A Regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

September 7, 2021

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., in the County Commission Chambers, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Sean Parks, Chairman; Kirby Smith, Vice Chairman; Douglas B. Shields; Leslie Campione; and Josh Blake. Others present were: Jennifer Barker, Interim County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Stephanie Cash, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION and pledge

Commr. Parks welcomed everyone to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting and remarked that the Pledge of Allegiance would be led by Ms. Vicki Paul, who was recently installed as the American Legion Post 35 Service Officer in the City of Mount Dora. He stated that Ms. Paul had served in the United States (U.S.) Navy from 1980 until 1994 as a Chief Petty Officer Aviation Boatswain’s Mate Aircraft Handler (ABH), Aviation Warfare Specialist. He commented that she was an instructor for ABH “A” class and “C” class, and trained in aircraft movement ashore and afloat, crash rescue, firefighting, damage control, and other duties in connection to launching and recovering aircrafts. He mentioned that during her career, Ms. Paul was awarded three Good Conduct medals, the Navy Achievement medal, the Meritorious Unit Commendation, the National Defense Service medal, the Overseas Service Ribbon with 4 stars, the Coast Guard Special Operations Service Ribbon, and the Enlisted Aviation Warfare Specialist badge. He noted that Ms. Paul was the youngest of eight siblings to have served the country, and he thanked her for her service.

Pastor Bobby Rowe, Director of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes for North Lake County, gave the invocation, and Ms. Paul led the Pledge of Allegiance.

virtual meeting instructions

Mr. Erikk Ross, Director for the Information Technology (IT) Department, explained that this meeting was being livestreamed on the County website and was also being made available through Zoom Webinar for members of the public who wished to provide comments during the Citizen Question and Comment Period later in the agenda. He elaborated that anyone watching though the livestream who wished to participate could follow the directions currently being broadcast through the stream; furthermore, he relayed that during the Citizen Question and Comment Period, anyone who had joined the webinar via their phone could press *9 to virtually raise their hand, and anyone participating online could click the raise hand button to identify that they wished to speak. He said that when it was time for public comment, he would read the person’s name or phone number, unmute the appropriate line, and the speaker would be asked to provide comments. He added that everyone would have three minutes to speak, and after three minutes an alarm would sound to let them know that their time was up. He added that they previously notified the public that comments could be emailed through 5:00 p.m. on the previous day, and those comments were shared with the Board prior to the meeting. He stated that anyone wishing to provide written comments during the meeting could visit www.lakecountyfl.gov/commissionmeeting, noting that comments sent during this meeting would be shared with the Commission after the meeting was concluded.

Agenda update

Ms. Jennifer Barker, Interim County Manager, stated that Tab 2 had been added since the agenda was first published.

citizen question and comment period

Mr. David Serdar, a resident of the city of Fruitland Park, made comments related to local government.

public hearings: REZONING

rezoning consent agenda

Commr. Parks commented that there were many improvements going on in the County that people did not see in a Planning and Zoning meeting, adding that these meetings drew many people because of the emotional elements. He mentioned that the Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act would provide the means for a trail connecting all of the cities in Lake County, and that the County was pursuing a plan with the Cities to build trails. He hoped that those in attendance would watch and support the trails, adding that trails could attract new businesses and be good for economic development. He stated that the County had enjoyed a no-kill status at the Lake County Animal Shelter for a couple of years, and that there had been a workshop on that recently, adding that the County would continue to make improvements.

Commr. Campione commented that Lake County was among the top five in the Country for the ability to find homes for animals that came into the shelter.

Commr. Parks said that low taxes were important, and that Lake County had one of the lowest property tax rates in the region, adding that the County government was roughly the same size currently as it was during 2004 and 2005. He mentioned that over the last couple of years, there were several millions of dollars’ worth of efficiencies achieved through outsourcing, and that there were efficiency moves to provide better value for tax dollars. He opined that people would want to follow the County on road funding and maintenance, noting that the County had allocated about two percent of the General Fund on top of sales tax to be directed towards road resurfacing projects.

Mr. Tim McClendon, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, displayed the advertisements for that day’s rezoning cases on the overhead monitor in accordance with the Florida Statutes, and he mentioned that there had been an agenda update since it was originally published. He said that Tab 10 was moved to the regular agenda, and that Tab 7 would also be pulled, noting that all cases were heard by the Planning and Zoning Board the previous month, and they were all approved on the consent agenda except for Tab 10, which had been moved to the regular agenda. He asked the Board to accept the consent agenda as presented minus the tabs that there were speaker cards for, such as Tabs 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, and 13.

Commr. Parks explained that the tabs that were pulled would be heard and would allow for public comments.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding any cases on the Rezoning Consent Agenda, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tabs 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 12, as follows:

Tab 2. Ordinance No. 2021-22

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-11-1

Anderson Rezoning

Rezone approximately 0.99 +/- acres from Planned Industrial (MP) to Community Facility District (CFD) to accommodate an in-home daycare, to include utility connection waiver request.

Tab 3. Ordinance No. 2021-23

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-15-5

Rutherford and Georgia Property

Supersede and replace Planned Commercial District (CP) Ordinance 41-87 with a new CP ordinance to allow Community Commercial (C-2) uses.

Tab 6. Ordinance No. 2021-26

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-18-5

Astor Community Association Property & Thrift Store

Rezone 1 +/- acre from Urban Residential (R-6) to Planned Commercial (CP) to facilitate continued retail use of a community thrift store.

Tab 8. Ordinance No. 2021-27

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-21-1

Highway 27 Property Rezoning Amend Planned Commercial District (CP) #2001-71 with a new CP ordinance to allow self-storage use, and approval consideration of central water and central sewer system connection waiver.

Tab 9. Ordinance No. 2021-28

Rezoning Case # CUP-21-08-5

Seminole Wind Ranch CUP

Seminole Wind Ranch CUP Conditional use permit to allow a horse boarding and training facility within the Agriculture (A) zoning district.

Tab 12. Ordinance No. 2021-30

Rezoning Case # FLU-21-02-4

Mt. Ines Future Land Use Map Amendment (Approval)

Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category on approximately 20.13 acres from Regional Office to Urban Low Density to facilitate the development of a residential subdivision.

rezoning regular agenda

Tab 1. Ordinance No. 2021-21

Rezoning Case # CUP-21-03-1

Mills Horse Boarding Facility

Conditional use permit on approximately 9.7 +/- acres to allow a horse boarding and stable facility use within the Agriculture (A) zoning district.

Tab 4. Ordinance No. 2021-24

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-17-4

Bernfeld, Hastings, Highsmith Property PUD

Rezone Agriculture (A) zoned property to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to facilitate a mixed-use development, and approve a waiver to the central potable water and sewer connection requirement.

Tab 5. Ordinance No. 2021-25

Rezoning Case # MCUP-21-01-3

Bishop & Buttrey Sand Mine-Borrow Pit/Great Scott RV Resort/Gaston Tree Recycling

Approval of an ordinance to allow sand mining and borrow pit use, to include RV resort and organic tree recycling uses on Agriculture and PUD zoned property.

Tab 7.

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-20-5

Cataldi Property Rezoning

Rezone approximately 10.0 +/- acres from Rural Residential (R-1) to Agriculture District (A) to facilitate agricultural pursuits and allow construction of a single-family residence.

Tab 10. Ordinance No. 2021-29

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-14-5

Arching Oaks Arts & Culture Center

Rezone approximately 19 +/- acres from Rural Residential (R-1) to Community Facility District (CFD) for the operation of a non-profit cultural institution consisting of wellness and therapeutic programs.

Tab 11. Ordinance No. 2021-31

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-05-4

Mt. Ines PUD Rezoning

Rezone approximately twenty (20) acres from Light Industrial (LM) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to facilitate the development of a residential subdivision.

Tab 13. Ordinance 2021-32

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-16-2

Johns Lake Landing PUD Amendment Supersede and replace Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance 2020-55 with a new PUD ordinance which will convert the 186 attached multi-family units and 425,000 square feet of commercial to 300 multi-family units, 50 single family units, and 370,000 square feet of commercial development; and reconfigure the undeveloped tracts to reflect the updated mix of uses.

Tab 14.

Rezoning Case # RZ-20-36-1

McKinnon Groves PUD

Rezone 357.10 acres from Estate Residential (R-2) and Agriculture (A) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to facilitate the development a mixed-use development consisting of 660 dwelling units and 48 acres of non-residential uses within the Wellness Way Area Plan.

Mills Horse Boarding Facility

Mr. McClendon stated that Tab 1, Rezoning Case # CUP-21-03-1, Mills Horse Boarding Facility, was located on the east side of Palm Avenue, south of the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills in Commission District 1. He mentioned that the tract size was approximately 10 acres, and that the requested action was to allow a conditional use permit (CUP) on those 10 acres to allow a house boarding facility and stable facility within the Agricultural zoning district. He showed a map of the property and commented that the property had a future land use (FLU) designation of R-1, and that it was currently zoned Agricultural, adding that on the conceptual plan, the stable to board the horses was on the south side of the property. He said that the applicant was seeking approval for the horse boarding facility, noting that there would be a maximum of eight horses being boarded on the facility including two personal horses, and that it was not the intention of the applicant to breed, lease, or rent horses on the property. He commented that the Board of Adjustment approved a variance to allow the existing horse stable to remain onsite, noting that the Land Development Regulations (LDR) required a 200 foot setback from the property line for those structures, but that the stables were existing prior to the application. He stated that the proposed use was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and the LDR, and that the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the requested CUP.

Commr. Parks asked if there were any ex parte discussions for this case, but the Board indicated that there were none.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford, an attorney representing the applicant, commented that he stood by the staff report, and that he and Ms. Debra A. Mills, the owner, would be happy to answer any questions. He pointed out that with an agricultural exemption, they would be exempt from this process and would not need the permit, and that they had already received a variance for the existing barn to house the animals. He mentioned that they could house their own horses under the LDRs and be consistent, adding that they could acquire the agricultural classification and be exempt from this process, but the owner decided to abide by the staff recommendation to acquire a CUP.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Mark Linn, a resident of the Town of Howey-In-The-Hills, commented that he had 10 signed petitions from neighbors concerned about the facility, noting that he did not have an issue with anyone boarding horses. He stated that the neighbors were concerned about a commercial facility, and that they had endured years of a dog boarding facility before. He expressed concern about the bright commercial lights around the existing barn, which would shine down in the valley, adding that the petitions were from those people in the valley. He mentioned that when the owners came in, there were many mature trees that were cut down, and that they paved the road down the property line, which covered up the neighbor’s fence. He said that the main concern was that it was a small facility that could become larger, opining that it would have all of the components that came with a commercial facility. He expressed concern about a large building being built on the property, and that it could be a house or a large barn. He indicated concern that there had been money spent and work done, noting that the commercial tree company had taken two weeks with a large crew removing the large, mature oaks.

Mr. Crawford stated that the owner had a letter of support from Ms. Marti Fontenot, who was the neighbor on the north and the west, and that she was in full agreement of the horse boarding, noting that she had toured the barn and found no reason to stop the project from moving forward. He said that they only wanted eight horses total, six boarding and two personal, and that this was in the ordinance. He commented that she could board eight of her own horses without a CUP, and that the impact would be the same on the property. He mentioned that all of the buildings were existing prior to the purchase of the property, and that it was illegally being used as a dog boarding facility, adding that they removed the kennel. He remarked that the structure being built was an accessory dwelling unit, which had nothing to do with the CUP, and that it was being built pursuant to the LDRs that allowed an accessory dwelling unit.

There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commr. Campione asked if the owner would need a variance on the setbacks for boarding her own horses.

Mr. Crawford explained that they already had a variance for the setbacks.

Commr. Campione inquired if the CUP request was only to board other people’s horses, and Mr. Crawford confirmed that it was. Commissioner Campione commented that she would prefer horses to a dog kennel, noting that a kennel could be intrusive to a neighborhood. She remarked that from the pictures, it looked like the trees had to be cut in order to stabilize the driveway.

Mr. Crawford confirmed that the road was washing out and needed to be paved and stabilized, and that they went through the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) exemption permitting for that, which was why the trees had to be trimmed and removed, noting that they left the trees by the barn.

Commr. Campione commented that the Board would listen to all of those concerns, so that residents could utilize their own property without infringing on the rights of the residents with adjoining property. She mentioned that the CUP would only allow eight horses, and that it could not be enlarged without violating the CUP, adding that, if this happened, the neighbors would have recourse. She opined that it was an attractive facility in a rural area, and that this would be a positive use, adding that she would be in favor of the CUP.

Mr. Linn asked to show the pictures of the tree cutting.

Commr. Shields asked how the tree cutting affected the Board going forward.

Mr. Linn opined that they cut 45 percent of the mature oak trees, which was wrong, and that the State code said one could cut a tree back from the other property but not to the point where it endangered the health of the tree, adding that the pavement was placed on top of the neighbor’s fence.

Commr. Parks commented that if there were any boundary issues, it would be a civil issue, and that it could not be addressed at the current BCC meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 1, Rezoning Case # CUP-21-03-1, Mills Horse Boarding Facility.

Bernfeld, Hastings, Highsmith Property PUD

Mr. McClendon presented Tab 4, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-17-4, for Bernfeld, Hastings, and Highsmith Property PUD. He stated that the property was located at the southeast corner of State Road (SR) 46 and the SR 453 intersection in Commission District 4. He said that the tract size was approximately 15 acres, and that they were requesting approval to rezone the property from Agriculture to a planned unit development (PUD) to facilitate a mixed use development project and to approve a waiver for the central potable water and sewer connection requirement. He said that the FLU designation of the property was identified as Regional Office with the current zoning as Agriculture, and that the development program consisted of 136,000 square feet of medical, religious, and daycare uses, and 20,000 square feet of retail, consumer, and professional services, noting that the Regional Office FLU allowed these uses as proposed. He commented that the applicant had been in touch with the City of Mount Dora, and that the utilities were still not available. He stated that the proposed uses were consistent with the Wolf Branch Innovation District project, and that the implementation plan was put together by GAI Consultants. He stated that the requested action was to find the application consistent with the Comp Plan and LDRs and approve the rezoning, adding that the applicant was in attendance to answer questions.

Commr. Parks noted that this was a quasi-judicial hearing, and he said that the Board could disclose any ex parte communications at this time, but the Board indicated that there were none.

Commr. Campione stated that she had a question about the water and sewer connection, and asked if there was a way to make sure that they would use the central utilities when available instead of well and septic. She commented that the County was working diligently to bring water and sewer into this area, and that it would be good for the City of Mount Dora to have a customer in that area. She inquired if the ordinance could include a requirement to connect once utilities were available.

Mr. McClendon said that the staff had no objections to adding that condition, and that he would turn that over to the applicant for their consideration.

Ms. Marsh remarked that under the proposed ordinance in Section 1(A), it discussed the utility connection waiver, and that the waiver was granted until such time as the service became available in accordance with the Comp Plan and LDR. She commented that the County could add that, at the time it was available, they would properly abandon the well and septic and be required to connect.

Commr. Campione commented that it would be nice if they could stay with the well and septic, but because of the location and the magnitude of the innovation district and utilities being provided in that area, it would be consistent to make that a requirement. She inquired if the City of Mount Dora’s design requirements would be incorporated into this plan, such as architectural requirements or site plan requirements.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, with LPG Urban and Regional Planners, Inc., and representing the applicant, mentioned that there had been at least two meetings with Mr. Vince Sandersfeld, Director of Planning and Development for the City of Mount Dora, and Mr. Tim Wilson, Economic Development Manager for the City of Mount Dora, and that the City’s conditions were included as part of the PUD. He stated that the waiver was written because the current utilities were far away and because there were two existing houses there that were going to remain. He commented that they would start with a low intensity development in the beginning, and that the septic tanks could be utilized in the first phase. He stated that when central water and sewer came from the City of Mount Dora, the transition would be automatic, and that it was anticipated and incorporated in the document. He said that the process of the design criteria was also leveraged in the City of Mount Dora’s favor and was incorporated in the document, opining that they would be annexed into the City of Mount Dora sometime in the near future.

Commr. Campione commented that this was a good template for how to do this with the City of Mount Dora by continuing to move through the process while making sure this was being done according to their code.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Karen Bridges, a resident of Lake County, mentioned that her property was west of the development, and that she was curious about how the proceedings went. She opined that eventually, someone would want to buy her property, and reiterated that she was interested about how everything was going.

Commr. Parks thanked her for coming, and mentioned that if she had any concerns, this was her chance to voice them, opining that her property could be sought after in the future.

Ms. Bridges commented that she did not know how long the development stage for her property would be, and she thanked the Board for their time.

There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Mr. McClendon stated that for clarification on the ordinance, Tab A of the utility connection waiver should also include the water provisions.

Commr. Parks commented that it would have to be part of the motion.

Commr. Campione said that she would make a motion for approval and include the water and sewer connection waiver with the requirement that, once it became available, they would have to abandon the well and septic and connect to the City utilities, adding that they would work out the details with the City of Mount Dora.

Ms. Marsh inquired if the well and septic could still be available for the residential uses, or if it should be abandoned for all.

Commr. Campione said that the residential uses could continue to use it.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 4, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-17-4, Bernfeld, Hastings, Highsmith Property PUD, with the modification of including a water and sewer connection waiver, and with the requirement that once it became available, the developer would have to abandon the well and septic for nonresidential uses and connect to the City of Mount Dora utilities.

