and for the record category. So thank you to our department that did the value engineering for that public works program. So I'll look for proofs of publication. So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Hearing none, opposed? That passes unanimously. Ex parte communication disclosure. I have submitted it online and also submitted here. Thank you. I have submitted mine online. Madam Chair, I've also submitted mine online and I have it here as well. Madam Chair, mine has been submitted electronically online. Thank you. Madam Chair, I submitted mine online and only or had discussions on both nine and ten of individuals. All right. Thank you. The first item up will be District 5. That happens to be my district, and this will be presented by Principal Planner Annie Silloway. Chairman, before we do that, would you like me to read the guidelines? You sure can. Thank you. While the Board welcomes comments from all persons with an interest in these proceedings, Florida law requires that the Board's decision and quasi-judicial actions be supported by competent, substantial evidence presented to the Board during the hearings on the applications. Competent, substantial evidence is such evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. There must be a factual basis in the record to support opinion testimony from both expert and non-expert witnesses. Persons presenting testimony may rely on factual information that they present, on information presented by county staff, on information the applicant presented, or on factual information included in the county staff report to support their testimony. All persons who present written materials to the Board for consideration must ensure that a copy of those materials is provided to the Clerk for inclusion in the Board's record of the proceedings and the official minutes. Madam Chair. Thank you very much. Ms. Silloway, take it away. Thank you very much. The item I will be presenting is the Sanford Commerce Center PD Major Amendment and Small-Scale Future Land Use Amendment. So, good afternoon. Annie Silloway with Development Services. The applicant is requesting a Small-Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from commercial to industrial, along with a rezone from PD plan development to PD plan development, to allow development of a 144,000 square foot of flex space intended for a mix of commercial and industrial uses on 17.23 acres. On November 15, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners approved a request for a small-scale future land use amendment from commercial to industrial on approximately 9.9 acres, along with a rezone from A1 agriculture to PD plan development on approximately 22.3 acres, known as the Orange Boulevard PD. The purpose of the request was to allow commercial uses permitted under the C1 retail commercial and C2 general commercial zoning districts on lots 1 through 4, and to allow industrial uses permitted under the C3 heavy commercial and very light industrial and the M1A very light industrial zoning districts, only on lots 2 and 3. In 2024, lot 1 was removed from the PD, reducing the acreage from 22.3 acres to 17.23 acres, and was replatted to combine lots 2 through 4 into lot 2. The purpose of this land use amendment and rezone is to allow those C3 and M1A uses throughout the entire PD on lot 2 instead of restricting those uses to a designated area. The applicant is retaining the original entitlements previously approved by the Board, including but not limited to a maximum floor area ratio of 0.65, a maximum building height of 35 feet, and a building setback of 100 feet for a two-story building, and 150 feet for a three-story building along the west perimeter adjacent to residential. The previously established prohibited uses also remain in effect, including mechanical garages, lumber yards, construction companies with outdoor storage, highway striping companies, paint and body shops, office showrooms without assembly or manufacturing, and service stations with gas pumps as an accessory use, and communication towers. The applicant is also maintaining the existing required 25-foot landscape buffer along the western portion of the site to preserve the established buffer. So, in addition to retaining these entitlements, the applicant is proposing three modifications to the PD. The first one is vacating the western 70-foot platted access drainage and utility easement to allow expansion of the proposed flex-space warehouse building, which would otherwise encroach into a portion of that easement, and amending the future land use designation to the portion of land previously known as lot 4 of the Orange Boulevard PD from commercial to industrial and adding permitted uses consistent with the C-3 and M-1A zoning districts, and third, increasing the west perimeter building setback from 50 feet for a one-story building to 60 feet. There was an original parking proposal from the applicant, which was included in your agenda package. That proposal did not comply with the code, and staff did not support it. However, after further discussion following the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the applicant did meet with staff and developed a compromise regarding the parking proposal. Staff and the applicant are both agreeable to limiting light and general retail uses to be ancillary to the primary operational use, prohibiting additional uses such as theaters, grocery stores, temporary agricultural sales, greenhouses, plant nurseries, neighborhood civic assembly uses, and K-12 schools, and requiring special exception approval for indoor recreation, physical fitness studios, including dance and martial arts, and daycare centers. With the proposed reduction of uses, staff supports an overall parking ratio of 0.25 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Just a correction on the record, that's 1.25 spaces. That's good. Thank you. Access to the subject site is proposed through Lot 1 to the north, which connects to Orange Boulevard and Urban Major Collector Road. Orange Boulevard currently operates at a level of service A or B, depending on direction and time of day, and has programmed improvements in the county's five-year capital improvements program. The developer will be required to construct a sidewalk extending to the north boundary line of the subject site, allowing the future developer of Lot 1 adjacent to the north to complete the remaining sidewalk segment and connect it to the existing sidewalk along Orange Boulevard. The applicant has met the PD review criteria as a requested small-scale future land use map amendment and PD major amendment allowing C-3 and M-1A uses are consistent with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan. Although residential uses lie to the west, the north, and the east are established with industrial development, reflecting the area's broader pattern of heavy commercial and industrial uses. The PD sets limits on FAR, uses, setbacks, buffers, and height, and the applicant provides added benefits including SEPTED features, an innovative flex-space warehouse supporting economic development, and a substantial west side buffer adjacent to the neighborhood. The subject property does not have existing trees on site. However, the developer proposes to plant a substantial buffer along the west perimeter of the development adjacent to the existing residential neighborhood. As an infill project, the proposed development is consistent with the Central Florida Regional Growth Vision. It also supports policy TRA 2.4.3, which promotes infill development to maximize the efficient use of the existing transportation network within urban areas. Additionally, the project is consistent with policy FLU 5.4.6, which encourages employment and industrial uses adjacent to residential areas, provided compatibility is maintained. To ensure compatibility with the adjacent Bookertown neighborhood, the applicant will provide a 25-foot landscape buffer and an increased building setback of at least 60 feet along the western portion of the site. Staff finds the proposed industrial future land use designation and PD zoning classification consistent with the comprehensive plan. The applicant had a community meeting on May 14, 2026, and the details have been included in your agenda package. And the Planning and Zoning Commission met on July 1, 2026, and voted unanimously to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the ordinance enacting a small-scale future land use map amendment from commercial to industrial and a concurrent rezone from PD plan development to PD plan development. And the Planning and Zoning Minutes have been provided in your agenda package. So staff requests the Board of County Commissioners adopt the ordinance enacting a small-scale future land use map amendment and concurrent rezoning ordinance per the following two motions as shown on the screen. