08/04/2025
📢 **PUBLIC HEARING TOMORROW – YOUR VOICE MATTERS!**
🚫 A Special Exception has been submitted to build a large-scale church at 4908 N Apopka Vineland Rd, located in our Rural Settlement community. Case -25-02-148
🛑 Join neighbors in opposing development of agricultural land!
The public hearing is tomorrow at 2pm! If you can't attend, please make sure to email the Mayor and Commissioners your concerns at [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Below is what I sent, please feel free to copy or use it as a template for your own thoughts
-----------------------------------------
Dear Mayor Demings and Commissioners,
Please stand with the Clarcona Rural Settlement and uphold the Orange County Board of Zoning Adjustment’s (BZA) June 5, 2025, decision to deny Wilma Tompkins Sanctuary of Praise Special Exception request to build a 14,400 sq. ft. church on 7+ acres at 4908 N Apopka Vineland Rd, BZA Case SE-25-02-148. The BZA was correct in its denial because the proposed project fails multiple mandatory criteria under Orange County Code Section 38-78 and would harm our rural community.
I. Legal Standards
Under Section 38-78, the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that the project meets all six criteria for a Special Exception. The BZA must deny the application if even one criterion is not satisfied.
II. Rebuttal of Appeal Points & Grounds for Denial
1. Failure to Prove Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
The applicant claims churches are “permitted through the Special Exception process,” but this does not override the Comprehensive Plan’s policy of protecting Rural Settlement areas from urban-scale institutional uses.
Rural Settlements are intended for low-intensity uses. A 14,400 sq. ft. building, parking for 125 vehicles, and event-driven traffic are urban in nature and conflict with Policies FLU6.2.2, FLU6.2.5, FLU 6.2.13, FLU6.6.4, and FLU 8.1.1, which call for maintaining rural character and compatible development.
A board member’s comment (“rural areas need to stay rural”) is not improper—it reflects the Comprehensive Plan’s intent.
2. Incompatibility with Surrounding Area (Criteria #2)
The applicant’s assertion of compatibility is incorrect. Nearby land uses are single-family homes, farmland, and wetlands; there are no comparable large institutional buildings nearby.
The scale and frequency of church services, weddings, funerals, and events will bring hundreds of vehicle trips, crowding roads designed for rural, low-volume traffic.
Buffers do not eliminate incompatibility: noise from amplified sound, traffic congestion, and lighting from parking lots cannot be mitigated to rural-residential standards.
3. Detrimental Intrusion into Surrounding Area (Criteria #3)
Residents already experience flooding issues related to drainage from the property. The applicant has not demonstrated that the site’s drainage systems function properly or that the proposed retention ponds will resolve existing issues.
The BZA properly questioned whether the applicant could comply with environmental and drainage obligations before approval.
Contrary to the applicant’s characterization, the presence of wetlands, a pond, and adjacent lower-lying homes raises serious unresolved concerns about stormwater overflow and property damage.
Additionally, the development of the property would destroy the habitat of various protected wildlife, including Bald Eagles and Sand Skinks
4. Performance Standards and Infrastructure Deficiencies (Criteria #4)
The property is within a Rural Settlement where infrastructure is limited. Two-lane N. Apopka Vineland Rd lacks capacity for the anticipated traffic.
The applicant misstates traffic impact: event traffic is intermittent but intense, causing backups on rural roads. Parishioners are likely to park along streets in the Sawmill neighborhood, even if ingress/egress there is prohibited, because parking overflow is common for large churches.
BZA was correct to consider the likelihood of parking overflow and related public safety issues.
5. Noise, Traffic, and Lighting Impacts (Criteria #5)
Applicant minimizes noise and lighting concerns, but rural homes adjacent to the property will be subjected to amplified music, vehicle noise, and late-night lighting from parking lots.
These impacts are not “similar” to existing permitted uses in the A-1 zoning district, which are typically single-family homes or small agricultural uses with minimal noise and lighting.
6. Buffering and Drainage Issues (Criteria #6)
The proposed buffer plan is inadequate given the scale of the project and the proximity of homes and wetlands.
The applicant argues drainage improvements will occur post-approval, but Section 38-78 requires evidence that performance standards can be met before granting the exception.
Approving the project with unresolved drainage violations would risk worsening flooding and violate County obligations to protect downstream property owners.
III. Procedural Issues Raised by Applicant Are Without Merit
The applicant claims the BZA failed to ask clarifying questions; however, the burden of proof rests on the applicant, not the Board. The BZA had sufficient evidence of incompatibility and unresolved drainage concerns to deny the request.
The applicant references that only 4 of 7 BZA members were present. A quorum was present, and the vote (3-1) was valid.
Conditional recommendations from staff do not bind the BZA, which is entitled to weigh evidence and resident testimony in making its decision.
IV. Conclusion
The applicant’s appeal fails to demonstrate that the BZA erred in denying the Special Exception. The record supports the BZA’s findings that the proposed church is:
Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
Incompatible with surrounding rural development,
A detrimental intrusion with unresolved flooding, noise, and traffic impacts, and
Unable to guarantee compliance with performance standards and drainage requirements.
The BZA’s decision was legally sound and supported by substantial evidence. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners deny the appeal and uphold the BZA’s denial of the Special Exception.
Thank you,