Bishop & Buttrey Sand Mine-Borrow Pit/Great Scott RV Resort /Gaston Tree Recycling

Mr. McClendon presented Tab 5, Rezoning Case # MCUP-21-01-3, Bishop & Buttrey Sand Mine-Borrow Pit/Great Scott RV Resort/Gaston Tree Recycling. He stated that it was located on the east side of CR 448A in the Lake Jem area, adding that the tract size was 197 acres, and that the requested action was to approve an ordinance to allow sand mining and a borrow pit use as well as the existing uses, which included a recreational vehicle (RV) resort and organic tree recycling on Agriculture and PUD zoned properties. He mentioned that the FLU category identified for the property was Rural, noting that the east side was agricultural and the west was a PUD, which was where the proposed RV site would be located. He commented that the conceptual plan showed three separate phases, and that the stated use would become a water feature for the RV park. He said that the applicant was seeking the mining conditional use permit (MCUP) approval for the borrow pit activity on the parcels zoned PUD to facilitate the creation of lakes for the Great Scott RV Park, adding that the applicant was previously approved for an organic debris and tree recycling use. He mentioned that it would be a development in three phases with four personnel to operate the actual use on Monday through Saturday, including an average of 240 round-trip truckloads daily. He said that the mining LDRs required a setback of 100 feet to all adjacent properties from the mine, and that the actual proposed use was 200 to 280 feet away from adjacent properties. He said that they did not expect noise or vibration impacts to the adjacent residences, and that the borrow pit was consistent with the mining LDRs and the Comp Plan with regards to open space as well as the Lake Apopka Basin Overlay Comp Plan requirements. He commented that the haul route had changed, and that the Board should have received the amendment to that, noting that it went to U.S. Highway 441 instead of west through Lake County. He mentioned that the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval and requested that the Board approve the requested MCUP with all of the conditions listed in the ordinance.

Commr. Parks noted that this was a quasi-judicial hearing, and he said that the Board could disclose any ex parte communications at this time.

Commr. Shields commented that he had a video conference with the applicant.

Commr. Smith commented that he had met with the attorney and applicant.

Commr. Parks stated that he met with the attorney and applicant through Zoom webinar.

Commr. Blake mentioned that he had a Zoom webinar meeting with the attorney and the applicant.

Commr. Shields asked if the roads could handle the traffic.

Mr. Jeff Earhart, Engineering Manager with the Public Works Department, stated that County Road (CR) 448A should be able to handle the traffic.

Commr. Parks inquired if CR 448A was designed for that kind of truck traffic, and Mr. Earhart said that it was.

Commr. Campione asked if the County had looked at the present condition as well as the impacts from this type of use, and if there would be any major degradation to the road as a result of this truck traffic.

Mr. Earhart stated that the County was comfortable with it, noting that trucks would impact the road, but that it was designed to handle trucks of this sort. He added that it would require maintenance in the future, and that there were many other roads in Lake County that had seen truck traffic that would need maintenance as well.

Ms. Anna Long, attorney with the Law Firm of Dean Mead, stated that she represented the applicant, Bishop & Buttrey, and that, while there were other activities associated with this site, she would only be able to speak on the proposed borrow pit activities. She pointed out that there was a haul fee that was collected for activities of this nature that was used for purposes of maintaining the roads should there be any adverse impact to them, and that in the staff report it was listed as 20 cents. She relayed her understanding from conversations with the Public Works Department that it had been reduced to 10 cents, and asked that the report be corrected to show that amount. She mentioned that the whole route had been changed, and that the only traffic would be off of Jones Road onto U.S. Highway 441. She requested that they be allowed to answer any questions that may arise from public comment, adding that there was an email submitted by an individual prior to the Planning and Zoning meeting and the current BCC meeting, and that she had tried to reach out to this individual without any response.

Ms. Marsh pointed out that the 20 cent fee was in the fee resolution, but that a consultant did a study which showed that the accurate fee would be 10 cents, adding that staff would recommend that change.

Commr. Parks inquired if it was specific to this case and limited to the roads that were in Lake County.

Ms. Marsh replied that it was not specific to this case, and that the County would bring forward the fee change in the near future.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Tony Cabrera, a City of Mount Dora resident who lived on Timberline Drive, expressed concern about the amount of water that would be taken from the aquifer and how it would impact the wells in the area. He stated that his other concern was the capability of CR 448A to handle the truck traffic, noting that there were no sidewalks, and that the residents used the road for walking and bicycling. He commented that he was not opposed to business growth, but that he and his wife retired to Lake County because of the tranquility and the hills for bike riding, adding that it was a beautiful area. He concluded that he was concerned about how this project was going to affect their future.

Mr. Greg Bailey, a City of Mount Dora resident who lived on CR 448A, commented that he was the closest resident to the facility, and indicated concerns about truck noise. He expressed concern about how the sand mine would affect the wells in the area and if his well would dry up, adding that he was also concerned about fertilizers and pesticides from the site affecting his water stream. He commented that there was a boat ramp on this road and bicyclists on the road, and he opined that 500 large trucks driving on the road would not be good.

Mr. Paul Shaffer, a resident of Lake County, stated that he was building a house a quarter of a mile down the road from this project, and that all of the trucks would be going past his property every day. He mentioned that CR 448A was narrower than Duda Road or CR 48, and that there were no sidewalks, opining that the large trucks were barely going to fit in the lane. He expressed concern that he was building an expensive house on expensive property on a road where trucks were making over 200 round trips a day, noting that CR 448A went through the Meadows of Mount Dora. He commented that Long & Scott Farms’s property connected to Duda Road, and that they could take their haul route straight out to where they already had industrial entrances instead of through the neighborhood. He opined that since there were other houses being built on that road, it was not a good idea to have the haul route through that area, and he said that he was also concerned about his well.

Mr. John Mulqueen, a City of Mount Dora resident who lived on CR 448A, stated that he was opposed to the proposed conditional use approval for a sand mine and borrow pit for property in his neighborhood. He commented that during April 2021, the subject property received approval for the Gaston Tree Debris Recycling facility after it had already been in operation without approval, and that it allowed for potential heavy truck traffic of 50 trips per day. He said that they currently wanted to use the same property for sand mining and borrow pit use, which would increase the truck traffic to 240 round trips per day, or 480 single trips, allowed under this approval. He opined that it would result in 530 heavy truck trips per day on the road going past his property, and that it was too much for the residential neighborhood there. He mentioned that the proposed mining facility would require dewatering at a rate of 1.18 million gallons per day or 819 gallons per minute continuously, and that it could affect domestic wells nearby. He noted that Tab 5 on the current day’s agenda only addressed the modification to the proposed haul route and not the entire sand mine and borrow pit proposal, opining that the information on the website about the hearing for this property was incomplete. He opined that if the Board decided to approve the MCUP, they should require all truck drivers leaving the borrow pit site to travel to Duda Road and beyond by using Long & Scott Farm’s property on their own private access way, and that they should require the operator of the sand mine and borrow pit to replace any domestic water well impacted by this operation at their own expense with a new well to whatever depth necessary to provide adequate water quality for drinking and domestic use for the residents’ properties.

Mr. Mike Spradlin, a City of Mount Dora resident who lived on CR 448A, commented that the property being discussed used to have a sand mine, and that there was truck traffic which resulted in the road being in poor condition. He commented that the SJRWMD created a nature preserve and built a boat ramp, and that all of the large trucks had stopped. He mentioned that the information provided by the County said that there would be no trucks sitting in the road, but he recalled that when there was a sand mine there before, the trucks stayed on the road for miles all night. He commented that there were children and disabled residents living in the area, and that he was concerned about the large trucks injuring them, flipping garbage cans over, and leaving tree debris in the road. He mentioned that he had to have one well redone because it had started pulling sand, and that he was concerned about the other wells in the area. He opined that there were multiple wrecks at the intersection of CR 448A and CR 48 because of traffic. He relayed his understanding that there was already access on Jones Avenue going into Long & Scott Farms, and that it would be a more direct path. He also expressed concern that there was wood piled up on the property, and that it had no fire hydrants and no way to put out a fire, adding that there had been muck fires in the area before that had burned for months. He opined that it was a dangerous operation, and that it would turn their neighborhood into an industrial area.

Mr. Kevin Burdick, a City of Mount Dora resident who lived on CR 448A, commented that he had purchased property in the area, built a new house, and got a new well, adding that he was concerned that his well would not be deep enough because the applicant was taking out large amounts of water. He expressed concern that there would be much more traffic from the operation, opining that the intersection of CR 48 and CR 448A was very dangerous, and that there had been a couple of accidents within the previous six weeks. He mentioned that there were cyclists that went through the area, opining that the large trucks would not be looking for them, and that it would be very dangerous.

Mr. Emil Sulieman, a City of Mount Dora resident who lived on CR 448A, said that he shared a property line with Long & Scott Farms. He commented that the residents in the area had left the cities for peace, adding that he had horses on his property and a spring fed pond, and that he wondered what would happen to the water supply for his home and his animals. He said that with the organic tree recycling facility, they had already seen tremendous activity in trucks moving back and forth, adding that the machinery for the facility was loud, and that it combined with the noise of the trucks. He opined that adding more trucks and digging a large hole near his back yard was unacceptable, and that he was concerned about what it would do to the water supply, the noise factor, and the property value. He mentioned that his neighbors had recently built houses, and that the road was curved and had no sidewalks. He commented that they could put in an RV park, but currently it was affecting the residents who were concerned about their property values, their peace of mind, their health, the chemicals in the ground, the traffic, and all of the noise pollution.

Mr. Shaffar inquired if there was a way to request a study or information on why Long & Scott Farms could not route their trucks through their own property instead of taking it through CR 448A. He opined that if it was his property, he would not have a haul route through the resident’s neighborhood when his property connected with Duda Road, which had no residences.

Mr. Spradlin commented that Jones Avenue, which was the same as Duda Road, was a rough road because of the trucks that used it, and that the asphalt had recently been replaced and had holes in it already.

Mr. Mulqueen remarked that his neighbor, Mr. Bill Holt, who lived in Louisville, Kentucky, contacted him, letting him know that he had sent emails to the Board opposing the project.

Commr. Parks replied that the Board had received those emails.

There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commr. Parks noted that the routing was something that should be addressed.

Ms. Long commented that she had a list of questions that came up that she would defer to their engineer. She relayed her understanding that the concerns were about water quality, the truck routing, and the noise, noting that the County staff and the Planning and Zoning Board had found it compatible with surrounding uses. She said that Mr. Jim Golden, with Grove Scientific and Engineering and representing the applicant, would discuss what had to be done with respect to the water, and that he would address the decision for the route.

Commr. Parks asked for a map of the route to be shown.

Mr. Golden said that it was a temporary use to dig the lake for the RV park. He mentioned that they designed it to fit inside the RV park, and that they had large setbacks around it for the campsites and the trailer parking, noting that they had extensive setbacks of 200 to 280 feet from the surrounding property. He commented that they would have to dewater this lake because the water table was only about four feet down, and that it would be a temporary dewatering activity, adding that they had done an extensive hydrogeological study on the site. He explained that they would be recirculating the groundwater where it would be drawn down in one phase and then recycled, or recharged, in the recharge trenches that surrounded the rest of the property and the wetlands. He commented that their groundwater modeling showed that when they discharged the dewatering water into the trenches, it prevented any drawdown from going out beyond the property boundaries, and that this also applied to the wetlands and the surrounding water wells in the residential areas. He mentioned that they had conducted a well inventory of existing water wells and private wells, and that it was submitted with their water use permit application. He stated that they were required to put groundwater monitoring wells between the borrow pit and the property line, which would be monitored quarterly, and that an annual report would be submitted to the SJRWMD. He noted that if there were any impacts to private users, they would have to change their dewatering plan or shut down until those impacts were mitigated. He commented that they would have staff gauges, which were similar to rulers stuck in the wetlands, and that they would be measured to show any impacts to the wetlands as well as the monitoring wells around the pit to monitor any drawdown going out towards the property line. He reiterated that the dewatering operation was highly regulated and monitored, and that they were not allowed to impact the private wells. He said that 120 trucks per day was an average based on a busy operation in eastern Orange County, and that it was an actual truck ticket count averaged over the whole year. He mentioned that many days it was less than that, and that the maximum in the ordinance was 400, noting that it would be for a very unusual project and not common. He commented that the Lake County Public Works Department did not question the access to CR 448A, noting that they were improving that access by putting in a paved access and a soil tracking device, which would knock the soil off the truck wheels before they went onto CR 448A. He said that their gate was recessed almost 600 feet off the road for queuing the dump trucks, noting that they would not have to park on the road if they arrived there early before the site opened, and that it would give 10 dump trucks a place to stage before the site would open. He mentioned that they could add “no parking” signs along CR 448A to prevent the parking of trucks on the roadway, adding that they had done all they could to prevent that. He commented that the truck traffic was temporary, and that the lake could be completed within three or four years if the local market for soil was consistent. He said that the estimate of five years was based on average demand, and that as the construction industry increased demand, it could make this project shorter.

Commr. Parks commented that the water drawdown was a concern, but he relayed his understanding that with the dewatering, the water would go back into the ditches. He mentioned that they would lose some water from evaporation, but that it was recharging those areas and moving water from the area that was being dredged.

Mr. Golden remarked that it involved a large amount of pumping because the water would eventually go back into the pit.

Commr. Parks asked what they would do if there was drawdown in the local wells.

Mr. Golden replied that they would have to take immediate mitigating action, which would be to turn the pumps off, and that they would then have to recalibrate or look at what was going on, adding that they could add more water recharge in between the pit and the property being impacted. He noted that they would not be monitoring private wells, but that, if their monitoring well near the property line was being impacted and being drawn down significantly, they would shut down and recalibrate their dewatering project.

Commr. Parks commented that the queuing of trucks was a large issue, and that they could not be parked on the road. He then asked if that was included in the ordinance.

Mr. Golden replied that he was not aware of that being in the ordinance, but that they were doing what they could to prevent that.

Commr. Campione inquired if there was a way to route the trucks through the property to Jones Avenue.

Mr. Golden said that they did not study that because there were no questions about that access when they proposed access to CR 448A to the Public Works Department, adding that they went forward as proposed in the ordinance. He stated that the owner, Mr. Hank Scott, was in attendance if there was a question for him on that issue.

Commr. Campione mentioned that the property owners had been trying to stay in the farming business, and that they had been under pressure by an airport proposal and other various requests. She mentioned that if their farming business was still active, there would be continuous truck traffic, and that this proposal was a temporary use to create the pond. She asked if there was a way to route the trucks through the existing property to avoid the area on CR 448A.

Mr. Scott said that it could be routed through the farm, but that they would lose more farm land, adding that it would not be in their best interest. He stated that when they went through the County, it was agreed that there would not be that much more traffic.

Ms. Long stated that if there was not sufficient staging within the property for idling trucks, they could make the staging road within the property larger, noting that it was 600 feet currently.

Commr. Parks commented that they would make it clear in the ordinance that queuing on CR 448A would be prohibited.

Ms. Marsh said that it was something that had been done before, and that they could add that queuing on public roads was prohibited.

Commr. Shields mentioned that he was concerned that the alternate route had not been looked at, opining that it should be considered.

Commr. Campione commented that the owner said that they would lose some of their farming ability, and that they had already been restricted in many ways to be able to farm on the property. She opined that it seemed like a good idea, but that it would take away from their capacity to farm.

Commr. Smith made a motion to approve this item.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the motion included the queuing language.

Ms. Marsh inquired if the motion also included the fee reduction from 20 cents to 10 cents.

Commr. Parks commented that he was sympathetic to what had happened to agriculture, particularly in Central Florida, and that the Board was trying to find a balance with the local residents. He said that, with the safety measures in place, such as the consumptive use permit for water management, they would have to stop to address any water issues that came up, and that they had addressed the queuing concern.

Commr. Campione mentioned that on the water management permit, their monitoring wells would let them know to shut down, but that they would also have to fix a resident’s well. She commented that even though truck traffic was not pleasant, it was temporary, and that when it was complete, there would be a campground there, which was a passive type use. She noted that it would be permanent, and that it would not be farming with continued truck traffic ongoing, adding that they were trying to balance property rights.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Tab 5, Rezoning Case # MCUP-21-01-3, Bishop & Buttrey Sand Mine-Borrow Pit/Great Scott RV Resort/Gaston Tree Recycling, with the modifications that the trucks would have to queue on the property, and to reduce the haul fee from 20 cents to 10 cents per cubic yard of material hauled offsite.

Commr. Shields voted no.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:37 a.m. for seven minutes.

Cataldi Property Rezoning

Mr. McClendon presented Tab 7, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-20-5 in the name of Cataldi Property, which was located on the east side of north CR 44A in the City of Umatilla area, in Commission District 5, and that the tract size was approximately 10 acres. He stated that the request was to rezone the 10 acres from Rural Residential R-1 to Agriculture to facilitate agricultural pursuits and allow construction of a single family residence, adding that it was a downzoning. He mentioned that the FLU of the property was identified as Rural Transition, and that the agricultural uses and future single family residence were consistent with the Comp Plan and LDRs. He said that if the rezoning request was approved, any residential development would require zoning approval, and that the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval of the request, which was to find the rezoning consistent with the LDRs and Comp Plan and approve the requested rezoning.

Commr. Parks noted that this was a quasi-judicial hearing, and he said that the Board could disclose any ex parte communications at this time, but the Board indicated that there were none.

Commr. Smith asked if the applicant had gone to the Lake County Property Appraiser to ask if he could change the zoning to Agriculture because of the pine trees.

Mr. McClendon replied that to properly rezone the property, they would need to go through a public hearing process.

Commr. Campione commented that they could obtain an agriculture exemption without having Agriculture zoning, but that they were two different things.

Mr. Tim Hoban, an attorney representing the applicant, commented that they did not have an agriculture exemption currently because they had harvested the trees, and that they were in the process of obtaining another one. He stated that they would like to downzone the property to be a pine plantation, and that they would like to maintain it as such. He said that they would also like to have a barn on the property, adding that the property had been used for legitimate agriculture for decades, and that they would like to continue using it. He opined that Agriculture zoning was consistent with the area, and that they were asking the Board to downzone their property from R-1 to Agriculture, adding that there were neighbors living nearby who had requested to speak in support of their request.