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you very much. Is the applicant here, and do they wish to present? They are. Name and address for the record. Afternoon, everybody. Drew Thigpen, 416 East 33rd Street, Charlotte, North Carolina. I'm with Pelican Industrial. We're the developer for the proposed project. I'll be brief, because I think Andy did a great job detailing all the specifics of the project. But I just wanted to say we've really enjoyed working with staff. They're a very thorough group, but we have gotten to a point where we are in agreement in support of all the specifics that Andy detailed. This is a product type that we feel is desperately undersupplied and in need in this county. It creates jobs. It supports local businesses. And happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. I don't suspect we have any questions at this point, do we? I don't. Terrific. Thank you. I see Dominique is sitting here with forms ready to read out, but we didn't do the rules of public comment, so if I could have the county attorney do that, that would be fabulous. Help me without my notes. Usually it's the other way around, so I think that's good. Florida law provides that members of the public shall be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard on propositions before the board of county commissioners, except when the board is acting on emergency or ministerial matters or conducting a meeting exempt from the requirements of the Sunshine Law. Individuals shall be permitted three minutes each for public comments or six minutes when the individual is an official representative of a formal association or group. The chairman may modify the maximum time for public comment at her sole discretion when appropriate. Members of the public desiring to make public comment must fill out a speaker form and present the form to staff, and forms are available in the lobby. Chairman. Thank you very much. Ms. Drager, please call up the first. How many do you have? We have two speakers. Call up the first two speakers. Cindy Haller and Eunice Brown. Thank you very much. Ms. Haller. Good afternoon. Cindy Haller, 1731 Beacon Drive, Sanford. And I wanted to speak on this, the rezone. So there's a DO. I know there's a DO for this one, Commissioner. To further minimize the impact of the surrounding neighborhood, the development will include a landscape buffer of trees. So when I actually looked at the DO, I saw they talked about group B plantings. I don't know if that's shrubbery or some other kind of plants, but trees are preferable. So I don't know if those are group A. I'm not sure. Maybe staff can answer that or the applicant. With an additional wall at least 10 feet high, which was promised to the neighborhood of Bookertown. The features are designed to reduce noise and enhance privacy. Number two, the applicant promised the proposed hours of operation to be from 7 to 7, not 7 to 9, which is actually in the county documents. Number three, soft downward-facing lighting was supposed to be used at night to reduce light pollution. I didn't see that in the DO. And finally, a full-time property manager will be on the premises to oversee the facility and promptly address any concerns. I don't know if that's something that's supposed to be in the DO or not. But anyway, I live down the street towards the river, and noise from this area actually carries into my neighborhood. And we have residents in my area who get up at 5.30 in the morning, so we don't want to hear any kind of industrial noise traveling to my area past 7 o'clock. So we had an issue with a bar that was there, and that noise travels right towards the river so we hear it. So 7 to 7, and then I will just sit down and listen to the responses. I have another copy if somebody wants this. Yes? Okay, great. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Next speaker, Ms. Brown. Good afternoon. I'm Eunice Brown with the Booker Town Improvement Association. On behalf of the rezoning, the developer came out and spoke to the Booker Town residents, which was approximately, you know, between 25 to 30 residents, and we are definitely in support of that. They gave a thorough presentation to us explaining what they was going to do and why. One of the things is that I did see in the last rezoning of the information they gave, it was 7 to 9. We spoke about 7 to 7, that we were like that because we have small kids. We don't want to hear that noise or whatever. The noise was supposed to be minimal. We was definitely agreeable on that. We also asked about, we do have a wall that is 6 foot, but we did ask would there be an additional wall, and our recognition was that it's supposed to have been 10 feet, another additional wall coming out at least 10 feet high, as well as strawberries, as well as plants and trees or whatever. So we was very, very impressed with it, and 98% of Booker Town residents' homeowners agreed on supporting this rezoning. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Would the applicant like to comment? I think the answer to that question is yes. Yeah, so on the 7 to 9, we're comfortable with making it 7 to 7, if that's of concern. The one note that I did want to make on the full-time property management, we do manage the properties ourselves. We won't necessarily have full-time property management on site 7 to 7, but they will be available full-time. So I just wanted to make sure we're clear on that wording. Would you like to address the 10-foot wall? Yeah, so is that possible? And can we bring up the site plan to show? Is there one that shows the buildings? No. No? Okay. Because the way we've got it oriented is, might you be able to show a reference image real quick? Would you also like to address the trees versus shrubs? So that, do you know the specifics of that planning? It's a 25-foot wide buffer, and I'm sure Annie has the detail. Hi, good afternoon, Annie. Still away for the record. So the Group B plantings are consisting of trees and shrubs. We were concerned about the residential district to the west, so we did ask them for an additional three-foot berm with the plantings on top of that. We figured that would be much better than having two walls against one another. Exactly. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair. So I did read from the minutes of the community meeting that there's the existing six-foot wall, and Mr. Thigpen noted that there would be an inclusion of an additional 10-foot screening wall on portions of the proposed buildings. So I'm assuming, is that the picture that we're trying to pull up right now? Yeah. I'm not sure that's going to do it. Yeah. Yeah, it won't zoom any more than that. But to your point, it's – Nice phone. Thanks. The way we're – okay, so this is not great, but this – these blue lines extending out from each of the buildings, that is – that screening – Madam Chair, that microphone is portable. Thank you. Yeah, so – Oh, can we – So what you'll have here is this 25-foot-wide landscape buffer that will have the maturing trees, and then what you'll have here is 10-foot-tall screening walls that will have – they'll be fully bricked that will extend out the length of each of the building, just leaving this 30-foot-wide entrance into the loading area. That's the 10-foot screening wall. And so I would tell you that the way this appears in the documents that are the large documents that he doesn't have available here to show is that it actually creates a better aesthetic than two walls back-to-back. And I thought our team did a phenomenal job at coming up with the concept of a berm where trees can grow above the wall that's there. Two walls don't absorb sound. And so this accomplishes, I think, all of the prerequisites that we are trying to accomplish for the community. Anything else you'd like to add, sir? No, that's it. Thank you very much. I think that this is in my district and – Madam Chair? Yes? I wanted to clarify or ask staff if we had a copy of what the applicant just presented. We will need that for the record, or he could just leave the whole phone. Maybe if it's a good phone, that will benefit all of us. Yes? I can get that plan from the applicant, and I'll send it to the clerk for the record. Thank you. Thank you very much. I will tell you that I think that this is a very welcomed addition to that area. I think it is filling a need for commercial enterprise within Seminole County. I do have some changes that I would like to see to the development order. If I look at item number two on the development order, all development must fully comply with all of the codes and ordinances in effect in Seminole County. At the time of issuance of permits, including all impact fee ordinances. That is already in there. I would like the verbiage added to that that says all uses shall comply with the terms of this – of the applicable codes and ordinances. I'm sorry. All uses shall comply with the terms of applicable – and applicable codes and ordinances at that time. Chairman, just for clarification, are you stating that all uses shall comply with the terms of this development order and all applicable codes? And all ordinances. Yes. Okay. Yes. Thank you, Naysa. And the reason for that is because this has become so specific. When you change over what I'll call tenants within that occupancy, there may not be permits issued at the time it turns over. And because we made parking concessions, we can't have it turn over and then have issues with parking that will disturb the neighborhood that we can't manage because it wasn't in the development order. So that is the reason for that add. The rest of them get much easier. There is a clarification on 3F. Underlined verbiage says excluding retail sales, light and general retail uses. And then it uses the words which shall be, and it should say except when ancillary to the primary operational use. It is not a change to the intention of that wording, but the wording was confusing even within our own staff. So it's a clarification. Where