The Seminole County Planning and Zoning Commission on Wednesday recommended rejecting a developer’s request to remove about 67 acres of land from the county’s established East Rural Area.
Advancing the request would’ve been a step toward allowing more dense development of the site just north of Oviedo’s city limits, where a popular strawberry-picking farm used to operate. The land sits just a few miles from the 700-acre Black Hammock Wilderness Area, near Lake Jesup.
The removal request
The request came from Chris Dorworth, a developer who served in Florida’s House of Representatives from 2007 to 2012. Dorworth has previously tried, unsuccessfully, to remove other swaths of land from the county’s East Rural Area.
That area, also known simply as the Rural Area, consists of some 67,000 acres of land largely designated for rural use, according to county planning staff. A voter-approved rural boundary separates it from the county’s urbanized areas.
Ahead of Wednesday’s meeting, planning staff analyzed Dorworth’s request and recommended against approving it, writing that it is “not expected to serve a public purpose.” Removing the land from Seminole County’s designated rural area and allowing it to mirror the development pattern of two adjacent subdivisions would constitute “urban sprawl,” according to staff.
Dorworth took issue with that characterization of the development outlined in his conceptual plans, contending Wednesday night that “really, it’s the exact opposite of urban sprawl.”
“It's compact. It's across the street from existing subdivisions,” Dorworth said.
In application materials submitted to the county, Dorworth argued that “no rural neighborhood is degraded, encroached upon, or altered by the proposal, because no rural neighborhood adjoins it.”
But the county’s analysis found that statement to be false, Principal Planner Maya Athanas said, because roughly 85% of the site is next to land with rural land use designations. Meanwhile, only about 15% of the site’s boundary is located across the street from two residential subdivisions.
‘Not responsible growth’
Dozens of people, many of whom live in the nearby subdivisions, spoke against Dorworth’s request during a public comment period Wednesday.
“A rural boundary has to have a boundary. It has to border somewhere,” said Kevin Littwin, who said he lives right next door. “I didn't buy my property with the expectation that I would look at a brick wall out my front door one day.”
Some residents raised concerns that more intense development would lead to habitat destruction for wildlife and more dangerous traffic conditions — plus heightened flood risk for a wetlands-laden area already facing plenty.
“It is a natural watershed area from the surrounding cities,” said Jamie Langford, a realtor who said she specializes in vacant land. “With the amount of water flow that comes through this area, and what came through with Hurricane Ian — these areas were roughly six feet underwater, in some cases.”
Neither the commission nor planning staff were tasked with evaluating the development plans in and of themselves — only the question of whether or not the 67 acres of land at issue should be carved out of the rural area.
But based on conceptual site plans Dorworth submitted with his application, the developer’s ultimate vision would require land use and zoning changes effecting “approximately a 700% increase in the allowable number of residential units” on the land, planning staff wrote — which “would not preserve the current rural character” of the site.
The county’s planning and zoning commission is a recommending body, and the larger board of commissioners still has to hear out the rural boundary change request. That hearing is set for 1:30 p.m. Dec. 8.