Commr. Campione asked if the intent was to build a barn before building the residence, and if setbacks would apply.

Mr. Hoban said that all setbacks would apply, and that they would obtain all of the building permits for the eventual building of a barn on agricultural property being used for legitimate agriculture.

Commr. Campione mentioned that they could not do anything commercial on an agriculture zoned property, and that the only thing that would be remotely commercial would be harvesting trees, which would be related to agriculture.

Mr. Hoban commented that they had harvested trees in the past, and that they were doing nothing commercial, adding that they were allowed to harvest pine trees according to the Comp Plan and the LDRs.

Commr. Campione inquired if they would lose their exemption when the trees were harvested until they reapplied.

Mr. Hoban replied that they would have to maintain their agriculture exemption, and that the Property Appraiser had the right to remove the agriculture exemption if they removed the trees, adding that they were in the process of replanting.

Commr. Smith asked if the property was zoned R-1 when they bought it, and Mr. McClendon confirmed this.

Mr. Hoban asked if the property was zoned Agriculture previously or if it had been administratively rezoned.

Mr. McClendon replied that the zoning of the property was R-1 and had been R-1, adding that the County did not administratively rezone property.

Commr. Campione commented that they had agriculture uses and an agriculture exemption because of that.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Brian Testa, a resident who lived on Eagle View Circle, stated that he was in support of the Cataldis’ situation.

Mr. Paul White, a resident who lived on Quails Nest Run, said that he lived four lots down from the proposed rezoning, and that he was in support of it.

Mr. Todd Hunter, a resident who lived on Heron Drive, commented that his property abutted the Cataldi property by about 300 feet, and that he had known the Cataldis for 18 years. He opined that they were good people, and stated that he would support their project.

Ms. Karol Walbancke, a resident of the Lake Dalhousie Estates community, said that she lived about 400 yards from the Cataldis’ property, and that she was also in support of them.

Mr. Rodney Walbancke, a resident who lived on Heron Drive, said that they lived about 400 yards from the Cataldis’ property, and that they were in support of the rezoning.

Ms. Elaine Lobato, a resident of the Lake Dalhousie Estates community, stated that the Cataldi property was north of the Lake Dalhousie Estates property, and that she was opposed to the rezoning, adding that she had 17 signatures from others in the neighborhood who were opposed to the property being rezoned Agriculture. She commented that they had no indication of what type of building they would build other than it being a 6,000 square foot barn, and that the County was told it was being used for agricultural purposes, such as a pine plantation, which she had never heard of. She relayed her understanding that it would be the location of a home and a barn for a racecar, which would be noisy. She commented that she represented the people who lived adjacent to the property, Mr. and Ms. Overmire, adding that they did not want it in their back yard. She mentioned that she did not know if it was going to be a steel barn or if it was going to be insulated to prevent the noise from affecting the neighborhood; therefore, she said that she wanted to keep the zoning R-1.

Ms. Donna Overmire, a resident of the Lake Dalhousie Estates community, stated that the Cataldi property was behind her property, and that it was where the applicant wanted to place the barn. She mentioned that she and her husband had bought their home during 2005, and that they enjoyed living in Lake Dalhousie Estates, adding that it was a quiet and peaceful neighborhood. She expressed concern about the approval of Mr. Cataldi’s request to rezone his property from residential to agricultural with an exemption, opining that the workshop and garage that would be built 200 to 300 feet from her pool cage would be for the repair of racecars and the storage of racecar transport trailers. She related that she served on the Lake Dalhousie Estates Homeowners Association (HOA) board during 2017 and 2018, and that they had received many complaints about the storage of trailers in their community, adding that complaints continued to the current day. She expressed concern about the considerable noise generated by racecars, opining that this could affect their lifestyle and their health. She relayed her understanding that the property purchased by Mr. Cataldi would have two homes with a workshop in the middle, adding that trees had been removed to accommodate those structures. She wondered, if the rezoning was approved, what assurance they would have that a residence would be built, adding that circumstances could change over time. She expressed concern that the property could become unsightly with trailers, cars, and other equipment used to work on these racecars, adding that if the residence was built first, it would indicate a vested interest to maintain the property value. She remarked that they had planted shrubs across their backyard, but that it would take years for them to grow for the purpose which was intended. She expressed concern that if the property was rezoned, they would bypass residential zoning regulations, and that residents’ home values would be affected. She said that she would agree to the rezoning if Mr. Cataldi would ensure that there would be interior sound-proofing in the building, build a privacy fence with shrubs around it, and if they would build the residence first.

Mr. Rob Sullivan, a resident of the Lake Dalhousie Estates community, stated that he and his wife had enjoyed the quiet neighborhood since arriving in 2014, adding that he was the president of the Lake Dalhousie Estates HOA, which served over 50 owners in the subdivision. He opined that their neighborhood was a pristine example of Lake County residential living, adding that it was well established, and that the owners had vested interest to live in an excellent, quiet neighborhood protected by HOA covenants and protected by a perimeter of residentially zoned properties. He stated that they firmly opposed selective or spot downzoning from residential to agricultural for the properties that surrounded their neighborhood, noting that it could open the door to other uses that could bring adverse impact on the valuation, the marketability, and the lifestyle of the residents. He opined that downzoning could open the door to commercial use, a dog kennel, or a marijuana processing facility with compressors outside, noting that a 5,000 or 10,000 square foot building would be ideal for many things. He opined that Agriculture zoning granted to a neighboring owner would hinder their ability to depend on law enforcement for any future noise violations, and that their quiet life could by impacted. He stated that as members of the HOA, they opposed such downzoning in general, and that they opposed it for the current item.

Mr. Steve West, a resident of the Lake Dalhousie Estates community since June 2019, stated that they were not opposed to the construction of a storage building on their land, but that they were opposed to rezoning the land from R-1 to Agriculture to facilitate agricultural pursuits. He mentioned that he had served as president of the Lake Dalhousie Estates Board of Directors from 2019 to 2021, and that over that period, he had received five complaints from a resident about trailers being parked in the driveway of Mr. Cataldi, adding that he and another board member had talked to the Cataldis about the complaints. He relayed his understanding that Mr. Cataldi owned the 10 acres outside Lake Dalhousie Estates, and that Mr. Cataldi’s son and daughter-in-law were going to build a 5,000 square foot home and a 6,000 square foot storage building on it. He said that during the current year, he had talked to Mr. Cataldi concerning the building of the home and storage building, since construction had not been started on the land, and learned that Mr. Cataldi could not acquire permission to build the storage building first because the property was zoned R-1. He commented that this zoning required Mr. Cataldi to build the house first or at the same time as the storage building, and that Mr. Cataldi had hired a lawyer to help him, adding that he later received a blue notice card in the mail. He expressed the following concerns: the timeframe for the single family dwelling to be built; the decreased property tax directly impacting their property values; and the selling of the property with a large storage building on it. He opined that the rezoning could open the way to a workshop, a garage, warehouses for products, or a dog kennel, and that the owners should talk to their neighbors and reach a compromise. He opined that the landscape of that area was changing and becoming more residential, and that downzoning to Agriculture to facilitate agricultural pursuits was not consistent with the area.

There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Hoban remarked that they could not have a business other than growing pine trees, and that they could not have car repair on the property without proper zoning. He commented that they were asking for the rezoning to build a storage shed on 10 acres and to continue with the pine plantation.

Commr. Smith asked if they could build a barn in R-1 zoning with a request for a variance or any other way besides rezoning.

Mr. McClendon replied that they would need a primary structure first, and that the dwelling could be done simultaneously with a detached structure or after the primary structure was there. He mentioned that the applicant could not request a variance for that because it would be a use variance.

Commr. Campione commented that the applicant could build a small house or put a mobile home on the property in order to build the barn.

Mr. Hoban said that he could put a singlewide mobile home there, but that they preferred to have a larger home. He commented that they would still like to use their property to put a storage facility there, and that they would build the house later, noting that it was difficult to estimate when a young couple was going to have enough money to do this.

Commr. Parks asked what the difference was between a straight zoning change and a CUP.

Ms. Marsh replied that a straight downzoning going from R-1 to Agriculture could not be conditioned, noting that if they changed it to Agriculture, they would be entitled to any of the permitted uses under Agriculture. She stated that a CUP or a PUD were conditional zonings, and that the County could put conditions within those zoning ordinances to make it more compatible with the neighborhood. She mentioned that she had the list of permitted uses for Agriculture, and that she would read those for the Board. She said that in Agriculture as a permitted use, they could have the following: a single family dwelling; a bed and breakfast; general agricultural uses; non-intensive agricultural uses; a horse breeding farm; a loft or aviary; a plant nursery; roadside farm stands; family daycare home; family residential home; cell towers; and park or passive recreational uses, adding that they could not have a kennel on this property without coming back to the Board for permission to do so.

Commr. Campione inquired if they could have medical marijuana.

Ms. Marsh answered that they could because it was considered a general agricultural use under that category.

Commr. Campione commented that downzoning to Agriculture used to mean that one was going to have less intense uses, and that one could only do the more intense uses if they received a conditional use permit. She mentioned that the medical marijuana provision made it allowable in any Agriculture zoning, which could be an issue for adjoining property owners, and that this was her only hesitation.

Mr. Hoban opined that the LDR needed to be amended by the Board.

Ms. Marsh replied that the County could not do that because of the State law. She stated that the general agricultural definition was the establishment for keeping, raising, or feeding of livestock and animals, feedlots, croplands, aquaculture, silviculture, apiaries, honey extracting, and buildings which are an accessory use to these uses, adding that a non-intensive agricultural use was the milking, feeding, or sheltering of farm animals or growing of supplemental food supplies for the domestic non-commercial use of families living on the land.

Commr. Parks asked if there were any differences in the enforcement of noise between a straight zoning change contrasted with a CUP.

Ms. Marsh stated that with a CUP the hours of operation could be limited, but the noise was going to fall under the County noise ordinance.

Commr. Shields asked if they had considered fencing or a visual buffer.

Mr. Hoban replied that they had not because there were pine trees on the property, and that barns did not normally require a fence.

Commr. Campione commented that the Board was trying to find a way to address the concerns of the neighbors and still allow the property owners to build the barn. She mentioned that they could stay with the R-1 zoning, and that they could put a mobile home on the property in order to build their barn; however, if they rezoned to Agriculture, the County would have no control over what happened on the property, and that it was a concern.

Mr. Hoban mentioned that they did not mind doing county deed restrictions, stating that they would never do a marijuana farm on the 10 acres. He commented that they could put a dilapidated singlewide mobile home on the property under county regulations with no fence, but that they only wanted to build a nice barn structure on 10 acres that had ongoing agricultural pursuits. He said that marijuana was a legitimate concern, and that they would agree to work with the County Attorney to ensure that that they would never do marijuana on the property, noting that they would like to continue farming pine trees.

Commr. Blake made a motion to approve the application, and it was seconded by Commissioner Smith. Commissioner Blake mentioned that he understood the concerns of the neighbors, but opined that it was a reasonable request. He opined that the Board should take the resident’s word to not convert the property into a marijuana farm, and that placing restrictions on them was excessive.

Commr. Smith commented that if they could have built a barn under R-1 zoning, it would not be an issue for him, and that even though the owner’s intent was legitimate, the land could be sold, and that it would be a concern.

Commr. Parks inquired if there was a way to have a landowner’s agreement saying that they would not have a marijuana farm.

Ms. Marsh replied that it would need to be something between the property owner and the neighbors, and that if they wanted to do restrictive covenants in favor of their neighbors, they could do that; however, the County could not require that as part of the application. She mentioned that the application could be postponed while they worked something out, and that the opposition could be satisfied before it came before the Board.

Commr. Parks inquired if the owners would work with the neighbors.

Mr. Hoban asked if it would be an agreement with the HOA to never have a marijuana farm on it.

Commr. Campione commented that it would be similar to a regular deed restriction that would run to the benefit of the HOA of Lake Dalhousie Estates.

Mr. Hoban remarked that if it was only for the marijuana issue, they would do a deed restriction to run with the 10 acres in favor of the neighboring HOA.

Commr. Blake opined that it was unwise to set the precedent that property owners and HOAs had property rights that could extend beyond their property, and that it was not the business of the Board.

Commr. Campione opined that until the State of Florida allowed the County to put restrictions on how medical marijuana was processed, they would have to find other ways to do it. She mentioned that it was difficult to see someone else’s property rights ruined by a marijuana plant nearby because the County could not do anything about it. She commented that it would be a way to address a worst-case scenario and creatively find a way where both parties could release that deed restriction at any point, adding that it would allow the Cataldis to do what they wanted with their property while eliminating the possibility of a marijuana processing plant being put next to a residential neighborhood.

Commr. Smith commented that he was less concerned about marijuana than the daycare facilities because they would still have to qualify for permits.

Commr. Campione mentioned that it had happened before, and that they did not have to qualify for permits because of the state law, adding that the County had no authority to help the adjoining property owners.

Commr. Parks commented that it could be an issue, and that the Board was trying to consider everybody’s property rights.

Mr. Hoban reiterated that as part of the application, the owner would record deed restrictions on the 10 acre property in favor of the neighboring HOA that they would never have marijuana processing.

Commr. Parks mentioned that the Board would just have to amend the motion.

Ms. Marsh stated that the Board could not add that to the motion, and that it was not conditional. She related that the options were to postpone until October, 2021 for the parties to work it out, or to approve it on the current day as it was. She said that she would advise against amending the motion to include the understanding that they would enter into an agreement because it would take it into the realm of a conditional zoning.

Commr. Blake opined that the concern of a marijuana facility was unfounded, and that the Board had a reasonable request before them.

Commr. Campione commented that the reason she would vote against it would be so that the applicant could come back in 30 days, and that if they could not obtain a deed restriction in that time, then she would still vote in favor of the Agriculture rezoning.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Smith which failed by a vote of 3-2, the Board did not approve Tab 7, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-20-5, Cataldi Property Rezoning.

Commr. Shields, Commr. Parks, and Commr. Campione voted no.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board postponed Tab 7, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-20-5, Cataldi Property Rezoning, until the October 12, 2021 BCC meeting.

Commr. Smith and Commr. Blake voted no.

Arching Oaks Arts & Culture Center

Mr. McClendon presented Tab 10, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-14-5, Arching Oaks Arts & Culture Center, located on the east side of North Thrill Hill Road in the City of Eustis area in Commission District 5. He said that the tract size was approximately 20 acres, and that the request before the Board was to rezone the property from R-1 to Community Facility District (CFD) for the operation of a non-profit cultural institution consisting of wellness and therapeutic programs, noting that the FLU was Rural and the current zoning was R-1. He commented that the application was the result of code enforcement action, and that the applicant was seeking to change the zoning for a karate program facility. He stated that the programming would be limited to five days per week, Monday through Friday, with one class held per day, with a maximum of 10 individuals per class, and that the CFD was consistent with the LDRs and the FLU element. He commented that the Planning and Zoning Board found the application inconsistent with the Comp Plan and LDRs, and that they recommended that the Board deny the rezoning request.

Commr. Parks asked if there were any ex parte discussions for this case, but the Board indicated that there were none.

Mr. Alfredo Velilla, the applicant commented that they were not able to attend the Planning and Zoning Board meeting because of a disabled veteran, service-connected issue that day, and that the Planning and Zoning Board had to deny the application because they were not in attendance to address a concern. He mentioned that they had started a program at their house to help disabled veterans, and that it was a wellness program, which included the following: Zen Archery, which was called Kyudo; Zen itself; equine therapy; and Shinrin-yoku, which was the Japanese term for forest therapy. He stated that they invited veterans and their families to their home in small groups, and that the reason they were currently in attendance was because they were notified of a code violation. He mentioned that they had small groups of people that they offered classes to a few times a week, and that it was only if they came, which was not all of the time. He commented that one of the neighbors had an issue with the lighting, but opined that there was no lighting or parking issues because they were behind the other residences. He mentioned that there was an easement that was used by them, the neighbor and the electric company.

Commr. Smith asked how many students he had in the karate class traveling to his house every day.

Mr. Velilla commented that it was not just karate, and that the term “dojo” meant training hall, adding that he had five or six students a few days a week when there was a program.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Larry Goralnick, a resident of the City of Apopka, stated that he and his wife owned the five acre parcel that was adjacent to the applicant’s property, and the private road that the applicant used as access to travel to his property. He mentioned that he was going to build a home on the property, and that their main entrance was going to be from this private road. He opined that the added traffic on this road would interfere with their ingress and egress to their property, and that it would bring maintenance and liability issues. He commented that there was signage on their private road advertising the applicant’s business in a residential area, and that they had observed several vehicles at this property. He mentioned that there was a separate guest house where the applicant’s guests could stay overnight during the week, and that they were concerned that the CUP would mean added traffic and more clients for his occupation because they could stay there at the facility. He remarked that they strongly opposed it, opining that it was a bad idea, and that it would be better suited for a commercial type of application.

There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Velilla commented that they did use the easement, but that the main access to Mr. Goralnick’s property was off of Knoll Top Lane, which was what the property address said. He said that the easement they used was behind Mr. Goralnick’s property, and that it was used only by himself, the electric company, and their other neighbor, opining that Mr. Goralnick could possibly use it as a back exit. He stated that there was no signage on their property or on the easement, noting that it was on North Thrill Hill Road. He remarked that he had not built anything on the property, and that it had a barn with facilities when they bought it, adding that there was just their house where they had Bible study on Wednesday night. He said that he was a disabled veteran who wanted to help other veterans, and that this was a quiet facility with woods where they could invite small groups of people to enjoy it with them.

Commr. Campione asked if individuals were there overnight.

Mr. Velilla commented that they had friends and others stay the night, but that it was not an official part of the facility, adding that there would not be an issue with the County for an Airbnb. He related that he did not advertise it, but that he did tell people that, if they needed to stay the night, they could stay there. He related that veterans had close ties to one another especially if they had medical issues, and that he would open his home to any veteran.