was that, Chairman? You said 3F. 3F. Yep. And it is the underlined. Yep. So no change to the intention. I'll move to 3H, and that is the hour shall be from 7 to 7 instead of 7 to 9. I'll move to 3M. Ms. Haller missed this one. Dumpsters shall be bear proof and screened so that they are not visible. And then I'll move to 3R. And again, this was very specific, and I am trying to generalize it, but not necessarily changing the intent. And that is parking of, and I'm adding, large vehicles such as mobile CT scan trucks or semi-tractors. So it's any large vehicle, including a camper, et cetera, that would clearly not be what you'd want to do anyway. And I think that concludes all of the changes that I would like to make. I will open it up for discussion. I have no questions. We see no hands raised. Based on that, with the addendums that I've made to the development order, I will move to approve, based on the staff's finding and testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the board finds that the request meets the identified portions of the comprehensive plan, and moves to adopt the ordinance enacting a small-scale future land use map amendment from commercial to industrial with the amendments mentioned. Second. Chairman, just for the record, the first motion is for the comp plan. That doesn't apply to the DO. The changes you made are to the DO. Got it. So for the next one, you can add that to that motion. Thank you. Like she said, does the seconder approve? Of course. All right. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, it passes unanimously. Now, subject to the amendments that were already made, based on the staff's findings and the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the board finds the request meets the identified portions of the Seminole County Land Development Code and moves to adopt the ordinance enacting a rezone from PD Plan Development to PD Plan Development and approve the associated development order and master development plan on approximately 17.23 acres located on the south side of Orange Boulevard, approximately a half a mile east of Oregon Street. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. I would say thank you, Ms. Sillaway, but you're up next as well. Item 9 is the Sola Retail PD Major Development Rezone. This is District 4, Commissioner Lockhart's district. It will be presented by Annie Sillaway. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Annie Sillaway with Development Services. This application is to consider a rezone from PD Plan Development to PD Plan Development to permit and restrict outdoor storage exclusively for Building 2 within the IASOLA Retail PD on approximately 3.25 acres located on the west side of Longwood Lake Mary Road, 300 feet north of Ronald Reagan Boulevard. The applicant is requesting a rezone from PD Plan Development to PD Plan Development to permit outdoor storage exclusively to Building 2 within the IASOLA Retail PD. Subject property has an industrial future land use designation, which allows a maximum intensity of 0.65 FAR, which is floor area ratio. The intent of the industrial land use designation is to provide appropriate locations for a variety of heavy commercial and industrial land uses oriented towards wholesale distribution, storage, manufacturing, and other industrial uses. On February 8, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners approved the IASOLA Retail PD permitting C3, heavy commercial, and very light industrial uses, while prohibiting certain uses, including but not limited to marine sales and service, mechanical garages, and outdoor storage. The applicant is requesting approval to include the use of outdoor storage on the developed site, as depicted on the slide shown on the screen, limited to the southwest portion of the development, and restricted to the tenant occupying Building 2. The proposed outdoor storage area will not impede or adversely affect on-site traffic circulation within the existing development site with access coming off of Longwood Lake Mary Road. An existing dumpster enclosure is located within the proposed outdoor storage area and will remain in place. The applicant has provided a letter of acceptance from the solid waste provider, confirming that the proposed additional fencing around the storage area is acceptable, provided that adequate access to the dumpster enclosure is maintained for service and collection operations to ensure uninterrupted service. And the solid waste provider has identified the following conditions outlined in the development order that is included in your agenda package. The existing development meets the review criteria for the PD. The PD zoning is consistent with the industrial future land use, and such as C3, which are permitted within the IASOLA retail PD. Typically allow outdoor storage of parts, supplies, and materials within an enclosed or fenced area. The applicant is exceeding the arbor requirements of this code by proposing to install three southern magnolia trees, each with a minimum 3-inch caliper and a minimum height of 10 feet around the outdoor storage area, and provide five bicycle parking spaces near the front of the site to accommodate customers and employees who use bicycles for transportation. The applicant does meet Section 30.8.5.3 D.1-4 of the plan development criteria. The proposed plan development zoning classification is compatible with the surrounding industrial development and is consistent with the allowable use and intensity provisions of the industrial future land use designation that includes adequate buffering and opaque fence to provide visual screening from Longwood Lake Mary Road and adjacent properties. Staff finds the requested PD zoning classification to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The applicant did conduct a community meeting on April 22, 2026, and the details of the community meeting have been provided in your agenda package. And the Planning and Zoning Commission met on July 1, 2026, and voted unanimously to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the ordinance and acting a rezone from PD plan development to PD plan development. So staff is requesting the Board of County Commissioners adopt the ordinance and acting a rezone from PD plan development to PD plan development as per the following motion on the screen. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you very much. Is the applicant here and do they wish to comment? And if you would, give your name and address for the record. I'm John Frith, Frith and Associates, 8811 Great Coat Drive, Orlando. And I'm the engineer on the project, and Bob Isola is the owner. I'm Bob Isola. I'm a resident of Summerville County, and I'm the owner. Thank you. Gavin, we concur with staff, and we're here to answer any questions that you might have. Fabulous. Stay close. We'll see if there's any questions. All right, Commissioner Lockhart, this is for you. Yes. And I think this makes complete sense. Are there any public comments? Are there any public comments, Lord? I mean, I can share mine, but. You could share your public comments. Yeah, I mean, there are none. So I have driven by this area for years, and I will be honest with you. I don't think anyone would notice, even in its current condition, that there was any outdoor storage being proposed there. So I think it makes complete sense for the tenant that's there and their needs. And so, unless there are other questions, I'm happy to make a motion. No other questions? No questions. Okay. Please do. I'd like to make a motion that, based on staff's findings and the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the board finds the request meets the identified portions of the Seminole County Land Development Code and moves to adopt the ordinance enacting a rezone from PD to PD and approve the associated addendum number one to the development order and master development plan on approximately 3.25 acres located on the west side of Longwood Lake Mary Road, 300 feet north of Ronald Reagan Boulevard. Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. And I love the Southern Magnolias. You had me at three Southern Magnolias. Three Southern Magnolias. All right. That brings us to the Kentucky Street Special Exception. This is Commissioner Zimbauer's district, and this will be Annie Silloway, Principal Planner. Good afternoon. Annie Silloway with Development Services. The request is for a special exception for a proposed 143-foot monopole communication tower and four variances to the required separation distance from properties with existing single-family use. And for the record, this is in Commissioner Zimbauer's district. The request has been evaluated in accordance with the provisions of Seminole County Land Development Code, including Section 30.6.7, which establishes performance standards for communication towers, including setbacks, separation from uses between towers and height, Section 30.3.1.5 A, which establishes the special exception criteria, applicable additional use standards, and the A-1 criteria. Section 30.6.7.3 B, Table 1, which establishes the variance criteria for communication towers, including aesthetic impacts, compatibility with abutting properties, additional provisions per Section 30.6.1 B, and consideration of Section 30.433. which establishes the standard variance criteria applicable to all variance requests. And during this presentation, I will walk you through each of these required evaluations. And at the conclusion of the presentation, staff will provide its recommendation for both the special exception and the requested variances. The applicant is requesting approval of a special exception to construct a 143-foot monopole communication tower designed to accommodate up to three wireless carriers. The property has a future land use designation of higher-intensity planned development, airport, and a zoned A-1 agriculture. The subject property is approximately 1.67 acres, meeting the minimum required lot size and lot width of the A-1 zoning district. The applicant proposes to place the communication tower in the northeast corner of the vacant site. A special exception is required for communication towers within the A-1 zoning district, and the special exception request shall be evaluated for compliance with all applicable sections of the Seminole County Land Development Code. Pursuant to Section 30.6.7.3, communication towers must maintain a minimum separation distance from existing property lines of 200 feet or 300 percent of the height of the tower, whichever is greater, unless a variance is granted. Such variance may be approved upon findings that the proposed tower minimizes aesthetic impacts and remains compatible with the surrounding properties. The proposed tower height of 143 feet requires a separation distance of 429 feet. So four variances are being requested from the required separation distance of 429 feet, measured from the outer extremity of the base of the communication tower to the property line of the parcel that has an existing single-family residence. The tower is proposed to be located approximately 111 feet from the nearest property line of a residential use. The remaining three residential parcels are located at a distance of 141 feet, 307 feet, and 308 feet from the base of the proposed communication tower. The applicant has obtained consent from all affected property owners for the reduced separation distance. After review of the special exception request, the Board of County Commissioners may approve the request if it is determined that the use requested meets the following special exception criteria as shown on the screen. The proposed 143-foot communication tower would negatively impact the character of the surrounding residential area with its encroachment intensified by the minimum separation distance of only 111 feet from the nearest property line, while the tower would generate de minimis traffic and telecommunication facilities are allowed within the HIP-AP future land use designation. Its proximity to nearby residences creates adverse effects despite its passive nature and limited noise. Although the tower meets the A-1 zoning district required side and rear setbacks, it does not meet the required 429-foot separation from four adjacent residential properties, promoting the applicant's request for a variance. The applicant has demonstrated that the tower complies with the required 1,500-foot separation from other existing towers based on the GPS-verified location data. And the subject property and the surrounding parcels are zoned A-1, but the HIP-AP future land use designations signals a long-term transition away from agriculture toward airport-compatible development. As this area grows, new uses will align with that direction rather than agricultural activity. The proposed monopole communication tower, a passive and low-intensity facility with no daily traffic, noise, or on-site activity, fits the intent of this future land use framework. Staff finds that the proposed communication tower generally satisfies the special exception criteria of Section 30.3.1.5. However, because approval of the special exception is contingent upon approval of the associated variances, staff cannot support approval of the special exception unless the variances are approved. A variance may be granted if it is found that the aesthetic impacts of the tower are enhanced, that compatibility with the budding property owners is maintained, and the approval of the tower located would be consistent with and further the provisions of Section 30.6.7.1. Staff finds that the proposed 143-foot monopole galvanized finish and 8-foot opaque vinyl fence provide some visual mitigation by reducing the tower's overall visual mass and screening the ground equipment compound. However, the fence does not screen the tower itself, and the Seminole County Land Development Code identifies the required 429-foot separation distance from residential properties as the primary means of minimizing visual impacts. The proposed setbacks of approximately 111, 141, 307, and 308 feet substantially reduce the required buffer, and staff finds the proposed mitigation measures are not sufficient to offset the increased visual prominence of the tower. Although the affected property owners submitted letters of support, staff finds the requested variance remains inconsistent with the code's intent to maintain compatibility between communication towers and nearby residential uses. The required separation distance was established to protect residential areas, promote compatibility, and further broader public welfare objectives. And staff finds the magnitude of the requested reduction does not maintain the level of protection contemplated by the code. Staff further finds that the proposal is generally consistent with the code's objectives of accommodating additional wireless communication infrastructure, encouraging co-location through a tower designed to support up to three wireless carriers, and providing sufficient information for review. However, the proposal does not fully satisfy the code's objectives regarding appropriate tower sitting, protection of residential areas, minimization of visual impacts, and maintaining compatibility with adjacent residential properties because the requested variance substantially reduces the required 420-foot separation distance that serves as the primary protective buffer established by the code. While the proposal supports the expansion of wireless infrastructure and incorporates design features that reduce some visual impacts, staff finds those measures do not adequately compensate for the significant reduction in the required separation distance. So, therefore, staff concludes that the requested variance is inconsistent with the applicable evaluation criteria of the Seminole County Land Development Code and does not support approval of the request. A variance may be granted if it is determined that the tower's aesthetic impacts are improved, that compatibility with adjacent property owners is maintained, and that the tower location is consistent with and supports the provisions of Seminole County Land Development Code Section 30.6.7.1. And staff has evaluated the application using the standard variance criteria in Section 30.433 provided in your agenda package and found that the surrounding residential properties do not present a unique condition compared to other A-1 parcels. Staff also found that the hardship is self-induced resulting from the applicant's decision to place the tower on a site that cannot meet the required separation distance from the property line. While the criteria in Section 30.433 may be considered, they are not determinative in this case. The applicant conducted a community meeting on April 8, 2026, and the details are in your agenda package. And the Planning and Zoning Commission met on July 1, 2026, and voted 3-1 to recommend the Board of County Commissioners deny the development order for the variance due to the separation distance between the tower and existing residential development and deny the special exception for the location of the communication tower. So the requested action is that staff requests the Board of County Commissioners deny the requested variance due to the applicant not meeting the required criteria in Section 30.6.7.3 in Table 1 of the Seminole County Land Development Code to support a reduction of the separation distance between the proposed communication tower and existing residential development as set forth in staff's analysis and testimony. Because the special exception is contingent upon approval of the variance, staff cannot support the special exception unless the variance is granted. So the requested motion is that staff requests the Board of County Commissioners deny the variance and special exception associated with the development order as per the following motion on the screen. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Is the applicant here and do they wish to comment? Name and address for the record, please. Mary Solick, 121 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1500 Orlando, Florida. I'm legal counsel for Seafort Towers. Tim O'Shaughnessy, the principal, is here with me tonight. Does this pointer work? Oh, great. Okay. You've heard from your staff. Now you're going to hear from me. This is, again, an aerial of the subject property. It's on north of Kentucky Street in between Cameron and Jessup. It's a 1.67-acre piece. You've had all of the basic details of the property presented to you, so I'm going to just kind of skip to the points I want to make. Thank you. To the north of this property is the City of Sanford Water Treatment Facility, and the City of Sanford owns most of the property to the east. We have, I'm going to zoom, this is a bigger aerial. I'm going to zoom you out a little bit to show you. The yellow pin is the tower location to show you that we are southwest of the airport, and we're all, the Boomba Sports Complex is just north of the Seminole, or the City of Sanford Water Treatment Facility. This tower is anchored by T-Mobile, and Verizon has expressed an interest in it as well. It's a three-carrier pole. We anticipate that AT&T will come on that tower as the third carrier once their budgets align with their needs. This tower is needed to provide coverage to the Boomba Sports Complex, to the airport, to Lake Mary Boulevard, and to the residential development to the west and to the south of this location. As you know, the airport and Boomba are economic drivers in your community. You want those folks to have a good experience here. You want them to have good, solid, wireless coverage when they're here. I understand you're also in the process of constructing an indoor practice sports facility on the east side of Cameron that would also be covered by this tower. Now you're moving those residents or those visitors to your community to an indoor facility. You need a stronger signal strength to get into that facility. We think this coverage is essential to your community, and we think we've found a location that allows us to get into this area, not really, in our opinion, impact much residential development, and get in ahead of the redevelopment that's going to happen on that property eventually. You know it's got a future land use of high-intensity airport plan development. This is our tower location. We have an approval from the FAA for 155 feet. This is, in our world, this is a relatively short tower. It's 139 top of steel with a 4-foot lightning rod, making it 143. We have 155-foot approval. That's short because of the proximity to the airport. That airspace limits what we can do around that area. We would have loved to have done a 155-foot tower in this area. I encouraged my client to lower the height to the minimum necessary to meet the needs of his tenants and reduce the number of variances we needed for the tower. If we had gone with 155, there would have been a couple more residential separations that we would not have met. So we lowered it as much as we could to provide three RAD centers for three carriers, three usable slots on the tower for this community, even though we could have gone to 155. And I'll put that FAA approval in the record. Again, here's an elevation drawing of the tower, 139 top of steel, 143 with the lightning rod, the three carriers. You only have three licensed carriers left in your marketplace, so this should meet the needs of all three of them. The subject property is owned by Johnny Shaw. The subject property is vacant and unimproved. Johnny Shaw and Ronald Shaw own the adjacent property. Do that. I don't know where the pointer is. The Shaw's together still own the property to the west. Although Mr. Shaw lives there, Johnny Shaw does not live there. She lives in Jacksonville. And the Shaw's are one of the affected residential structures. Your staff pointed out the separation requirements. 300% of the tower height from a residential feature land use doesn't apply out here. This is high-intensity airport. 300% of the tower height from residential zoning doesn't apply. It's agricultural zoning. The only separation requirement we have is 300% of the tower height from existing residential structures, and there are four of them. This is what your code allows. This comes right from your code. Reduced separation distances may be reduced by the planning manager when written consent as set forth in a recordable instrument is obtained from all property owners within the applicable separation distance. Given the nature of that community, there isn't going to be a property out there that we could put a tower on that would meet the residential separation requirements. You have to be 439 feet from a property line. So we didn't want to have this battle with you about separation distances here on the floor. We took this to heart. We read this provision of your code, and my client, before we ever submitted the application, went out and knocked on all of those doors, explained to all of those property owners what he was doing, and secured notarized written consents. And we submitted those with the application. I'm going to put those in the record now, along with the FAA. They are in your package. So we don't think we're asking for a waiver. We think we're asking you to apply your code. We did this so we could avoid this problem. And I tell you, you all know, I've been doing cell tower zoning work since the late 90s. It's not very often that we can knock on the doors and get this kind of cooperation and consent from the neighbors and deliver something to you that's not objected to by the people that are most affected by it. So we submitted those. The planning manager refused to reduce the separations, I believe, because the planning manager reviewed the setback reductions to be too great. Okay, so I've added a column to the chart. You have this chart in your staff report. I've actually added two columns. I've added the owner on the left. Three of the four affected properties are non-homestead properties. Two of them are owned by corporations or LLCs, the Baker Financial Property. The Stephen Fair property, that's an investor. I believe somebody from his team is here to speak in support of the application today. GEB properties, another LLC, and then the Ronald and Johnny May Shaw property. So one homesteaded property out there affected the Shaw's. They've consented. The setback required is 429. The setback provided is listed in the second column. And, yeah, it's a short distance. But that's the way you calculate it in your code. It's calculated based on the outside edge of the tower to the property line on which the structure is located. If you recall from the maps that you saw in the beginning, most of these properties are long, skinny properties that front on Kentucky. They have excessive depth. So if you actually measure the distances between the tower and the structures affected, if you look at the bottom three, we're exceeding the 429 feet. We come a little closer on the Baker Financial. But if the reason for objecting to the consents is that the intent of the code is not meant and that the visual buffer has not been provided, if you look at the actual distances between the tower and these residential structures, none of which face the tower, the buffer is there. The distance is there. And I'm going to go back to the first aerial to show you that all of those properties west of the subject property have pretty extensive tree cover on them. There isn't any evidence before you that shows any of those homes will actually see the tower that's all the way up in the northeast corner of the Shaw property due to the intervening vegetation that's on those properties. So this map shows the distance between each of where those homes are and, again, shows you the existing heavy vegetation that's on those properties that helps buffer and screen the view of the tower. I'll bring this in to sort of demonstrate to you how it's virtually impossible to find a property out there that would meet setbacks. Somebody help me with this pointer. Do you know how to use it? There is no pointer. There is no pointer. Do you need a pointer? Well, maybe I can come over here. You can take the microphone with you. That's a portable. Okay. The Shaw property is straight up. It's got the skinny little access point. That's the Shaw property. Residential all the way down here and all the way over there. If you come off of Lake Mary Boulevard and you see a couple large properties, well, that little carve-out there is a homestead property. So we would have this, and all this over here on the right side of Cameron, all this, this is all owned by the Water Management District, and then you have Lake Jessup. We don't need to cover out there. We need to cover north, west, and south. There isn't any property out here where we could meet a setback. When you have residential, when you have a structure all the way around you, you need a property that's 439 feet from the center of tower in all directions. That's almost 900 by 900 feet for a property. You calculate that out, it's 17 acres. You're not going to find a property out here where we can meet setbacks. We've chosen a property that's pushed up against existing utility uses all the way in back, shielded by existing residential, and delivered consents from all affected property owners. So with that, I would ask for your approval. Your staff has determined that we meet the special exception criteria. They don't think we meet variance criteria. I think I've established that there are unique circumstances here, and that there are unique circumstances given the area in terms of trying to meet a setback anywhere out there. And again, all four affected property owners have given you consents, an action or a situation contemplated by your code. It's not something we're asking you to dream up or asking you to waive. It's in your code. Do you have any questions for me? Any questions so far? Not yet. Thank you very much. Okay. Chairman, can I just lay some things out on the record so I understand them? Mary, so your first submittal into the record was the FAA approval. Yes. Your second was the property owner consents from the four property owners. And then you submitted, have you submitted your PowerPoint into the record too? Oh, we have one, but it's different. I looked through the planning and zoning board one. Yes, it's different than the one I did at the planning commission. Okay. So yes, I would ask that that be put in the record. The planning commission got hung up on variances and they said... So she's just asking a question. Your time is done. Ms. Borger, did you get everything asked? I just want to make sure I had that straight for the record. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Public comment. One speaker. Madam Chairman, Kim Fisher. Good afternoon, everybody. Ken Fisher, 1614 White Dove Drive, Winter Springs, Florida. I am actually the property owner that abuts to the west in the back. I am next door and I'm in support of it. I've got a tenant living there. I've owned the property since 2020, so about six years now. We do have an issue with self-service out there. So when Mr. O'Shaughnessy came knocking at my door because I ignored all of his other correspondences, as I typically do, I was very happy for it because of my tenant complaints about the self-service out there. We also do have a visual buffer with all of the trees out there. And even if a hurricane comes and knocks down all the trees, it's so far back there in the property. I don't see visually how it would ever be a property. So I am very much in support of it and hope you'll approve it. And I'm here if you have any questions, engineering or not engineering related. Thank you very much. Thanks. All right. We'll close public comment. Commissioner Zimbauer. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, let me say, if you've had the opportunity to be in that area of the county in my district, you would know that the self-service is terrible. You cut off. You can't connect. You're connected one minute. You're disconnected the next. We have staff recommendation. We have a plan and zoning meeting that I've listened to. I'm not so sure they fully grasped the difference of what was happening there. If you go throughout my district in that area, as you all know, there's been a lot of development come in in the last five years in and around Kentucky and all the stuff we've done on Lake Mary Boulevard. And if we don't do something now, it's just not going to happen. And we're going to continue to have failing cell phone service. So I will be moving forward a motion based on the applicant's testimony and evidence received at the hearing. I find that the request meets the identified portion of the land development code and moves to approve the variance, special exception, and development order with conditions for the proposed communication tower located on the north side of Kentucky Street, approximately 1,700 feet east of Skyway Drive. Second. So we have a motion and a second. Discussion? Mr. Constantine? Before I vote, and I will be voting for the motion, I just wanted to commend the staff for the job that they did in putting together the program and the decision that they came up with, because they are right. Based upon the variances, this should not – they made the recommendation correctly. But in fact, as the motioner, Commissioner Zimbauer said, these are unique circumstances. And for that matter, I think that we could support the variances. And so therefore, I will support it. But I did want to say that I did respect the way that you went about it, point after point after point after point. You're correct, and you deserve that commendation. Thank you very much. Is there any other questions or comments? I would also say that this is a really good indicator of how our code can't possibly contemplate every single situation that we're ever presented with, and that sometimes you just have to step in. So with that, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, it passes unanimously. Madam Chair, if I may just follow up for just a second for staff's benefit. I concur with Commissioner Constantine, but this is yet another area of our code that puts the burden on the development services manager to try to make a decision or not make a decision. And as we heard, and we have our code, which I think is 30.6.73B3, which does allow the manager to make that decision if all properties impacted consent, which in this manner they did. But that said, I don't necessarily favor a decision being made at a staff level to this extent. So for that, I'm glad staff moved it forward. Staff could have approved it. We may be having a different discussion up here. So just for discussion, we've been through this manager-staff level thing, and hopefully we're flushing all those out a little bit at a time. Commissioner Lockhart. The chicken and the egg dynamic that we have with the code, is that going to be brought back to us in the future, and if so, when? Yes. We're looking to clean that section of the code up. We think it was something that was missed in previous amendments, and so the next round of land development code amendments, you'll be seeing a cleanup of that section. And if you have any other suggestions on what you want to say, there's some very strange stuff in here. I mean, it requires you to look at the variance criteria, but that variance criteria is not determinative. It's just kind of considered. So we will probably come back to you with some cleaning up of the conditions and trying to make them more easy to follow. Perfect. That'll make it better for all involved. Agreed. Thank you. Agreed. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. County. Madam Chair, the applicant is asking for, I think she better leave when she's ahead. Yeah, I wasn't going to go there, so tread lightly. No, 30 seconds. I, I, I've told you I've done this a long time. I review codes all over the state. I kind of know what works and what doesn't work. I am happy to assist your staff if they go through this or read a version. I'm, I'm, I'm just offering my experience interpreting codes across the state on towers. Thank you. Thank you. And then, Chair, stakeholders should be involved. Absolutely. When I, when our attorney said that there was some strange stuff in the agenda, she didn't mean wrong. She just meant strange. Yes. Interesting stuff. Strange. Interesting. Strange things. Yeah. That could be wrong. Strange but true. I think admitting the first step in, in the improvement process is to admit that we need to be improving. Amen. All right. County attorney. Thank you, Chairman. One quick housekeeping item. There was an indication in some of your briefings, those of you that were briefed last week, that we may be asking for a closed session. We're putting that on hold until we get a written order in that particular case. So if anyone remembered that, we're not doing that for another meeting or so. But my one item I wanted to discuss is regarding a different case pending litigation in the case, Seminole County versus Middleburg Communities, LLC. You've been each individually briefed on a proposed settlement agreement that my office has reached with the developer, Middleburg Communities. If approved, the agreement will settle the case with Middleburg only, the developer only. There are two other named defendants in the case that are not a party to this agreement. So I'm asking for a motion authorizing the chairman to execute the settlement agreement with the Middleburg Communities, LLC. So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Hearing none. Passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you very much. That was my only item. County manager. Thank you, chairman. Just a couple of items. One, our animal services department is doing, it's called Clear the Shelter Month. So the month of August, we're offering $5 adoptions for all cats and dogs. And hopefully that will help our overcrowding us over at our shelter. I want to bring this to the board's attention, especially with all the property tax discussion. But our summer reading program had over 9,300 residents attending the programs, over five branches. So you talk about programs that are supported by property tax. That is one of them. So I just wanted to bring that to the board's attention that it was a huge success. And so congratulations to our library services department, as well as our Parks and Rec. Mr. Durer and his team do a fabulous job. And then, and lastly, can you believe it's the 25th anniversary of September 11th coming up. We are partnering with the city of Samford. They are actually doing an event on Friday, September 11th at 1020, exactly when the first plane hit the tower, at the Veterans Memorial Island in Samford. So I'll be sending that out to you all as well. And we'll get our communication team to promote that along with the city of Samford. So I appreciate the city of Samford reaching out to us to help partner in that event. That's all. Madam Chair, I have a question on that. Maybe this is for Alan. Somebody had sent me a clip. Some jurisdiction somewhere out in the Midwest does an adoption through animal services where the pets pick the owners, where they put them in a room and the pet goes up to the person. And just, just a thought, you know, somebody looking for a dog, whatever. I know everybody wants to pick and choose, but if the dog or cat can pick their own owner, then, match made in heaven. At least one side of it. Well, thank you for that. I will tell you that the last pet that I brought into the home came from the shelter, and she is the sweetest little thing I've ever seen. She begs