Commr. Blake opined that the specific conditions, which limited classes to a maximum of 10 people once a day, were reasonable, and that the easement use would not have damaging effects.

Commr. Campione said that there was not a condition that included overnight stays, but any other rules about people having guests at their home would apply, and there were no more than 10 visitors per day allowed. She mentioned that it seemed like a very passive use, and that it was on 20 acres.

Commr. Smith reiterated that it was limited to 10 people and one class per day, and that it was limited to Monday through Friday.

Commr. Blake relayed his understanding that the reason for the Planning and Zoning Board denial was because the applicants did not attend that meeting to tell them the details of the situation.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 11, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-14-5, Arching Oaks Arts & Culture Center.

Mt. Ines PUD Rezoning

Mr. McClendon presented Tab 11, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-05-4, Mt. Ines PUD Rezoning. He stated that it was on the north side of Robie Avenue in the City of Mount Dora area within Commission District 4, and that the request before the Board was to rezone 20 acres from Light Industrial (LM) to PUD to facilitate an 80 lot subdivision. He said that the FLU designation of the property was Regional Office, and that the current zoning was LM. He mentioned that he passed out a memo on the current morning of a revised concept plan as well as an additional condition on the transportation end, which was to add the municipal service taxing unit or benefit unit (MSTU or MSBU) language for the road going in. He commented that the FLU was consistent with four dwelling units per acre, and that the plan was consistent with the Wolf Branch Innovation District, which was an implementation plan that was done by Dr. Richard Levey with Levey Consulting. He stated that the Planning and Zoning recommended approval of both the Comp Plan change and the rezoning.

Commr. Parks asked if there were any ex parte discussions for this case, but the Board indicated that there were none.

Ms. Kathy Hattaway, with Poulos and Bennett LLC, reiterated that this was a companion PUD rezoning application for a FLU amendment that was passed on the current day as Tab 12 on the consent agenda, which changed the designation on the property to Urban Low Density Residential, noting that the PUD zoning was currently consistent with that approved land use designation. She commented that they were in agreement with the staff report as well as the new condition regarding the MSTU and MSBU, and that the property was within the Wolf Branch Innovation Plan District as part of the 2019 Wolf Branch Innovation District implementation plan. She mentioned that those two parcels were two of 73 parcels that were recommended in that plan to be changed to a residential FLU and zoning in order to provide a better mix of residential and nonresidential uses in the development there. She stated that Lake County Schools had reviewed the application, and that this project would have to meet the concurrency requirements during the final development order stage. She commented that they would have to provide a tier one transportation study, and that they would provide improvements to Robie Avenue, which included 12 feet of right of way and a 12 foot trail on the north side. She stated that there would be sidewalks on both sides of the internal roadways, and that the concept plan had been reviewed by the Public Works Department for access requirements.

Commr. Campione inquired if this project was within the Joint Planning Area (JPA) with the City of Mount Dora, and if they did their usual review.

Mr. McClendon stated that they did, and that they were also providing water and sewer to the project, adding that the project was adjacent to the city limits of the City of Mount Dora.

Commr. Campione inquired if it would be annexed at some point.

Ms. Hattaway replied that the City of Mount Dora would have to provide an annexation agreement for the utilities, but that the utilities were available and required under the FLU designation.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Leo Smith, a resident who lived on Robie Avenue, stated that he was against the number of units being proposed, noting that he and his neighbors had seven acre lots across the street, and that a crowded subdivision was not fitting with the way the area was laid out. He expressed concern for the traffic on Robie Avenue, noting that there was only one way in and out, and that the road was narrow; additionally, he said that there was no traffic light at Robie Avenue and U.S. Highway 441. He commented that he had bought his property because it was in a rural area and because of the size of the lots, and that he was not happy with the subdivision going in across the street.

Mr. Billie Harper, a resident who lived on Robie Avenue, expressed concern about the traffic in the area and the amount of houses going in, noting that he had lived there for 25 years. He opined that there would be more accidents if there was no red light at the intersection, adding that they had seen accidents there. He opined that all of the residents on that road had the same concerns, and that the road was too narrow. He commented that the developer would build 80 houses, and that there would be 160 extra cars traveling in and out all of the time. He opined that they should reduce the number of houses, and that one or two houses per acre would be better than 80 houses along with the impact it would have on that street.

There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Ms. Hattaway pointed out that this was a transitional area, noting that the FLU in the area was Urban Low Density, which allowed the four units per acre. She stated that the future right of way section for Robie Avenue would be a 63 foot right of way with the improvements as well as any operational improvements that directly served the traffic generated by their project during the traffic study review.

Commr. Campione commented that on an aerial map, this property was west of a medical facility at the end of Robie Avenue, and she inquired if the developer would have to improve the stretch of Robie Avenue which extended all along the southern boundary of the property.

Mr. Steve Fisher, with KB Home, stated that he had worked with the Public Works Department, and that they had agreed to improve the 1,200 feet of road in front of the proposed development and down to U.S. Highway 441, which was a length of 1,800 feet. He clarified that for that section, they did not have the rights to dedicate right of way on that side of the road or provide the trail, adding that to the best of their ability, they were going to improve the road to U.S. Highway 441.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that they would improve it to the extent that they could with the limited right of way.

Mr. Fisher replied that some of the right of way was with the City of Mount Dora and some was with Lake County, adding that when they got their survey back, they would improve the road to the best of their ability to U.S. Highway 441.

Commr. Campione asked if the residents there were willing to dedicate right of way, would you be required to do the improvements. She commented that it was up to the residents to dedicate the right of way, noting that it would be worth it because the road was narrow.

Mr. Fisher remarked that it would be an improvement for the community. He commented that it was an 18 foot pavement section currently, and that they were proposing to increase that to 24 feet.

Commr. Campione commented that it would only be increased along their property.

Mr. Fisher remarked that that if there was right of way, they would do it down to U.S. Highway 441.

Commr. Parks inquired if the only thing holding them back from doing that was right of way.

Mr. Fisher commented that if they could obtain an agreement with the City of Mount Dora and the County, they would improve that section to the greatest extent possible.

Commr. Campione remarked that the key would be to improve it down to the highway. She commented that this was a downzoning from what it had been, and that it was supposed to be regional office type uses, adding that it could be institutional. She opined that residential was better than those other uses, adding that even though it was higher density than the residential around it, it was a more consistent land use. She relayed her understanding that people wanted it to have fewer houses, but that the alternative was to have offices and commercial trips, adding that this would result in the improvement of the road.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 11, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-05-4, Mt. Ines PUD Rezoning.

Johns Lake Landing PUD Amendment

Mr. McClendon stated that Tab 13, RZ-21-16-2, John’s Lake Landing PUD Amendment, was located on the south side of SR 50 between Hartle Road and Magnolia Pointe Boulevard in Commission District 2, and that the tract size was approximately 310 acres. He commented that the request was to supersede and replace an existing PUD, identified as Ordinance 2020-55, with a new PUD Ordinance. He said that the amendment was dropping the square footage of nonresidential units and converting it to single family and attached residential development, which would result in a reduction of commercial square footage, a conversion to 300 multi-family units, and 50 single family lots. He mentioned that the existing zoning was PUD, and that the FLU was identified as Urban Low, which would allow up to four dwelling units per acre. He remarked that this was the last phase of Johns Lake Landing, which was phase seven, and that it consisted of the nonresidential development currently. He commented that the 2005 Johns Lake Landing PUD ordinance required a connection to Magnolia Pointe Boulevard, and that the County had a revised concept plan with some revised conditions on the transportation end. He mentioned that the County had received a notice to appear from Mr. Kurt Ardaman, an attorney representing Cra-Mar Groves, Inc., along with the actual applicant, and that there was a memo from the prior day which also included the new conceptual plan. He reiterated that this was just a revision, a swapping out of entitlements, and that the conversion of the rate of the commercial space had indicated that there would be less traffic implications with the proposed development program, adding that it would increase the density from 3.52 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval, and that they requested that the Board would find it consistent with the Comp Plan and LDRs and approve the rezoning.

Commr. Parks noted that this was a quasi-judicial hearing, and he said that the Board could disclose any ex parte communications at this time.

Commr. Smith mentioned that he had communications with the applicant.

Commr. Parks commented that he had discussions with the applicant, with numerous members from Magnolia Pointe, and with Mr. Ardaman.

Commr. Blake said that he had discussions with the applicant.

Mr. McClendon mentioned that he had handed out an email on the current morning from the applicant, which was a clarification point for the traffic condition, and that the staff had no objections to adding the actual phasing language as clarification.

Commr. Parks inquired if the existing PUD gave access from the south through the rest of the development coming from Good Hearth Boulevard.

Mr. McClendon replied that the existing easement through the property showed that Good Hearth Boulevard would extend all of the way directly to SR 50, and that there was also a connection that was required in the existing PUD from 2005 that required that connection to Magnolia Pointe Boulevard.

Commr. Parks reiterated that the existing PUD would connect them to SR 50 at that location, and that it would allow the applicant to have that access point on Magnolia Pointe Boulevard.

Mr. Earhart commented that there was a connection to Magnolia Pointe Boulevard in the original PUD and in the current one, and that both would take traffic to the light at Magnolia Pointe Boulevard.

Commr. Parks asked if he would point out where Tiny Morse Boulevard was on the map.

Mr. Earhart commented that it was at the end of Tract M, and that there was existing curb cut at Tiny Morse Boulevard, which serviced the mine on the other side of the road, adding that there was an acceleration lane there.

Mr. Brett Jones, an attorney representing the applicant, Parkway Property Investments, LLC, pointed out that the language in the ordinance stated that they would provide a connection to Magnolia Pointe Boulevard. He commented that this request referenced a 2005 PUD that was changed during 2016, and that it was changed again during 2020 to modernize and incorporate better planning strategies. He reiterated that they were in phase seven, and that they wanted to prepare it for the final development. He stated that Mr. Robby Moon, a planner with KPM Franklin representing the applicant, would outline in detail where it was and what they were proposing and requesting approval for on the amendment. He noted that this would result in a reduction in intensity of use and a reduction in daily trips, opining that this was what the members of the public were there to discuss.

Mr. Moon, showed a map of the current PUD amendment and entitlements for that phase, which included 186 multifamily units and 425,000 square feet of commercial space. He pointed out that the connection to SR 50 was no longer achievable due to the current configuration of SR 50, and that there was a connection to Magnolia Pointe Boulevard on the east. He commented that they were currently proposing 300 multifamily units, 50 single family units, and 370,000 commercial square feet, and that they had removed one connection to SR 50 for a more circuitous route with a roundabout and traffic calming devices. He stated that they were only asking to shift the intensity, and that the connection to SR 50 was mandated. He mentioned this would not create more vehicle trips in the PUD, and that they had performed a trip generation statement of the existing entitlements, noting that it could have generated 10,329 trips but would currently only generate 5,412 trips, which was a reduction of 53 percent. He opined that this would be good for the neighborhood, and that they were reducing trips at the client’s request. He commented that for the new intersection with their road and Magnolia Pointe Boulevard, the applicant commissioned a traffic engineer who performed a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) traffic warrant analysis, which required eight hours of certain traffic on the major and minor roads to meet conditions that would warrant a traffic study, and that they did not meet the requirements for a traffic signal. He mentioned that they had considered a roundabout there, and that, in addition to not having sufficient right of way, it would actually increase the traffic time for the Magnolia Pointe residents. He stated that there would be offsite improvements, which included a deceleration lane going east on SR 50, and that, for westbound traffic, there was an existing left turn lane which they would be widening, creating two turn lanes. He explained that they would divide the currently one lane road into two lanes, noting that the inside lane would continue south, and that the right lane would go into their development. He commented that they would not mix traffic into the development, and that they would each have their own lanes, adding that the Magnolia Pointe residents would not be affected. He mentioned that site plan two had the low intensity single family on the south, blending as they went north to a medium intensity multi-family area, and that the high intensity commercial was on the frontage. He said that it would provide more of a buffer to the Johns Lake Landing residences, and that they would not be abutting Magnolia Pointe, adding that they would be abutting the commercial portion of the adjoining neighborhood. He stated that they were working with staff through the site plan process, and that the internal roundabout would help slow traffic down. He stated that they were working with the Public Works Department to put more traffic calming on the road, which could deter people from using this as a cut-through.

Mr. Ardaman mentioned that he had spent substantial time with the County’s staff, and that they did a great job. He commented that they were in agreement with Mr. McClendon’s memorandum dated September 6, 2021, and that Cra-Mar Groves supported the project with the changes that were outlined as one through four of the enclosures. He pointed out that the existing PUD already required the connection to Magnolia Pointe Boulevard, and that it also required the connection between Magnolia Pointe Boulevard and Hartle Road, which was condition five under the transportation section. He commented that the same condition was continued on the amendment, and that they were in agreement with the applicant’s shifting of the common access between the Cra-Mar property Tract M and Tract L to the location with the roundabout south of SR 50, which would connect with SR 50. He noted that the current easement that was in existence was in an impractical location, and that it would be very difficult to provide that connection to SR 50 at the current location. He remarked that the amendment would provide the relief to and from SR 50, and that the cross access would be provided between Magnolia Pointe Boulevard and Hartle Road.

Commr. Parks commented that an access to Tiny Morse Boulevard would benefit everybody the most, and that it would provide two entrances as well as a signal on SR 50. He mentioned that the residents of Johns Lake Landing could go left down Hartle Road, noting that they would have a couple of different access points, and he inquired if they would do that.

Mr. Ardaman commented that they had come up with an agreement to allow for that under paragraph four in Mr. McClendon’s September 6, 2021 memo, and that under transportation in the amended PUD, it provided for that cross access between SR 50. He pointed out on the map that to the west of the roundabout, there was a double headed arrow connecting Tract M to the roundabout, and that it addressed the ability for traffic to connect to SR 50 when Tract M was developed through that connector driveway.

Mr. Don Curotto, with Shutts & Bowen, stated that he was representing Johns Lake, LLC, which was the single family residential developer in the back of the subdivision, and that it was a member of the PUD, adding that they had been part of phase six. He mentioned that they had met with the applicants several months prior about the plan, and that they had attended several meetings since, adding that they were in support of the plan. He stated that the manager of Johns Lake, LLC was in attendance, and that he had been developing that residential subdivision. He commented that there would be less going into phase seven than what was entitled there currently, and that Hartle Road was being extended with each phase, adding that they were currently at their boundary line.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Dave Ellis, a resident of the Magnolia Pointe community, mentioned that he was the property manager for the Magnolia Pointe HOA, and that he had come before the Board years prior on this PUD. He commented that on the staff report, it said that they wanted to increase the number of single family homes and reduce the amount of square footage, and that they wanted to reconfigure the undeveloped tracts to reflect the updated mixed uses. He commented that they also wanted to change the access to Magnolia Pointe Boulevard. He opined that everybody who was connected to the applicant’s property would be very happy because the accesses had been approved, but that the neighbors who had to use that egress to travel into their neighborhood would be inconvenienced. He mentioned that he had an engineering drawing, which showed that two left-hand turn lanes would not work, and he asked the Board not to approve this and to delay this action.

Mr. Tom Simmonds, a resident of the Magnolia Pointe community, thanked the Board for listening to their response to what was being planned, and for offering to have a civil engineer look at an alternative. He commented that they had also attended the meeting with the Planning and Zoning Board and a meeting with the City of Clermont, noting that they had expressed their concern then. He mentioned that the applicant had several access opportunities that had to be addressed, and that they had only one access for 2,000 residents. He opined that the access point on Magnolia Boulevard would put the lives of 200 residents at stake, adding that there was an accident recently at the traffic light at Magnolia Pointe Boulevard and SR 50. He commented that there was a substantial amount of traffic coming from SR 50, and that the apartments being put in by the applicant would add more people. He opined that there were tens of thousands of cars on SR 50 and 5,000 cars from Costco, adding that 500 homes would have access as well as the commercial buildings. He opined that it would impact those living in Magnolia Pointe because they only had one way in and out, and he asked the Board to do what was right for the constituents.

Mr. John Cole, a resident of the Magnolia Pointe community, said that he was opposed to the proposed major connector to Magnolia Pointe Boulevard from the properties to the west, and that it was an important issue. He commented that the residents of Magnolia Pointe were sensitive to the entrance road because it had a history, and that it had started when the developer who planned their community had envisioned having all of the land south of SR 50, which was formerly citrus groves. He said that they did not sell to him, and that the landowners ensued with seven years of ongoing litigation between their lawyers and the HOAs of the existing residents, which eventually led to a settlement. He mentioned that there had been confusion about who owned the strip of road that ran between the entrance gatehouse and SR 50, and that they had spent thousands of dollars to make the repairs over the years. He commented that when Johns Lake Landing was proposed, developers approached the County and the residents of Magnolia Pointe with their proposal for their future homeowners and business patrons to access Magnolia Pointe Boulevard. He said that it was decided that adding additional traffic to the boulevard would be a safety issue, and that the connection to the boulevard was rejected. He opined that those living in the eastern half of Johns Lake Landing, consisting of roughly 350 homes, would also want to use this proposed new connection. He opined that to travel to SR 50 from those homes, it currently took almost five minutes to traverse three speed tables and seven stop signs, noting that most of those would be avoided by the more direct path to this new proposed connector. He asked the Board to reject the proposed connector, and encouraged all parties to come together to create a better solution.

Mr. David Eade, a resident of the Magnolia Pointe community, mentioned that he had been a commercial real estate developer for almost 30 years. He opined that this plan benefitted the property owners to the detriment of 480 property owners in Magnolia Pointe, and that none of the current homeowners in Johns Lake Landing ever envisioned a new entrance on Magnolia Pointe Boulevard. He mentioned that when he looked into buying a home in Johns Lake Landing two years prior, it was never brought up as part of the proposition, opining that this connection would not be a primary benefit for them. He commented that the plan proposed to turn one turning lane from SR 50 into two turning lanes, 24 feet wide, noting that Magnolia Pointe Boulevard was only 20 feet wide. He mentioned that even though they proposed to add an additional lane, they would not be three conventional lanes. He stated that he called a civil engineer and asked him to run a couple of computer models for him, which showed that currently two tractor trailers could not make a left hand turn from two different lanes onto Magnolia Pointe Boulevard. He concluded that unless the applicant increased the width of Magnolia Pointe Boulevard significantly, two trucks would not be able to use those lanes to service Sherwin Williams and the other retailers in the development.

Mr. Kevin Foshee, a resident of Lake County, mentioned that his business had been doing construction in Central Florida since 1972, and that they had moved the business to Clermont in 1994. He commented that the property owners had reached out to many local contractors and vendors, and that he had been working with the owner for several months on this project, adding that he was excited to see this come to the City of Clermont. He stated that 80 percent of his staff lived in Lake County, and that they were looking for job opportunities and housing in Lake County. He opined that moving forward with this project would provide a 20 percent increase in jobs, and that it would provide more housing opportunities closer to where people worked, adding that it would also provide job opportunities for spouses who were looking for work in the commercial retail area. He mentioned that the increase in revenue for his company alone was 25 to 30 percent, noting that, as a small business, it was a large increase. He opined that Lake County would love to have more property owners, employees, and business owners, and that this project was instrumental to the future health of their local businesses, vendors, and suppliers, adding that he would like the Board to approve the project.

Mr. Joe Buckman, a resident of the Magnolia Pointe community, expressed concern about the Commissioners having ex parte communication with the developer, and he opined that it violated the Sunshine Law. He expressed concern that Mr. Jones was representing one of the plaintiffs because they used to represent the residents, opining that it was a conflict of interest and that they could have some confidential information. He stated that safety was the main issue, and that there was not a way to make it work, noting that they wanted to make a driveway into a major intersection 40 feet from another major intersection. He opined that they should have their own connection to SR 50, and that if they built an entryway to Magnolia Pointe Boulevard, it would cause more issues. He recommended that it be denied, adding that it could be extended to the following BCC meeting, which would allow them to have more representation.

Commr. Parks explained that ex parte discussions were fact finding missions between Commissioners and applicants, and that it was for transparency, which was why they disclosed the ex parte communications during the BCC meeting.

Ms. Marsh stated that ex parte communications were permitted under Section 286.0115, Florida Statutes, and that the Board had complied with the requirements by disclosing who they talked to and the general nature of their discussions. She commented that the Sunshine Law only applied to conversations between the actual elected members themselves, and that they could talk to as many people in the public as they chose to do so.

Commr. Parks commented that they were disclosing that they had heard the applicant’s side, and that they could be hearing the other side as well, opining that if everything said was repeated during the BCC meeting, it could extend the meeting significantly. He noted that they were adhering to the statute, and that it was moral, ethical, and transparent.

Mr. Chris Cornils, a resident of the Magnolia Pointe community, inquired if the County was considering the whole picture between FDOT, Lake County, the City of Clermont, and the 2,000 residents who lived in Magnolia Pointe. He opined that, in the various meetings he had attended, there had been no comments about the impact of the increased number of cars that Costco, 400 apartments, and over 300,000 square feet of retail shopping would bring to the area, adding that safety should be a top priority. He pointed out that Magnolia Pointe only had one way in and out, and that the proposed development had two ways in and out, opining that traffic would congest the Magnolia Pointe Boulevard intersection with SR 50. He commented that a third entrance could be created through the lot to the west of the proposed development, opining that residents who purchased homes behind the proposed development could access SR 50 either through that entrance or through the intersection with Magnolia Pointe Boulevard. He opined that the second left-hand turn lane off of SR 50 onto Magnolia Pointe Boulevard would impact safety on SR 50 due to more people sitting in the left hand lane, which could cause more accidents. He asked who was going to pay for the widening of the entrance into Magnolia Pointe Boulevard to safely handle the increase in traffic. He opined that drivers who turned left and needed to make an immediate right hand turn would cause short braking, more accidents, and more congestion during peak periods. He said that the developer had proposed to build a monument sign on the northeast corner of the proposed development close to the light at Magnolia Pointe, and that this sign would draw more vehicles to come into this narrow entrance. He mentioned that the residents of Magnolia Pointe had been paying for the maintenance of the road from the guard station north to the light at SR 50, and that the County had denied funding for maintenance, opining that the County did not own this stretch of road. He asked, with the proposed development and increased traffic, if the residents of Magnolia Pointe would be expected to continue maintaining the road, and he asked the Board to deny the application to keep the intersection at SR 50 and Magnolia Pointe Boulevard safe.

Ms. Marsh stated that the 500 feet of Magnolia Pointe Boulevard from SR 50 to the Magnolia Pointe gatehouse was deeded to the County on February 17, 1999, and that it was recorded in Official Record Book 1689, pages 1094 through 1096. She said that it was a nonexclusive easement deed, adding that it was not taken into the maintenance system, but that it was dedicated to the public.

Mr. Travis Maxwell, a resident of the Johns Lake Landing community, said that he supported the amended PUD, adding that he had visited hundreds of Johns Lake Landing residents who were equally in support of this. He commented that he recognized the position of the Magnolia Pointe residents, and that he appreciated the decrease in density, opining that it would decrease traffic by 53 percent. He relayed his understanding that the land would be developed, and that if the amendment was not approved, then the future of the property would be uncertain. He mentioned that the developer could choose to move forward with the PUD that was already approved, opining that it would be worse, and that they would still end up with the access to Magnolia Pointe Boulevard. He requested that the Board would approve this, and that he was backing this individually and as a community board member representing the members of his community.

Mr. Luis Rodriguez, a resident of Johns Lake Landing, mentioned that he was on the board for Johns Lake Landing, and that they supported it, adding that they had been working with the applicant for months. He commented that many of the residents supported this, but that they were unable to attend.

Mr. Seth Lane, a resident of Jacksonville, mentioned that he was representing the owner of a preschool, who would like to be part of this project, and that the approval was a necessary step. He expressed support for the redesign of the project and for the developer, Parkway Property Investments, LLC, indicating that they had worked with the developer in the past. He opined that they were a good, professional developer, and that they supported this project. He requested that the Board would support the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board.

Ms. Joy Zubkin, a resident of Cobblestone Lane in the City of Clermont, relayed her understanding that phase seven had been through many changes, and that she had attended the Planning and Zoning Board meeting a few weeks prior, adding that there had been discussion on language dealing with the Cra-Mar Groves property. She commented that there was some ongoing information that could develop into an access to phase seven, and that they had been told that they were working on the language. She opined that the residents of Magnolia Pointe had not been presented with this information, and that her drawing showed SR 50 and the turn lane onto Magnolia Pointe Boulevard. She said that it was a one lane turn lane, and that the developer wanted to make it a two lane turn lane, opining that if someone was in the wrong turn lane, they would be crossing over traffic, blocking traffic, and causing accidents driving into the new development. She mentioned that they had already seen accidents in that area, adding that traffic turning right onto Magnolia Pointe Boulevard to drive to Dunkin’ Donuts had backed up traffic on SR 50 and Magnolia Pointe Boulevard. She commented that the issue was that residents from phases six and seven were going to be utilizing that access, and that it would not result in a reduction in the intensity of use, opining that it would result in the increase in the intensity of use. She opined that people beyond Hartle Road would use this access to avoid a traffic light on SR 50, and that they would pass through phase seven to drive onto Magnolia Pointe Boulevard to avoid the traffic. She remarked that there were more traffic issues than what had been discussed, and she asked the Board to deny the access to Magnolia Pointe Boulevard or defer this to another time.

Ms. Vicki Parker, a resident of the Magnolia Pointe community, expressed concern about safety, and that she had not seen the traffic or safety studies that had been done, noting that she had lived there and seen it herself. She opined that it was a very long light, and that the east and west traffic on SR 50 sometimes went through the red lights. She related an incident of almost being hit by a tractor trailer, adding that the cameras that used to be at that intersection had been removed, and that there was no data on how often this happened. She opined that accidents were common there, and that there would be more traffic with this project. She remarked on the various types of traffic infractions she had observed, and that she did not know if the traffic study included traffic violations. She mentioned that the thought of bus stops and school bus stops concerned her, and that this was their only access to their homes. She said that the proposed project already had two other access points planned, and that the access to Magnolia Pointe Boulevard would be a third. She opined that having the second direct access point from SR 50, possibly with a light, would alleviate these potential issues, and that it could prevent some the current safety issues. She then asked the Board to consider redirection of this access road.

Mr. Joseph Mattus, a resident of the Magnolia Pointe community, mentioned that he was against this proposal for the purpose of safety, and that the developer had multiple options. He opined that if development was inevitable, then it was their responsibility to make sure that it was done safely.

There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Brian Denham, with Denham Engineering, stated that he was the applicant’s agent on this project, and that part of the zoning request was to reduce the commercial space by approximately 25,000 square feet. He mentioned that this property was in the southwest corner on Tract J, which was adjacent to the Johns Lake Landing property, and that the builder for that development would be David Weekley Homes, adding that were a high quality, regional developer. He mentioned that putting residential lots there would create a 560 foot residential buffer from Johns Lake Landing to the commercial development, and that Johns Lake Landing was in support of this development. He commented that currently, the developer was allowed to do commercial up to the existing residential area, and that this plan would be better. He stated that the single family homes that David Weekley Homes was proposing was in the range of 1,900 to 3,400 square feet, and that the existing Johns Lake Landing homes for sale averaged 3,000 square feet and sold for $540,000. He said that their price point would start from the low $400,000, and that Magnolia Pointe homes averaged 2,200 square feet and sold for an average of $360,000, noting that they were putting in larger and more expensive homes. He opined that having homeowners there instead of commercial would result in having better stewards of the property as well as safer drivers, and that it was a positive value. He commented on the safety issues, and that going from one turn lane to two turn lanes would direct traffic off of SR 50, opining that it would be a safer scenario. He opined that the larger tractor trailers would not be utilized very often on those left turns, and that it would usually be a 50 foot long truck, adding that SR 50 had turn lanes wide enough to admit those vehicles off of the highway. He said that more points of connection would give people more options and more relief points, opining that not having the connection point on Magnolia Pointe Boulevard would cause more people to have to make U-turns, which were more cumbersome and slow, and that it would back up traffic more than left turns onto Magnolia Pointe Boulevard. He pointed out that the original PUD also had a connection to Magnolia Pointe Boulevard, and that it would result in cutting trips in half, adding that a commercial use would be more intense than their 50 lots of development. He opined that it was a great opportunity, and that there would be good homes in the area and good residents.

Mr. Jones opined that traffic was an issue in Clermont, and that connectivity was the key to give traffic alternative routes for when there were accidents. He commented that if Cra-Mar Groves was allowed to develop that area, it would help alleviate the issues with Magnolia Pointe Boulevard.

Mr. Ardaman pointed out that the cross access between Magnolia Pointe Boulevard and Hartle Road had been in place for over 20 years, and it did not come from this applicant, noting that it was required by the County. He mentioned that each amendment had kept it in place, and that this developer and all of the property owners to the west had relied on that and expended funds and planning to make sure they could meet that requirement. He commented that even if this developer did not make an amendment, he would have to make that connection in order to develop the property, adding that the County would not have the ability to stop them because it was part of the zoning requirement. He concluded that this had been in the works for a long time, and that it had been a public record. He opined that it was good planning because it provided a cross access between two roadways that connected directly to SR 50, and that the applicant was justified in developing and had to comply with it.

Commr. Parks mentioned that Magnolia Pointe Boulevard was owned by the County, and asked if it was on the maintenance record currently.

Ms. Marsh replied that the first 500 feet was not currently in the maintenance system, and that at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the Public Works Department proposed that, with this connection, they could bring it into the maintenance system. She commented that they could enter into an agreement with Magnolia Pointe allowing them to maintain their vegetation and lighting within that right of way, but that it was not currently in the maintenance system.

Mr. Earhart commented that bringing traffic to a signalized intersection would be a safer way to direct them out, and that, if there was a cross access, it would distribute the traffic and be the safest route. He mentioned that there was limited right of way on the Dunkin’ Donuts side, and that there would have to be more right of way donations on the other side to make a roundabout connection. He remarked that the connection with Tiny Morse Boulevard and Auto Plex Lane would be a great benefit, and that the County could work with FDOT to create more access points.

Commr. Parks inquired if there was a way to have a right turn only access into the development from Magnolia Pointe Boulevard and not one coming out to turn left. He commented that if the Johns Lake Landing residents wanted to turn right onto SR 50, they could use the roundabout access, opining that if they wanted to turn left onto SR 50, they could turn right off of the roundabout access and make a U-turn at the Magnolia Pointe Boulevard signal, and he asked how many feet the residents would have to do that.

Mr. Earhart replied that he did not know the length, but that there was probably 500 to 600 feet there.

Commr. Parks mentioned that if the developer could obtain a signal at Tiny Morse Boulevard, then the residents could go through Tract M to turn left onto SR 50.

Mr. Earhart commented that if there was not a way to turn left from the development to Magnolia Pointe Boulevard, they would not have direct access to that signal. He added that they would have to go through the roundabout onto SR 50, and that they would have to make a U-turn at the Magnolia Pointe Boulevard signal, opining that this could increase accidents.

Commr. Shields asked if there was a way to calm people who made that left turn off of SR 50 onto Magnolia Pointe Boulevard into the wrong lane, such as barriers or cross-overs.

Mr. Earhart replied that they could put up barriers and paint dash lines to show them where to go, and that they could put up signage indicating which lane went to which area, adding that they used the three foot plastic barriers.

Commr. Campione inquired if the Magnolia Pointe HOA would be agreeable to having the County take over maintenance of that portion of Magnolia Pointe Boulevard from the gatehouse to SR 50, noting that it would take responsibility off of them for the road maintenance while allowing them to maintain their landscaping.

Ms. Marsh replied that the County had done this with other subdivisions, adding that there were agreements requiring the HOA to be responsible for all of the landscaping and lighting, and that the County was responsible for the road.

Commr. Shields asked if there were any long range plans to obtain another exit from the Magnolia Pointe development.

Mr. Earhart replied that there were not, but that there had been some discussions suggesting that the access could go through the residential area already there or even through the apartment complex to have the access near the guard house.

Commr. Campione asked if the connection to Auto Plex Lane or Tiny Morse Boulevard could be incorporated into the plan, and if the County could make it a required connection.

Mr. Earhart commented that it was currently part of the PUD, and that the connection would be required once that parcel was developed, adding that the timing was uncertain for when this would happen.

Commr. Parks mentioned that there was no specific engineering through there currently, but that they would have to do it at some point. He commented that they had not gone that far, and that he did not know how willing they were to do that during the following 30 days. He pointed out that the developer was guaranteed the corner on Magnolia Pointe Boulevard, and that he was trying to find a solution to the issues with the residents of Magnolia Pointe.

Commr. Smith commented that the applicant already had a PUD with an access to Magnolia Pointe Boulevard, and that he could have proceeded without the amendment.

Commr. Parks asked if Commissioner Smith had any thoughts of doing a right turn in only.

Commr. Smith remarked that he was not a professional engineer, and that they would know the best way to handle it for safety reasons, adding that FDOT would also have some input.

Commr. Campione commented that the Board was trying to balance different ideas and look at the whole context and the history, but that if they did nothing, there would still be an access point on Magnolia Pointe Boulevard. She mentioned that it seemed like the change could make it more intense, but that it would comparatively lessen the impact. She commented that if they did not approve it, there would still be an access, but the residents of Magnolia Pointe would not know what it would be like. She remarked that this answered those questions, and that the engineers would figure out the safest way to make those turn lanes with signals and obstacles to make sure that traffic was directed.

Commr. Parks mentioned that he could go either way with a decision, and that he would ask for a 30 day continuance.

Commr. Campione commented that someday there could be another connection, and that it would be nice if it could happen soon, adding that this was an incremental process.

Commr. Parks remarked that the access was done during 2005, and that he would not have planned it that way.

Ms. Marsh clarified that a motion would include the changes that were handed out by staff that current morning.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Tab 13, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-16-2, Johns Lake Landing PUD Amendment with the addition of staff changes.

Commr. Parks voted no.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 1:26 pm until 2:04 p.m.

mckinnon groves pud

Commr. Parks welcomed everyone back to the meeting said that this was a quasi-judicial hearing. He explained the process for public comment.

Mr. McClendon presented Tab 14, Rezoning Case # RZ-20-36-2, McKinnon Groves PUD. He explained that it was located on the south side of Hartwood Marsh Road, north of west Phil C Peters Road, and adjacent to the Lake-Orange County boundary line, within Commission District 2; additionally, the tract size was approximately 358 acres, and the request was to rezone those 358 acres from Estate Residential (R-2) and Agriculture to PUD to facilitate the development of a mixed-use development consisting of 660 dwelling units and 48 acres of non-residential set-aside uses within the Wellness Way Area Plan. He showed maps indicating the zoning of R-2 and Agriculture, noting that the FLU designation was Wellness Way 1, which could allow up to 1.85 units per acre. He mentioned that this equated to 48 acres of nonresidential uses on the property, and he then displayed the concept plan. He said it was a mixed-use development and that the nonresidential acreage centered around agriculture uses on the northwest side of the property, along with another area with agricultural use. He mentioned that the 660 units were spread throughout the project and that there was age-restricted housing on the south side of the property which would be limited to one story in size; furthermore, there were large substantial buffers around the entire project, with the majority being 150 feet of landscaped area. He commented that Hartwood Marsh Road was proposed to be realigned and that a roundabout would pull the road south into the project. He relayed the following staff analysis findings: master PUDs in Wellness Way required the property to contain at least 1,000 acres, unless approved by the BCC, noting that this applicant received this waiver about a year prior; the applicant had met the requirements of the Wellness Way process; and the development program was consistent with the policies within Wellness Way. He said that staff had found the proposed rezoning consistent with the LDR; however, the Planning and Zoning Board did not have a recommendation for this project.