from my other dogs. She sits and begs from the other dogs. I have to take a video of it to share with the animal services. I just haven't done it yet. But it is the most amazing thing. There are some amazing creatures there. Is that a habit that they picked up while at Alan's facility? I don't think so. I don't think she was there long enough to have picked up a habit there. But she is a sweet creature for sure. All right, Commissioner Dilawri, District 1. Thank you, Madam Chair. Two quick items. First, in Orange County, the P&Z. Next P&Z meeting, they're going to be hearing about the RIBO property subsidy. And I think that we should be issuing a letter. I like to ask the county to issue a letter to the P&Z board as well as the county commission and the items that we've had last time and reviewing it. And so that we, if we have objections, that we put them on the record. I didn't know what the board would like to do, but I'd like to bring that forward. I think if we pull up the previous letters that were already sent and maybe combine them and change the date, it may be the appropriate thing to do. That's okay, too. But I think if we need to put something on the record. No, it's 1,400 or 1,500 acres that slams right up against our rural boundary that is now an agricultural enclave under the new rulings and law in Tallahassee. So I think it's certainly, I'm fine with doing that. Any other comments? If we can have our staff present it to them at that meeting, I'd greatly appreciate it. Instead of just sending it via the mail. Is our staff... Oh, you want us to go to the public hearing and present it to them? Is our staff engaged with county staff over there on what's happening? We are. Yes. Yes. Commissioner Lockhart. I have no problem with sending the letter. I would just, for a moment, think what it would be like if we had someone from Orange County come here to our chambers and express their thoughts to us in person. I don't know. We've had that happen from other surrounding counties, and I remember we didn't take... We didn't appreciate it very much. So I would just say let's think about that before we actually send someone in person because you don't know how that's going to be received, how it's going to be delivered. Totally on board with sending the letter. Totally on board with our position. I want to marinate that. I'm not in favor of sending staff to speak. I would be in favor of sending staff to observe, take minutes, whatever. But a letter certainly would be fine. But I don't think... I know there has been elected officials from here go down there and speak at some times. I don't think it's appropriate. I think out of respect for a fellow government, they will recognize our letter as meaning in full confidence what our position would be without us having to go down there and, quote, embarrass them or make a show. Just my thoughts. Any other discussion? We've sent people before. That's the only reason why I brought it up. So, send people to observe. I think it's hearing the flavor of the meeting is valuable, bringing that information back. I think we can send the letter. I think we could ask that the letter be read into the record if it's that type of meeting. That's a whole different request than sending somebody to stand there. That at least gets it on the public record. I've seen that done in other boards and it's fairly effective. So, I'd throw that out there as a thought. The question I have is how are we going to read it into the minutes or the meeting if staff or someone is not there? They do it themselves. Chairman, I just have a couple suggestions, if I may. We can write a letter and ask that the letters put in the record, the file that's provided to the Planning and Zoning Board and the Board of County Commissioners. I would also suggest that for this letter to carry a little more guidance and be more specific, we need to go outside of what's previously been provided to them and actually address the statute on agricultural enclaves. Because what they're doing here is a brand-new statutory process. It's certifying the property as an agricultural enclave. It doesn't get into what they can develop. There's just certain standards in the Florida statutes that they have to meet. So, maybe adding in, in addition to what you're suggesting, adding in additional information about agricultural enclaves specifically and how this may not meet the requirements for that designation. Madam Chair, I'd be okay with that. Yep. All right. We're good with that. So, we'll leave it to the county manager and the county attorney's office to issue a letter with the appropriate language in it to have the most oomph. I think that was the word you were looking for. Madam Chair, the last item I have is that I want to thank Kim Orenberger and her staff. I did receive a phone call from a citizen that was having a problem with their trash being picked up. They've actually called or received, our staff's recalled, six different service tickets for six different months. It wasn't just in one area or one period of time. It was over a six-month period. It was in December, January, March, April, June, and July. And I want to thank Kim and her staff for addressing this item. That's it. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Zimbauer. Everything's perfect in District 2. Thank you very much. Other than the cell phone reception. Exactly. It could be by design. We just don't want to hear it. So, you have no report? I'm good. My peeps are good. All right. I'm moving on. Commissioner Constantine. Just wanted to congratulate Christian Tech Center on the check they received from Spectrum. I know that Commissioner Lockhart and Commissioner Hur were both there and both spoke. And it's nice to see an individual in our community working so hard to help others in trying to be fighting the technological age and learning a little bit more about it. Also, I did want to tell you that I know a lot of you have interest in data centers and their energy, environmental concerns, and economics. NACO is doing a seminar starting at 1 o'clock today. I did go ahead and register for it so it would be available for anybody who would like to see it through Beatrice. I also know that Mr. Slott has also done the same thing. And so, it's pretty comprehensive. Again, there have been, as we all know, a lot of areas of the United States that have been affected by this, primarily in the Washington-Baltimore area, has been really ground zero, if you will, for that. And I think that it would be very informative. So, I just wanted to let you know that it will be available, and both Mr. Slott and my office will have that for future reference. Also, since we're talking about Sanford, at the Sanford City Commission meeting yesterday, we all know the plight of the Sloss and the Central Florida Zoo. One of the positive things that came up was their Sanford Main Street went ahead and did a T-shirt, and the proceeds of that T-shirt will go to the zoo to help them in the cost of taking care of this loss. So, they received, at the Sanford City Commission meeting last night, the zoo received a check for $69,076 for the profits of that T-shirt. Yes. Yes. And that is all I have today. Wonderful. Commissioner Constantine, if I could ask you or your aide to send the link out to that webinar, that would save us all a step, I think. Commissioner Lockhart. I was honored to participate in the new Squad 2 push-in ceremony at Fire Station 35 last week, the week before. Just an incredible piece of equipment in and of itself, but when you realize that it was actually our firefighters who were the ones who, through their expertise and knowledge, designed that vehicle so that they know that everything that's on it is something that they would need. And it's just an incredible piece of equipment and a wonderful thing to have here in our county. So, we talked about the Christian Tech Center. I do want to bring up, talking about working with surrounding cities, counties. There has been an ongoing push to develop a parcel that is near Lazy Acres, which is one of the areas that we had talked about making a rural enclave at one point, which has now been stopped. And there's snickering, so I know you all know what I'm talking about. There's been, the city of Longwood has made some decisions recently about an ordinance that they had in place. And I've spoken to a couple of city commissioners about that. There's claims of some miscommunication, the media maybe not fully accurately representing what occurred at that meeting. I've had members of the community reach out and ask me to join their private Facebook groups. So, for the record, I have said no. Thank you very much. All of the information that you've provided to me, I have forwarded on to staff. We understand what the situation is. We are aware of what this board's intent is in terms of compatibility and the preservation of the character of that area. However, I think it would be unwise for any of us to join any special Facebook groups about this particular project since it may be coming to us to vote at some point in time. So, for the public record and for the good of the order, if anyone sends me another Facebook request to join another group, the answer is still no, although I really appreciate all of your communication through my official email address, alockhart at SeminoleCountyFL.gov. And if I could, Commissioner, I did have the same concern that you did. One