Commr. Parks asked if there had been any ex-parte discussions that the Commissioners wanted to disclose.

Commr. Shields said that he had a video call with the applicant.

Commr. Smith relayed that he had discussions with the applicant and numerous emails.

Commr. Parks disclosed that he had discussions with the applicant and their attorney, as well as Mr. Brian Blair, an individual with concerns about the project. He added that he had also attended several community meetings.

Commr. Campione stated that she had received many emails and also had two discussions with the applicant.

Commr. Blake said that he had received emails from citizens, and that he had a meeting with the applicant.

Commr. Parks explained that ex-parte was a way of saying that they needed to disclose and be transparent about who they had discussions with, noting that the discussions were legal, moral and ethical. He asked Ms. Marsh to confirm that the Board was in compliance with this statute.

Ms. Marsh confirmed this and said that it was Section 286.0115, Florida Statutes, noting that it only required the Board to acknowledge who they had spoken with and the general substance of this.

Commr. Parks then explained that Wellness Way was a plan covering about 16,000 acres in an area in South Lake that had intensive growth pressures for many years before the current Commissioners were on the BCC. He said that many current and previous Commissioners had seen mistakes with piecemeal growth, opining that there had been no real long-term planning. He commented that Wellness Way attempted to put a plan in place with some strict tenets and that it involved around 29 or more landowners. He mentioned that some tenets included that one could not use potable water for landscaping and irrigation, and that it had design standards more stringent than any city in Lake County, along with one of the highest design standards in the state; furthermore, it required developers to pay for roads upfront, and to put a maintenance structure in place so that roads would be maintained in perpetuity by those that had moved there. He added that the County also asked for a significant amount of open space and buffering, and that there was a commerce component. He also said that Wellness Way was capped at roughly 16,500 units, rather than what could possibly have been over 25,000 units over 16,000 acres. He believed that if the County had not done this, then they would be worse off currently than they were 10 years prior. He expressed concerns about first response and public safety, and he asked Mr. Tommy Carpenter, Public Safety Director, to speak about this. He questioned that since the subject area was along the Lake-Orange County line, how were they addressing first response.

Mr. Carpenter explained that they looked at the area off west Phil C Peters Road, noting that there was really no easy way to get there and that it was typically reached through Orange County. He remarked that from September 2, 2020 to September 2, 2021, there were 11 calls with one for a fire and six for transports to the hospital. He said that since the previous year, they had worked more closely with Orange County Fire Rescue to have them come into that area, noting that their Fire Station 44 was about 3.6 miles away. He added that City of Clermont Fire Station 32 also responded to those calls and that they had to go through Orange County to reach that location. He stated that for response times, they looked at it from the time the call was made until someone was there, and that the times ranged from 15 to 20 minutes.

Mr. McClendon commented that he had prepared a memo on the previous day regarding the ordinance changes from the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, as well as letters of objection from two residents and a notice to appear from Mr. Brent Spain, an attorney.

Commr. Parks noted that Mr. Ed Williams, with the City of Winter Garden, was in attendance.

Ms. Anita Geraci-Carver, an attorney representing the applicant, presented information related to the project. She said that this was one of the first Wellness Way projects and opined that it met the primary intent of the Wellness Way Area Plan. She noted that the policy intended for them to create jobs and economic development, as well as the following items: wellness and green corridors; promotion of recreation and healthy living; water smart approaches; preservation of scenic resources, including topography; and health and wellness communities development, opining that McKinnon Groves met all of these intents of Wellness Way. She said that the proposed community honored the agricultural uses that had taken place on the property for over 100 years, and she relayed a history of the property. She then provided a timeline overview of Wellness Way, which began in 2011, noting that there were public meetings and workshops where the project was discussed; furthermore, there were no objections to the inclusion of the subject property within the Wellness Way 1 FLU category. She showed a map with the location of the subject property, pointing out the CR 455 extension and the Wellness Way corridors that were being planned and built south of these properties; furthermore, SR 429 was within close proximity of the property to the east, and U.S. 27 was to the west. She relayed information about the property, noting that the zoning of R-2 and Agriculture were inconsistent with the Wellness Way 1 FLU; therefore, a PUD was required. She displayed the Wellness Way 1 requirements and said that the maximum number of residential units and the minimum number of nonresidential acreage for job creation was determined by the capacity table. She elaborated that 1.85 dwelling units was the maximum capacity per net acre, and that the jobs to housing ratio was that 1.75 jobs must be created for each single family dwelling unit; additionally, she reviewed the nonresidential calculation for how much land must be set-aside for commercial or nonresidential uses. She said that residential units could be constructed at any density as long as it fell within the maximum density allocation table, which for Wellness Way 1 was three units per net buildable area, noting that they were not proposing the maximum density for net buildable area, nor were they proposing the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for nonresidential. She stated that regardless of the densities, the maximum was determined by capacity, noting that there was a minimum of 30 percent open space and a job hub requirement of 1.75/1.0 jobs to housing ratio; furthermore, McKinnon Groves was 1.85 dwelling units per net acre, and the density was 3.14 units per acre overall; however, the southern 80 acres was being developed at 1.8 dwelling units acre, which was within the requirements and met the maximum and minimum range within the density chart. She commented that Wellness Way also required a mix of uses including 10 percent of nonresidential, a maximum of 60 percent residential, and a minimum of 30 percent open space, noting that this request achieved this. She elaborated that for the open space requirements, 10 percent must be green space, and 20 percent must be wellness space; additionally, they were providing 38 percent open space, or 137 acres. She commented that the development would be limited to 660 dwelling units, and a minimum of 502,250 square feet of nonresidential development, which was equivalent to the 0.25 percent minimum. She added that they were setting aside 48 acres of nonresidential land for job creation, and that 1,156 jobs would be created as a result of this project. She opined that the project was compatible with the surrounding areas and with all of the Lake County land development code requirements; additionally, she relayed that staff had agreed that it met those requirements. She mentioned Section 163.3164, Florida Statutes, which defined compatibility as a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition. She opined that some of the ways that the applicant demonstrated that they met this requirement of compatibility included the following: an age restricted community in the southern portion; agriculture and recreational related uses were being proposed for the job creation hubs; an increase in ad valorem taxes exceeding those of the adjacent rural residential uses; mature pine trees would be preserved within the 100 foot and 150 foot buffers; enhanced plantings of understory trees and shrubs within the perimeter buffers; and preservation of the existing topography; connecting to the City of Clermont utilities for central water and wastewater; reduced water consumption with clustered residential; dark-sky principles for lighting; improvements to Hartwood Marsh Road such as safety features and traffic-calming; an extensive trail for wellness activities and recreation; proposed non-residential uses were more low impact commercial uses continuing with the agriculture theme of the property; and met Wellness Way standards adopted in 2016. She reiterated that they were proposing to limit the density to three units per acre rather than the allowable 20 units per acre, and they were also limiting the nonresidential use to 0.25 FAR as opposed to two. She said that they also took into consideration the comments received at multiple public meetings, and developed an ordinance which she opined met the requirements. She added that they also considered the permitted uses for job creation, and they tried to limit everything to items related to agricultural uses or the community centers on the property for the residents. She displayed the following permitted uses that they included: single-family detached and attached with two units in one structure at most, noting that they would be single story in the age restricted portion of the property; commercial was limited to anything relating to agricultural uses, eating and drinking, outdoor storage and display, and possibly a farmers market; office uses, when associated with the agricultural uses and the community centers on property; public/institutional included public safety and a fire station, noting that childcare, family care, and an outpatient clinic could only be part of the community center recreation facilities onsite; and agriculture uses. She said that the PUD zoning ordinance had to be consistent with the Comp Plan, opining that the plan and the ordinance met those requirements.

Mr. Jeff McNeal, a consultant representing the applicant, displayed a conceptual plan from 2019 and another plan from March 2021, opining that they had listened to the community and increased buffer widths, added additional buffering on the south end, and proposed improving the safety conditions on Hartwood Marsh Road. He displayed the PUD master plan and explained that there would be no access to Phil C Peters Road nor the adjoining streets on the south end and that they enhanced the buffer from 50 or 75 feet to 150 feet. He then displayed a map with open space, buffers, job hubs and walkability. He showed an image with the trails in the proposed development, along with a map of the residential areas. He opined that the age restricted portion would help them with peak hour traffic, noting that roughly half of the project was in that area; additionally, he opined that the maximum 1.85 dwelling units per acre gave them a sustainable number. He stated that there were no 40 foot lots and that the only smaller lot product was the attached villa units, which were essentially on a 70 foot lot and in the age restricted portion. He discussed the job hub and reiterated that they stayed to the minimum FAR of 0.25, or slightly over 500,000 square feet, noting that this square footage was attainable in greenhouses on the Nelson’s Florida Roses portion of the project; additionally, it could happen in the nursery/tree farm and the community centers. He provided information about Nelson’s Florida Roses and said that it was a key feature of the targeted industries in Wellness Way. He opined that a 150 foot buffer was significant, and he showed a video of a nearby 100 buffer, mentioning that one would begin to see the development disappear on street level. He also showed images of vegetation on the property, and opined that the proposed buffer was extraordinary. He noted that the County had buffer requirements and that typically, a type A or type B buffer would be a maximum of 20 feet with landscaping; additionally, when an industrial use was next to a residential use, the maximum buffer was 80 feet, noting that the subject development would be exceeding what was done in a rural settlement in Orange County. He showed an image highlighting where the buffers were, commenting that at the north side, they had the ability to move Hartwood Marsh Road and install a roundabout to calm traffic. He elaborated that they could bring Hartwood Marsh Road up the hill from the south into the roundabout for a more level street with better sightlines and visibilities to Sadler Court and Flynn Court. He commented that they had a pair of two or 2.5 acre lots on the north side of the property as a transition, and drainage and buffers around the edge, noting that a significant buffer would be added along the edge of the road. He displayed information relating to the southern buffers and said that if the surrounding residential neighborhood wanted the trailhead connections, the applicant would be opening this opportunity up. He also displayed information related to the southern buffers, opining that one would not see much of the housing. He showed conceptual images of the residential architecture, and he said that the landscaping of the lots would include reducing turf area and requiring less irrigation.

Ms. Geraci-Carver said that one of the provisions in the County’s land development code required the County to consider the value of the properties and how it impacted the surrounding area. She commented that the Office of Elevate Lake had conducted a property use comparison for the subject project with the project as proposed versus a combination of five acre lots on the southern portion zoned Agriculture, and two units per acre on the portion currently zoned R-2. She explained that the analysis was that the proposed use could generate more than two times the annual taxes than if developed as five acre lots and two to one acre lots; therefore, she opined that the value of the property as proposed was compatible with the values in the area. She also submitted this analysis for the record. She then recapped information about the development, and indicated that it would not include the following: apartments; a school; a hospital; a connection to Phil C Peters Road, Terra Vista Court, Spyglass Hill Road, Dangler Road, Seidner Road, Sandhill Road or Caamano Lane, noting that there would be limited access on Lookout Hill Road only for the business at Tract JB-2; three story homes; gas stations; 20 units to the acre; 22 foot wide lots; or more than 0.25 FAR for nonresidential development. She said that the applicant believed that this project met all of the Wellness Way requirements, and that staff had also made this determination. She opined that they also met the requirements of the land development code.

Commr. Parks said that he had asked for an independent economic analysis which staff prepared, and he asked for this to be summarized. He said that he would also ask about dark-sky lighting, and he mentioned that he had staff ask about a panther sighting as well.

Ms. Tracy Garcia, Director for the Office of Elevate Lake, presented the economic analysis and said that her office looked at similar subdivisions in the nearby areas which had the zoning that the existing McKinnon Groves property had, noting that McKinnon Groves currently had a zoning of R-2 and Agriculture, and that this was scenario one. She stated that the second scenario they considered was what was being proposed, which was a mixed use development consisting of 660 dwelling units, with 48 acres of those dwelling units being nonresidential uses within the Wellness Way Area Plan. She commented that for scenario one, the R-2 zoning consisted of single family, and Timberlane phase two also consisted of single family units with less than a five acre lot, noting that this was a subdivision which was not far from the subject property. She mentioned that staff looked at this subdivision and the lots with houses for the average of taxes for each R-2 zoned lot, and the taxes showed an average of around $2,585 per dwelling unit in Timberlane phase two. She added that they also looked at the Fox Meadow subdivision, which was located approximately half a mile southwest of the subject property and was zoned Agriculture; furthermore, the average lot size was slightly over five acres. She said that the average taxes for the Fox Meadow subdivision were around $6,175 per dwelling unit, and that taking into account the maximum dwelling units per acre for R-2 and Agriculture zoning, the subject property came out to having 39 dwelling units with the Agriculture zoning with a $6,175 average tax base, and then 320 dwelling units for R-2 with a $2,585 average tax base, for a total of $1,068,025. She stated that this was the scenario existing currently, and they were not considering any type of nonresidential uses because it was not needed in what was existing at the current time. She commented that the second scenario included looking at the Hartwood Reserve phase two subdivision which was southwest of the subject area, noting that it was in the City of Clermont limits and was zoned close to the County’s R-2 with a single family medium density zoning in the city. She explained that those lots were approximately one-quarter of an acre, and commented that the average was approximately $3,580 per each residential unit for taxes. She said that when looking at what the applicant was currently requesting, it came out to be an estimate of $2,362,800 in ad valorem taxes for the residential units annually, noting that this did not take into account the 48 acres set-aside for nonresidential or commercial uses. She added that this would be slightly over two times the amount of taxes would be brought in annually with McKinnon Groves as proposed, in comparison to how it existed currently.

Commr. Parks inquired about Nelson’s Florida Roses, and Ms. Garcia replied that they did not look into any of the commercial uses.

Ms. Barker addressed the panther sighting and said that the County had contacted the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), who indicated that there were two confirmed panther sightings in February 2014 about 2.5 square miles from the Lake-Polk County line; furthermore, the FWC believed that it was the same panther, and those were the last confirmed sightings.

Commr. Parks asked if it was close to the subject site, and Ms. Barker denied this. Commissioner Parks then inquired about the dark-sky lighting requirements and if there was a foot-candle measurement, noting that this was used to determine light.

Mr. McClendon did not believe that there were specific foot-candle regulations in the LDR; however, what dark-sky principles maintained was shielding light fixtures to angle lights down toward the ground and not allowing light to escape upward. He mentioned that this was typically addressed administratively during site plan or pre-plat review, and he did not believe that they specified foot-candles; however, this could be added to the ordinance.

Commr. Parks stated that he was making sure that light did not go into the adjacent property.

Mr. McClendon commented that staff had gauges to measure this, and that the photometric plan was part of the plan review.

Mr. McNeal said that Duke Energy, along with poles for dark-sky lighting, used a downward bell unit in the lighting, noting that it was inside the unit so that it could control lumens and that it was close to the light on the ground; additionally, it would only spread out a certain distance away. He said that the applicant was amicable with the standards for this, as well as a stricter standard as long as the safety was maintained.

Commr. Parks asked if they would limit the size of poles.

Mr. McNeal confirmed this for lighting purposes based on the photometrics and what they needed for the site.

Commr. Campione said that in considering the rules for Wellness Way and this particular classification, it seemed to her that there was not much deviation, noting that they could not allow less than the minimum density and could not exceed the maximum density.

Mr. McClendon confirmed that going lower than the minimum density would pass the threshold of the minimum dwelling unit standard. He stated that the maximum density buildout for Wellness Way tier one was 20 dwelling units per acre, but the subject property could not come close to this number because they were restricted at a capacity allocation for density, noting that the entire project was capped at 660 units.

Commr. Parks explained that the intent with Wellness Way was that if it was separated into one acre lots or two units per acre, then the delivery of service and the economic benefit from the County would not be achieved versus the Wellness Way plan.

Ms. Barker noted that the map of the panther sighting was displayed, and Mr. McClendon pointed out the subject property boundary.

Mr. Brent Spain, an attorney who had filed a notice to appear, submitted the following items into the record: a copy of his presentation; a copy of his resume; a copy of Ms. Allara Mills Gutcher’s resume, who was an American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) certified planner; and a copy of the analysis of the proposed PUD that Ms. Mills Gutcher had conducted. He stated that he was present on behalf of the Fox Meadow Homeowners Association (HOA) and Mr. Brian Blair. He commented that the Fox Meadow subdivision was located to the west and the immediate southwest of the proposed McKinnon Groves PUD, that lots within the Fox Meadow subdivision were within the notice range under the County’s LDR for rezonings, and that the members of the Fox Meadow subdivision had interests that were furthered and protected by the County’s Comp Plan and LDR including but not limited to the following: interests related to densities and intensities of development, transportation facilities, and environmental and natural resources; compatibility of development; protection of established neighborhoods; protection of rural lifestyles; and protection of property values, opining that these interests differed in kind and degree than Lake County as a whole. He opined that the members of the Fox Meadow subdivision would be directly affected by the Board’s action this afternoon, and he hoped that the Board would either decide to continue this matter to improve the PUD, or deny it. He displayed aerial images of the subject area, opining that a significant amount of development was being placed in this area in comparison to surrounding property, which was the established development pattern. He showed another aerial image with the site location, as well as the concept plan attached to the proposed PUD ordinance, opining that the 660 units was relevant to the review criteria that the Board would have to base their decision on. He said that Lake County FLU Policy I-1.2.7 indicated that “the maximum density or intensity provided within a Future Land Use Category shall not be construed as a guaranteed right or entitlement,” opining that the request was trying to cap at the maximum. He relayed his understanding that the Comp Plan set an outside ceiling on development, and that it did not set a guaranteed entitlement or right to that development. He noted that this provision also indicated that in making the determination for density and intensity, there were a number of criteria that the Board was supposed to consider which included neighborhood compatibility, cohesiveness and stability of established community character, as well as compatibility to abutting land uses such as residential development or public conservation land which abutted the project on the south. He cited the case Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County. v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993), which reiterated that “a comprehensive plan only establishes a long-range maximum limit on the possible intensity of land use; a plan does not simultaneously establish an immediate minimum limit on the possible intensity of land use.” He said that there were 10 rezoning criteria in Section 14.03.03 of the County’s LDR, opining that the proposed project did not comply with several of the following criteria: A. whether the rezoning is in conflict with any applicable provisions of the code; B. whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Comp Plan; C. whether, and the extent to which, the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with existing and proposed land use; D. whether there have been changed conditions that justify a rezoning; E. whether, and the extent to which, the proposed rezoning would result in demands on public facilities, and whether, or to the extent to which, the proposed rezoning would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including, but not limited to police, roads, sewage facilities, water supply, drainage, solid waste, parks and recreation, schools, and fire and emergency medical facilities; F. whether, and the extent to which, the rezoning would result in significant impacts on the natural environment; G. whether, and the extent to which, the proposed rezoning would affect the property values in the area; H. whether, and the extent to which, the proposed rezoning would result in an orderly and logical development pattern; I. whether the proposed rezoning would be in conflict with the public interest, and in harmony with the purpose and intent of these regulations; and J. any other matters that may be deemed appropriate by the Board. He opined that the request did not comply with at least six of the criteria, and he relayed that the staff report indicated that “the application is consistent with the current development standards contained within the LDR,” adding that there was no explanation or analysis for this. He opined that when considering LDR Sections 4.03.01 and 4.03.03.A, a key component of any PUD was that it had to be developed in a manner which was compatible with both the surrounding existing and approved development abutting the site. He opined that there was no functional compatibility of the uses or the phasing of the development, noting that the proposed ordinance had a phase running out to 2040, which was the complete buildout phase for the entirety of Wellness Way. He displayed the applicant’s compatibility statements which were submitted to the County, opining that there was not any discussion regarding the established development pattern along the southern portion of the subject property; additionally, he displayed the applicant’s responses to staff questions and said that the applicant’s response regarding compatibility was that compatibility was based on the Wellness Way overlay and the adjacent residential development, which he opined was a circular statement. He added that the response regarding consistency with the Comp Plan was that it was consistent with the Comp Plan; however, there was no analysis provided. He then opined that the request was inconsistent with numerous policies and goals in the Comp Plan. He referenced FLU Goal I-8.7.1 which discussed the master PUDs in Wellness Way and read “each PUD shall be developed in sufficient detail to allow evaluation of the interrelationship of its parts and establish consistency with principles contained within the Lake County Comprehensive Plan…” He mentioned that density was a significant concern to the neighbors and that the proposed ordinance did not indicate where the 660 units would be, and he said that it could be designed so that the southern portion was less dense and the northern portion was denser, opining that the applicant would still be meeting the Wellness Way requirements. He commented that the initial lot width had been increased, but the ordinance did not specify where the different sized lots were and how many of each lot width there would be; additionally, no minimum lot area or minimum home sizes were specified. He also questioned what the buffer language in the ordinance meant, opining that it should be more specific.

Commr. Campione mentioned that the county was not used to seeing 150 foot perimeter buffers, and that it was unusual in this situation.

Mr. Spain agreed, but questioned what would happen in the buffer. He then displayed goals of FLU policies which regarded compatibility, such as protecting existing neighborhoods and protecting the long term viability of neighborhoods by ensuring compatibility and transition with varying densities between uses. He showed an aerial image of the area and pointed out the Fox Meadow and Avalon Hills subdivisions, and said that the Valley View subdivision was to the south on Quiet Lane; additionally, the rural settlement in Orange County was to the east. He relayed that the existing development pattern was low density rural estates ranging from three to five acres; furthermore, the lot frontage on these properties averaged 300 feet, and there were no duplexes in the rural residential development around the southern portion of the proposed PUD. He said that a minimum lot width of 40 feet was only 13 percent of the average lot frontage in the surrounding development pattern, and that an attached unit would only be 10 percent. He mentioned FLU Goal I-8, which regarded job-to-housing creation, and indicated that job creation and economic development was one of the primary intents of the Wellness Way FLU category. He opined that the proposed job hubs were not creating jobs, and said that the tree nursery and rose garden existed currently. He relayed that there was a provision in the Comp Plan that “all job hubs shall be appropriately placed in commercially viable locations located along an arterial or collector road,” opining that none of the other job hubs met this criteria. He mentioned a requirement for 30 percent open space, with 20 percent open space and 10 percent green space, and he questioned three of the five job hubs being denoted as green space, along with questioning the size of the buildings. He opined that having hundreds of age restricted housing units on the southern portion of the property was inherently inconsistent with the development pattern, and he relayed that there was a provision about the County encouraging age restricted housing to be located near commercial centers, bus transit routes, and community facilities; however, he opined that the proposal did not meet those criteria. He relayed his understanding of Wellness Way requirements for analysis being provided on technology infrastructure and energy conservation; however, he was not aware of this being submitted. He also mentioned a question about the capacity allocation and said that the applicant wanted the maximum of 1.85 dwelling units per acre for 660 units; however, he opined that they were not entitled to this. He relayed his understanding that the proposed PUD asked for accessory dwelling units to be excluded from this calculation, and he opined that nothing in the Comp Plan allowed for this exclusion to occur. He then commented that criteria D, G H and I pertained to changed conditions, property values, the logical development pattern, and public interest. He opined that the only changed condition submitted to the County was that Wellness Way was adopted, and he questioned if the established or existing development pattern in the area had changed. He opined that there had been no change in the southern portion of the property, and he commented that nothing was submitted with the application for the impact on property values. He said that for orderly and logical development, the staff report indicated that “the property is situated in a rural area and surrounded by predominately low density, residential lots…,” and he was unsure how placing 660 units in this area would lead to an orderly and logical development pattern. He commented that for there being no conflict with public interest, the first goal in the FLU element discussed protecting established neighborhoods, rural lifestyles and the rural character of the area; furthermore, he opined that this project was out of character with this. He recalled comments during the applicant’s presentation that it would only really be 3.14 dwelling units per acre across the entire site, and only 1.85 dwelling units per acre on the southern portion. He commented that those density caps were not in the proposed ordinance; rather, the ordinance indicated that they could build 660 units anywhere on the site, and that they could develop between three and 12 dwelling units per acre. He expressed support for the applicant’s comments about having a buffer with enhanced understory trees and shrubs, though this was also not a requirement of the proposed ordinance. He opined that this should be a requirement and that it should be specified in detail, and he relayed that the landscaping of lots was also not in the PUD ordinance. He stated that the ordinance referenced dark-sky lighting standards but not foot-candle standards, which he opined would be good to include, and he noted that there were no provisions that the recreation fields or riding stable could not be lit. He opined that Wellness Way did not give the applicant a guaranteed entitlement to 660 units, and that no one had shown what this would look like. He said that they needed to slow down and try to address the intensity and density of this development, and opined that the request did not meet at least six of the County’s rezoning criteria, that it was inconsistent with the Comp Plan, and that it was not consistent or compatible with the surrounding low density residential pattern of development. He asked the Board to continue this matter so that more detail could be specified in the ordinance, or to deny the proposed PUD.

Commr. Parks said that if there was 1.85 units times 357 acres, it was 660 units. He asked for staff to provide the current entitlements, and Mr. McClendon stated that he could get this information.

Mr. Ed Williams, with the City of Winter Garden, relayed his planning history. He commented that the City’s main issue with the project was access, and he expressed appreciation for being able to review and comment on these plans. He said that currently, all traffic from the subject project was designated to go to the north, and he opined that this did not make sense and would not work. He commented that there were other projects to the west, and opined that Hartwood Marsh Road and then Marsh Road in the City of Winter Garden would not handle this amount of traffic. He recommended to keep the buffer on the south, but to allow for the road to connect to Phil C Peters Road, noting that there was nothing in the rural settlement criteria of Orange County that prohibited roads from going through rural settlements, or that prohibited projects from connecting to roads through rural settlements. He clarified that they were not suggesting that the County widen this road to four lanes, and said that there was a requirement to keep roads narrow in rural settlements. He opined that a connection to Phil C Peters Road would be valuable for traffic and safety; additionally, the developer had shown some future connections to the east, and the only one that the City would suggest considering was Lookout Hill Road to Davenport Road.

Mr. McClendon referred to Commissioner Parks’ question about the current entitlements and confirmed that from the zoning entitlements, it would be 359 units versus the requested 660 units.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 4:02 pm for seven minutes.

mckinnon groves pud continued

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Vincent Niemiec, a resident of the City of Clermont, thanked the BCC for expediting the expansion of Hartwood Marsh Road; however, he said that it would only go up to his community. He relayed his understanding that the location of McKinnon Groves and Hartwood Marsh Road could not be expanded to four lanes due to Orange County having only two lanes. He expressed concerns for developments on Hartwood Marsh Road affecting existing homeowners, and he supported building the infrastructure of roads before building large communities. He requested that the BCC deny the applicant’s request.

Ms. Melissa Beatty, a resident of Lake County on Savannah Ridge Lane, opined that the proposed community was not compatible with the surrounding area, and she expressed concerns for emergency response times and adding more traffic.

Mr. James Grace, a resident on Colt Lane, expressed concerns for seeing development and for the subject development being in this area. He also relayed concerns for road safety, and he opined that an alternative would be to not place the houses there.

Mr. Mark Patterson, a resident of Ravenswood Road in Altoona, opined that Wellness Way needed work, and he wanted to see some vestige of rural and natural Lake County preserved. He urged the Board to preserve some of the natural and rural elements of the state.

Mr. Joseph Yakovetic, a resident on Powderhorn Place Drive, relayed his understanding that Hartwood Marsh Road was previously approved to be expanded, but that this never happened. He supported stopping development and bringing the infrastructure to meet the current and future standards. He also expressed concerns for emergency response on the road, and for wildlife displacement.

Mr. Jacob Malherbe, a resident on the corner of Phil C Peters Road and Rex Drive, said that he and his wife ran the “Stop McKinnon Groves” Facebook campaign, and he relayed data about the campaign. He quoted Mr. McClendon from the June 2, 2021 Planning and Zoning Board minutes as saying “Wellness Way policies already insist that any development be consistent and compatible with any surrounding properties,” noting that Lake County was the applicant for a case regarding Flat Lake and that the County had met with the residents. He supported making this connection with the residents first, and he mentioned that the proposed development only had one exit to the north.

Ms. Wanda Whitener, a resident on Quiet Lane, read a letter from her husband which expressed concerns about the proposed development including crime, traffic and job creation. She opined that residents moved to the area because it was rural.

Mr. Brian Blair, a resident on Fox Meadow Trail, opined that the subject property did not conform to the area, and he asked for the southern 80 acres to conform to the area. He expressed concerns for the vegetation in the buffer, and he asked the Board to deny or continue the case.

Commr. Nicole Wilson, with the Orange County BCC and a resident of West Orange County, mentioned regional challenges and pressures, opining that the most pressing of these challenges was growth management. She opined that the Comp Plans and codes had the same overall objectives of providing residents with thoughtful, consistent planning and development, ensuring their existing property rights and quality of life were balanced with the goals and rights of the developer. She asked the Board to consider the use and character of the adjacent Orange County rural settlement which was predominately one house per five acres. She commented that throughout the rural settlement, the highest densities permitted were one house per acre, noting that the densities for the Lake Avalon rural settlement were intended to protect the rural and historic character, and to minimize sprawl. She opined that the subject development was the definition of sprawl, and she noted that the Wellness Way area densities were self-imposed by the Lake County BCC; additionally, the description of the Wellness Way Area Plan included the language “well balanced development patterns that minimize environmental impacts and leverage existing resources.” She mentioned that the Wellness Way plan emphasized employment opportunities and economic development; however, she opined that the development was plainly a housing project and that the businesses were already there. She expressed concerns for more traffic and straining emergency services, and she asked the BCC to require any new development to be consistent with the density and intensity of adjacent development settlements.

Ms. Roseanna Malherbe, a resident on Rex Drive, said that the first time she had heard of Wellness Way was at a November 2019 meeting. She expressed concerns that Hartwood Marsh Road was mentioned 39 times in the master plan and that it was referred to as three sections. She commented that two sections were classified as urban, while the third section was classified as a transition road, and she relayed her understanding that from the Orange County line to the 90 degree bend in Hartwood Marsh Road, there should be a transition from rural to urban. She opined that the subject development did not follow this guideline, and she believed that the applicant could not move forward with their proposed PUD. She indicated concerns for cramped neighborhoods, congested roadways and limited nature, and she opined that the proposed development did not promote wellness. She asked the Board not to approve this development.

Mr. Kevin Cannon, a neighbor of the subject property and a real estate investor who owned property near the subject property, relayed his understanding that there was a panther sighting in the area. He opined that another plan could be lowering the density, and that larger lots were their own buffers. He also indicated an understanding that if they were to build 100 luxury homes, it would be a three times increase to the tax base. He also expressed concerns for the jobs that would be expected, and he thought that parks should be included there instead of homes. He also supported slowing this down and getting the best plan, and he requested for the Board to do what was best for the residents of Lake County, opining that the majority of them did not want what was being proposed.

Ms. Jane Dunkelberger, a resident of the City of Windermere and a community advocate for the Horizon West Alliance, said that her organization had advocated for a fire station in the south Avalon Road area, and that they had partnered with the Orange County Sheriff to hold safety meetings in 2019. She mentioned connectivity of trails and roads being a large part of growth in Horizon West, noting that the roads in the Bridgewater Village community were intended to connect with the Wellness Way master plan. She opined that the proposed the development was appealing and aesthetically correct with the extra trees, oversized buffers, recreation centers, and other items. She then read a statement from a resident of the Terra Vista community in the City of Winter Garden which expressed support for the request.

Mr. Jeff Loeffert, a resident on Yellow Butterfly Road in the City of Windermere, said that he utilized Marsh Road frequently and that he was attracted to the Wellness Way project. He thought that the applicant’s plan was trying to balance connecting but also growing, and he asked the Board to do their due diligence.

Ms. Janette Kuhn, a resident on Terra Vista Court, said that everyone around the subject property was rural, and she opined that it should remain this way. She recalled discussions about fire and EMS concerns at a meeting with the applicant, opining that it was challenging for services to reach them. She questioned a guarantee to the neighbors that any development would maintain what the developers were promising, and she asked the BCC that before any development was approved, to have bonds be requested for completion of the project and assurance of future maintenance under the current proposal. She also proposed possibly putting everything on hold and determining what Wellness Way was and what they wanted it to be. She also supported keeping rural land rural.

Commr. Parks explained that the County had workshops and meetings regarding Wellness Way.

Ms. Lisa Galavotti-Ray, a resident on Phil C Peters Road in Orange County, expressed concerns for noise, the construction entrance and density.

Mr. Edward Garrett, a resident of the Hamlin area and a landholder on Savannah Ridge Lane, opined that the request had no place in this area of Lake County. He expressed concerns for a high density project affecting the surrounding area.

Ms. Katie Herrera, a resident on Quiet Lane in the City of Winter Garden, expressed concerns for density. She requested that if the project was approved, for the items mentioned in the project to continue to stay in the project whether it was with the current or a future developer. She specified there being no connection to Phil C Peters Road except for emergency vehicles, the buffers staying at least 150 feet around the project, and a maintenance plan for the buffers. She indicated concerns for lighting, and opined that there should be dark-sky lighting within the community, in addition to homes abiding by this. She opined that the density could be adjusted to have higher density in the northern part and lower density in the southern part, and to keep the homes internalized.

Mr. Grace asked about the rationale for granting the waiver for less than 1,000 acres.

Mr. Ross indicated that there were speakers online via Zoom Webinar.

Ms. Yanette Moyano, a resident on Flynn Court, said that she had no other option but to use Hartwood Marsh Road, and she expressed concerns for the traffic impact of 660 homes. She questioned what the traffic impact would be, along with if any horse owners had been consulted regarding the trails.

Ms. Tammy Edwards, a resident on Fox Meadow Trail, did not think that the plan had taken into account that Lake County schools were full; therefore, she opined that the school system could not accommodate the homes in the foreseeable future. She also expressed concerns for traffic and crime, relaying her understanding that the Lake County Sheriff Office’s (LSCO) manpower had not increased since residents had been there, noting that growth had been exponential. She also asked about garbage pickup, and said that she had not received any correspondence about the Wellness Way project since 2004. She expressed opposition to the plan for Wellness Way and McKinnon Groves.

Mr. Rick Ault, a resident on Lake Ralph Drive, expressed concerns for the waiver for this request, and he opined that they needed some integrity in the process. He also opined that Hartwood Marsh Road was not being addressed, and he expressed concerns for a school on the road. He then opined that the waiver should have been an advertised Comp Plan change.

Commr. Parks said that the waiver was granted because there was stringent design criteria which was not in place at the time when they started on Wellness Way. He elaborated that once the guidelines were in place, the larger threshold was reduced because they now understood that anything in Wellness Way had to adhere to that standard. He added that per the Comp Plan, the waiver had required a separate public hearing.

Mr. Tom Beatty, a resident on Savannah Ridge Lane, expressed concerns for traffic and the way of life in the area. He was concerned that with 660 homes, the southern exit would be built and increase the traffic in the area. He questioned if another waiver would be granted in the future, and he indicated concerns for light pollution into his community, along with emergency response. He requested that the Board halt this proposal and leaving the zoning how it was.