of the things that I think the citizens may want to know is it's not in the city of Longwood. It is still in the county, unincorporated, and before they could do anything, they would have to get it annexed, and that would also go through us. So, just in the for the record category, we are well aware and our team is on top of it, and we appreciate all of the work that's being done. Thank you very much. That's all I have. Oh, wait. No, I do have one more. Sorry. Medical Examiner Committee meeting. Oh, no. So, that's tomorrow. So, there is an item on the agenda that we don't think is an item to actually vote on because it is a restructuring of some of the agreement that was supposed to have been circulated by the Marion County Attorney to all of the other county attorneys, but we don't believe it was actually circulated to any of the other attorneys. So, I will not be voting to approve that item since it has not come to our board yet to be approved, although the county attorney can certainly opine. She does not seem to have any problem with the substance or the item itself, but in terms of the order of process of appropriateness, it has not been to each of our individual boards yet. So, if you see that, if someone brings it up, please know that we don't think it's necessarily an action item, but we can't quite tell. Does that conclude your report? Sure. All right. Well, before you went on to that section of the program, I would just say that no one invites me to be part of anything on Facebook because they know I want to be. So, I would just recommend. Lucky you. I don't, I just say no, Nancy Reagan. Just say no to drugs, just say no to Facebook. I would like to just express appreciation certainly to Andre Klass and his organization for the work they do in the community, but also to Spectrum for leaning in pretty significantly with a grant. And actually, the entire program, we were one of many grants across the state. So, it's a significant investment in bridging that digital divide. So, a big shout out to Spectrum. I don't usually do this, but today is National Son and Daughter Day, which I think is really silly because isn't it always? Yeah. I don't know why they need a day. Every day is kid day. And from a chairman's report perspective, I do want to share with you that the canvassing board has been just wild fun and frolic. I say that in just because it really has been a pleasure to participate. A huge shout out and thank you to Andrew Alenius, who has done an amazing job, who greets us at the door, talks us into the meeting, gets us, it's just amazing. And to our citizen, Paul Partica, who has taken this very seriously, has come for all of the training sessions and is ready to stand in any time as the alternate. We have received feedback, public comment at both of the meetings so far. Both of the meetings had a member of the League of Women Voters, and they were different people both days, but used words like organized, precise, transparent, detailed, and exceptionally well done. And then we also had for the systems, voting system certification, we had the Bureau of Voting Systems Certification Chief, which, just saying, that's an interesting title, state-held position title. She observed the entire session. Her name is Linda Hastings-Ard. She actually raved about the work that had been done, the contrast to before, and gave great kudos to the entire team at the SOE's office. So that is going well. I do have one last shout out, and this is to put the period at the end of the sentence for the 429 District 5 impact that started before I got here and I think is ending with this, and that is that the dry pond on east of, or north of 46, right before you go over the bridge to Lake County, is now officially dry. It has been re-engineered. It went through an insurance claim. It went through an engineering project. It was never dry, which meant that the neighborhood back there was being inundated with mosquitoes. Our team was trying to keep up with it. It's been a mess. But they did everything they could do. They re-engineered it in addition to the bump out on the road, so a significant amount of work after the fact to make sure that the impacted community was protected to some degree. And I will give a huge shout out to Mary Brooks, who works for Quest. She's the executive vice president. She's in charge of communications. There was never a day that we didn't know what was going on. We may not have known, but it wasn't because Mary didn't tell us. It was because we couldn't find what Mary told us. And she does an amazing job, really, really good work by FDOT and their subcontractors. That does conclude my report as well. Is there any other public comment? Yes, ma'am. One speaker, Ursula Gray. If you would give us your name and address for the record, that would be fabulous. Good afternoon. My name is Ursula Perovich Gray. I live at 2534 L Portal Avenue in Stanford. Is that it? Yeah. Hi. So my husband's been using the Scalped transportation system or what have you, and he has a disability. And it hasn't, I guess, affected me directly. I mean, obviously indirectly. But there just really seems to be issues with the waiting times. And I know that one of the things that they kind of highlighted was that, you know, no longer waiting at bus stops and whatever in the heat. My husband waits for up to three hours at Ronald Reagan and 434. And oftentimes I'll get a call from him from another phone number because his phone is now gone dead. And without a beacon, I guess that's one of the ways that they see where you are or what have you. And I guess it preemptively, if that is occurring, he does try to contact the dispatcher or the driver. Again, I have never personally used it, but, you know, I get these phone calls, and then I end up calling the dispatch. And I understand that there's been some, there's ideas of expansion, like through to, like, UCF or what have you. Are there no, and I'm just wondering, or just, I know they'll go to Central State, but, I mean, all of the students for Central State, like, they would for free. You know, like a dedicated, like, you know, what have you or what not. And, again, I pulled out of the workforce to raise my daughter and did a lot with Seminole County Public Schools. So it wasn't really something that I, like, I understood the bus system, you know, and what have you. But this just really doesn't make sense to me. But now that I'm, you know, kind of, you know, transitioning back into the workforce, it just, and I don't know what the solution is. Because, and I'm sorry, I'm just getting quick here. My daughter just started 18. She just graduated from some of the high school and asked her grandfather for a car. And I know she should have actually been the one to probably talk to him, but, you know, I kind of, you know, kind of softened the blow. So, and, you know, my father, I told him, I explained to him that, you know, the buses were no longer going to be running. It was going to be a microtransit kind of thing. And he said he was going to look at the website or whatnot. And he basically came back and said, you know, I've looked at the information. I've prayed on it. And, you know, he decided against it. And, yeah, I was kind of frustrated because I just don't think that he, I mean, nobody really knew what was going to come of that. You know, and so I'm just wondering, like, really about the discounts and things like that because it is awfully expensive. I mean, at the end of the day, I used to have my husband run an errand for me because he had, has a disability. And so he goes for, like, $2.50 all over links, you know. And for me, it's like, it was $5. And now that, it seems like that's what it is, like, both ways. And I'm just wondering where, like, how do we work on this to do better by myself, by others? So thank you for your comments. I would connect you to our team. Kristen's going to wave his hand from the back of the room. Thank you. There we go. Some, first of all, paratransit through links is still available. Second of all, Seminole State does have a program put together. Okay. Third of all, there's lots of discounts within the system. I would encourage you to engage. It is new, and that's what we've seen as being the biggest barrier. But we want you to be using it and using it effectively, and we want to make sure that education is part of that. Yes. So thank you for being here. Madam Chair, just for benefit for the public, since the inception of Scout, the user rating is at a 4.81 out of 5. So overall, I think we're doing well. Well, as we always knew, there was going to be some hiccups and some folks that need some direction and help to understand how the app works and so forth. But I suspect this is one of those cases where staff can. So, ma'am, public comment is you have three minutes. This is our time for discussion now, so you can probably have a seat. So I'm sure staff will get direction and help them in any way, shape, or form that they may be struggling with. Yeah. So we definitely want to make sure that you connect with Kristen in the back and get all of the details that you can to make sure that you're taking advantage of every possible program through the Scout program that gets you to where you need to go or gets your husband to where he needs to go. All right. Thank you. Is there any other public comment for us? No, ma'am. Anything else for the good of the order? All right. Meeting adjourned.