Ms. Stephanie Rollins, a resident on Davenport Road in the City of Winter Garden, supported preserving the feel of the rural settlement, including traffic. She said that there had been previous traffic issues in her neighborhood, and she opined that only having traffic exit onto Marsh Road was not a perfect option, noting that Mr. Williams had indicated that Marsh Road was unable to handle this traffic. She opined that if the roads around the development could not accommodate the traffic, then they should not build the development in the proposed way.

Mr. Adam McGill, a resident on Quiet Lane, opined that on the Lake County side, the intention was to mirror the rural development on the Orange County side. He opined that residents had no issues with the previous plan of having the five acre homes, and that there was no reason to make the lower half of the property part of something greater except to get an acreage requirement for a PUD.

There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commr. Parks asked for the proposed ordinance to be displayed.

Ms. Geraci-Carver recalled that Mr. Spain had mentioned the standard for review regarding a change in conditions, explaining that the subject property had changed because it was in the Wellness Way community and because environmental conditions had changed. She said that the orange groves could not be sustained in the county, and she opined that the applicant was following the County’s rules. She stated that they were at a minimum of 3.14 units per acre and that this could not be reduced much more; additionally, they could not go below three units per acre. She commented that in the PUD ordinance, they stated that the perimeter buffer designated on the PUD master plan landscaping shall be a heavily vegetated visual buffer of canopy and understory plants, as well as “the perimeter, buffer and trail area shall include canopy and understory plants to enhance the visual buffering while providing a comfortable and safe environment for recreational users of the trail, and adjoining properties.” She said that they had to follow the County’s landscape code in the LDR, but they also added language to ensure they maintained the buffers in a way that the neighbors could not see through them. She showed sales histories from the County’s geographic information systems (GIS) map from January 2018 through July 3, 2021 to show the activity and the development occurring within this area in relation to the project. She opined that there were many more developments at greater densities in this area, and said that the southern portion of the subject property was being limited to 1.8 dwelling units per acre. She relayed her understanding that Orange County chose not to require 400 and 500 foot buffers around the perimeter of the nearby rural settlement, and she noted that the concept plan was attached to the proposed ordinance as a document that they had to comply with; furthermore, it was clear on the plan that the southern portion of the property would be developed as age restricted one story homes. She also said that the multigenerational homes would be at the north end and could be two stories. She opined that the applicant had included many details such as where the lots would be located, and said that the width of each lot came later in the process.

Mr. McNeal said that the area where Nelson’s Florida Roses was located was available for fire and emergency services if the County wanted to use it. He opined that part of why they were granted the waiver was because of sand mine area and State land area that was over 1,200 acres in that section when it was put together as part of Wellness Way; furthermore, some of it had been annexed for a project that did not have all of the requirements of the subject project. He opined that the applicant had addressed how to allow it to be compatible, and that compatibility did not mean that it had to be exactly like the surrounding area; rather it had to not have an undue impact on the surrounding areas. He also opined that Wellness Way created opportunities for other areas in the County that could be impacted by future growth which were more appropriate for different uses. He mentioned that to the west of the subject development, Hartwood Reserve had relatively no buffer, and that to the north on Johns Lake Road, there was development next to rural lot sizes. He mentioned that Horizon West was based on a minimum of four units per acre and had a wider range of densities than the subject property, and relayed his understanding that Hartwood Reserve had a gross density of over two units per acre. He mentioned recognizing the economic driver in Wellness Way, and he opined that the subject property was not a location for a large shopping center; furthermore, he also opined that economic opportunity was there through what they had done and with set-asides. He said that their capacity was 1.85 units per acre which was the maximum residential development they could do, and that they also had a density and intensity requirement of a minimum of three units per acre on a net basis. He opined that the densities were lower than in Horizon West, Stoneybrook West and much of the Hartwood Marsh Road development that existed currently. He indicated that there were concerns that an EMS access point could possibly be opened up as a road in the future, and he opined that there was a public safety aspect to this that should be recognized.

Mr. Dane Jones, a resident on Lookout Hill Road representing the applicant, said that he ran an agricultural business. He opined that the citrus era was over and that there were not going to be any more groves planted. He expressed support for the proposed development, and he opined that much of the material posted online regarding the request was designed to mislead people. He also opined that this community would give the opportunity to people to have a garden plot on their farm, or a horse timeshare, and that this was something that was not in the five acre tracts.

Mr. Bob Holston, with Holston Properties and Development and representing the applicant, said that his company owned the southern 80 acres of the subject property and relayed his history. He said that he had worked with Mr. Jones and Mr. Scott Boyd, an owner of the subject property, and that they had community meetings; furthermore, they kept changing the plan to reflect the desires of everybody who came to the meetings. He felt that they had done this, and commented that if they sold the land, then there may not be items such as five mile horse trails, single story homes in the southern section, and a 150 foot wide buffer, noting that there was a 450 foot buffer from Phil C Peters Road to the first lot. He also thought that an agreement had been worked on so that there would be never be access to Phil C Peters Road. He relayed his understanding that this was not a design hearing, noting that there could be input on this at a later time.

Mr. Boyd opined that they had put a significant amount of time and effort into this design, and had vetted out many conditions with the community over the past 2.5 years. He said that they were an infill site and were bookended by the Cities of Clermont and Winter Garden, noting that they had utilities nearby. He commented that the citrus industry had changed across the state, and he stated that his father was likely one of the most well renowned citrus growers in the world. He displayed some magazines that this father had been part of, along with some images of groves in South Florida. He said that as they moved south, their groves in Lake County had started to die; however, they maintained their properties and allowed people to horseback ride on them. He added that this was incorporated into the design of the community. He mentioned that they had panthers in their groves in southwest Orange County, and that there were rural stewardship areas where corridors were created for wildlife to circulate. He opined that they had done this with the requested development, in addition to allowing horses to move on the property with riders. He showed images of other groves in the areas and said that most of the five acre tracts were fenced off; furthermore, he questioned how wildlife would move in areas such as this. He thought that their plan would allow much of this to continue, and he hoped that they could have the Board’s support.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 5:57 p.m. for 10 minutes.

mckinnon groves pud continued

Mr. Spain said that the first goal in the County’s FLU element indicated that “the goal of the FLU element is to protect the unique assets, character and quality of life in Lake County through the implementation of land use policies and regulations that accomplish the following…,” noting that it listed about eight points, one of which was to ensure compatibility between densities and intensities of development, providing for land use transitions as appropriate to protect the long term integrity of both urban and rural areas. He relayed that Object I-7.2, entitled “Protection of Neighborhoods,” indicated that “the County shall protect the long term viability of residential neighborhoods by regulating existing and future development to ensure quality design, and provide for compatibility with surrounding land uses.” He referred to the policy stating that the maximum density or intensity provided within an FLU category shall not be construed as a guaranteed right or entitlement, and he noted that the PUD ordinance did not restrict the southern portion to 1.85 dwelling units per acre; additionally, this would be 147 homes, and the Agriculture zoning on the southern 80 acres would only allow 16 homes. He relayed that his clients were asking for transition on the southern part of the development, opining that it was different from the northern part of the development along Hartwood Marsh Road. He mentioned that he did not hear anything about the job hubs complying with the Wellness Way provisions, and he opined that it did not meet this criteria. He said that he did not see how the existing businesses were creating 1,500 jobs, and he pointed out that the PUD ordinance indicated that the neighborhood could be gated; furthermore, if the job hubs were internal, he questioned how this was fulfilling Wellness Way. He expressed concerns for suggesting that this was traditional infill development, opining that the applicant was infilling a rural area. He asked the Board to continue this item and hopefully come back with something that worked, or to deny it.

Commr. Campione asked if someone working inside the community, such as at the nursery, could have access through the gate.

Mr. Spain commented that the existing nursery was not on a collector road; therefore, he opined that it did not meet the locational criteria of the Comp Plan. He questioned if the businesses were meant to only serve those who lived in the development, and he asked if there was a requirement that all of the people working at these job hubs lived in the neighborhood.

Commr. Campione said that it seemed like there could still be jobs and job creation without it being a retail scenario where the public was coming and going.

Mr. Spain stated that if a gated subdivision with nonresidential parcels met the intent of Wellness Way, then the Board could construe it this way; however, he opined that it was counterintuitive to having job hubs. He added that he did not hear any evidence that the recreation centers, the existing tree nursery and Nelson’s Florida Roses would be creating 1,500 jobs. He opined that the southern portion was entirely rural and that 1.85 units per acre was a nine-fold increase on density; therefore, he opined that it should be shifted northward.

Commr. Campione asked if he would rather see larger lots on the southern portion, or a larger buffer, noting that if he wanted larger lots, then it seemed that the buffer would go away. She opined that the residents would prefer a swath of natural land between their property and where the subdivision would begin.

Mr. Spain opined that one option would be to develop the southern 80 acres similar to what was on the west and east sides with a density of one unit per two or three acres to make it more rural. He mentioned that if this was how the southern 80 acres were developed, and if it was not connected to the northern part internally, then there may not be a significant amount of opposition to this type of rural estate development accessing Phil C Peters Road. He also thought that if the southern 80 acres was a conservation area or a full buffer, then this could be well received.

Commr. Campione mentioned that buffer would provide undeveloped land, and the alternative would be larger lots that would abut other larger lots; furthermore, she thought that the idea of the buffer was that it was the transition between larger to smaller lots.

Mr. Spain thought that residents would prefer the larger lots with rural estates, opining that secondary impacts such as lighting, noise and the view corridor would be addressed.

Commr. Campione said that there were similar situations throughout the county where there were rural areas with higher density residential development being requested or nearby. She relayed her understanding that many rural neighborhoods would prefer a large buffer as opposed to larger lots next to them. She added that she had never seen a 150 foot wide buffer offered as a solution, and she was surprised that this was not being embraced.

Mr. Spain did not think that the buffer was being discounted, though he opined that the buffer was possibly not as specific as it had been alluded to in the ordinance. He thought that residents there had pride in the rural nature of the development, and that they liked seeing three or five acre lots. He thought that duplexes and age restricted development was not what this area was about, commenting that there was an established development pattern on the east, south and west sides. He opined that a nine times increase in density was not transitioning the density.

Commr. Parks clarified that the reason why the jobs creation was good in Wellness Way was because the applicant had to allocate that space for commerce, and even though the business was existing, they would always be required to keep that space allocated for commerce or Wellness Way activities; additionally, if Wellness Way was not in place and Nelson’s Florida Roses went out of business, then more houses or something different could be placed there.

Mr. Boyd provided information regarding Nelson’s Florida Roses, and he said that they were moved onto the subject property and that they would be there regardless of what happened with this project. He stated that they wanted to make sure they put in something that was a viable business that was continuing to grow, and he thought that there were opportunities for the community.

Ms. Geraci-Carver believed that they were transitioning, noting that they had proposed a 150 foot buffer on the west side, and that it would be more than 450 feet off Phil C Peters Road. She added that they were transitioning with an age restricted community on the southern 80 acres, and she opined that there was not as much noise with this; additionally, they would be single story homes. She said that when considering the development pattern to the northwest, north and east, it was higher density than one unit per five acres. She mentioned the maximum density allocation table for Wellness Way 1 and stated that it was 1.85 dwelling units per net acre; however, they had to be under the density calculation with a maximum density of three units per net buildable acre. She noted that they had to follow the requirements of the Comp Plan and that they fell within this; furthermore, they were not asking for the maximum density and were in the range of the requirements at just above the minimum requirement of three units per acre. She recalled a comment about not connecting the southern 80 acres to the rest of the development, and she believed that Commissioner Parks had stated that part of the purpose of Wellness Way was to not have smaller communities and PUDs be developed independent of one another. She opined that the proposed plan was the best plan for this property and for Wellness Way.

Mr. McNeal pointed out that they met the requirement for 30 percent open space without the job hub; however, they had almost 38 percent open space. He said that a diagram of the Wellness Way plan showed wellness corridors going into the job hub because the County wanted open space in job hubs. He added that the more open space they provided, the more that density would increase. He also said that they chose to move the green space to the edge and connect it to the community.

Commr. Parks thought that the applicant had done a significant amount of work on this, including holding public meetings. He added that the County had never seen 150 foot buffers, and he expressed support for the connectivity and trails. He expressed interest in going line by line through the ordinance; however, he proposed that it be tabled to come back at the September 28, 2021 BCC meeting. He elaborated that there would be no public comment and that the Board would only be rendering a decision.

Commr. Shields said that he did not understand how this request was part of Wellness Way if it did not connect to it, noting that Wellness Way was generally south of the subject property. He opined that they needed connectivity, and he expressed concerns for the density.

Commr. Parks believed that it was all connected previously, but some people had volunteered to remove themselves from Wellness Way. He said that there was a significant amount of history with this going back to 2010, including public hearings and people being contacted regarding if they wanted to be part of Wellness Way. He stated that Commissioner Shields could meet with staff regarding this.

Commr. Campione mentioned that the subject property was on the periphery and that it was challenging to have that connectivity. She opined that this would not be seen on other tracts, and she commented that the alternative would be to do a different Comp Plan designation; additionally, it would be basically the same project, but just not part of Wellness Way.

Commr. Shields noted that Wellness Way had more criteria such as densities.

Commr. Parks commented that if the applicant did something differently, they would not be held to the Wellness Way standard. He explained that they would be required to have 100 percent of their homes be Florida Water Star certified, and that they could not use potable water for irrigation. He added that he had done some calculations showing that their property would use less water than if the current development scenario was used.

Commr. Smith made a motion to table this item until September 28, 2021.

Commr. Blake said that he would prefer to defer to the applicant on whether they were comfortable tabling this item, indicating that he would be comfortable making a motion for approval.

Mr. Boyd indicated that he was amicable with tabling this item, though he expressed concerns for social media over the following weeks.

Commr. Campione asked the individual involved in social media regarding this item to lay off, relaying her understanding that it was becoming personal. She opined that the Board was more apt to listen to comments when everyone was being reasonable and respecting each other.

Commr. Parks opined that expressing one’s viewpoint by being negative and personal tended to have the opposite effect.

Ms. Marsh explained that if the Board chose to table this item until September 28, 2021, it would essentially be a blackout period for them. She elaborated that they would not be able to have any communication with any member of the public, the applicant, or Mr. Spain or his client. She said that the Board would not be taking any public comment and that the item would come back only for Board deliberation.

Commr. Blake asked how this would relate to receiving emails.

Ms. Marsh replied that they would need to forward emails to Mr. McClendon to be placed in the file; additionally, the Board would not be able to respond to those emails.

Commr. Campione inquired about conferring with staff to gather information.

Ms. Marsh responded that the Board could confer with staff, but when they came back for Board deliberation, if they had any communication with the public or the applicant, then they would have to disclose this and allow public comment again.

Commr. Shields asked if the Board needed to give their concerns at the current time.

Commr. Smith said that the Board could give their concerns at their discussion period on September 28, 2021.

Ms. Marsh confirmed this and said that if the Board tabled the item, then when they came back on September 28, 2021, it would strictly be the Board’s discussion. She added that members of the public could attend, but the Board would not be taking any more input from them.

Commr. Smith stated that he was doing this because he liked for the Board to make the best decisions they could, noting that it had been a long meeting.

Commr. Parks reiterated that he was intending to go through the ordinance line by line, which could take another hour.

Commr. Campione agreed and thought that the Board would be in a position to make better judgments if they were refreshed.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board tabled Tab 14, Rezoning Case # RZ-20-36-2, McKinnon Groves PUD, until the September 28, 2021 BCC meeting, time certain after the consent agenda; additionally, the Board would not be able to have any communication with the applicant, opposition or the public, and the item would come back only for Board deliberation.

Commr. Blake voted no.

commissioners reports

commissioner campione – district 4

resolution 2021-133 for purchase of csx right of way

Commr. Campione said that she had requested this item to be placed on the current agenda because the County had asked the Cities of Tavares and Mount Dora to adopt similar resolutions so that the Board could use these resolutions as they submitted a proposal to CSX to purchase right of way for a utility corridor from Sorrento into the City of Tavares. She explained that this was essentially a resolution that put forth those whereas clauses.

Commr. Parks expressed support for this.

Commr. Campione noted that the Board had already approved the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding list, and that this was similar to a formality to put it in a resolution so that they would have something to submit to CSX.

Commr. Parks asked if it would just be a few short lines supporting this.

Ms. Marsh stated that she had included documents to support the use of ARPA funds, including a reference to the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), and the fact that it would be used by the Cities of Tavares and Mount Dora for utility, stormwater and recreational trail purposes. She summarized the resolution, noting that the Board was wanting to move forward with acquiring the CSX right of way, and that they believed they had the ARPA funding to do this. She relayed her understanding that CSX had taken the position of wanting the County to show that they had the funding to do this; furthermore, this was the basis of the resolution.

Commr. Campione added that from an ARPA standpoint, it showed that the Board took these items into consideration. She also said that if CSX would entertain the County’s offer, then the next step would be appraisals.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Resolution 2021-133 authorizing the purchase of CSX railroad right-of-way for a utility corridor and recreational trail using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding.

Commr. Blake voted no.

commissioner parks – Chairman and district 2

thanking board and staff

Commr. Parks noted that it had been a long meeting, and he thanked the Board, the Lake County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Office, and staff.

eustis city commission meeting

Ms. Marsh mentioned that on the following Thursday, there would be a Eustis City Commission meeting where the City would be considering the removal of agriculture and rural residential from their Comp Plan; additionally, they would also be considering the BCC’s request regarding Fire Station 39 at the East Lake Sports and Community Complex to provide utilities without annexation. She commented that she could attend that meeting.

Commr. Parks indicated that he would continue to work with City of Eustis Mayor Michael Holland and staff during these planning sessions, noting that a meeting in the previous week had to be cancelled. He noted that the next session had to be scheduled.

Commr. Campione opined that it felt like the County and the City were going backwards, and that the impression was that the County was not moving along. She wondered if it would make sense for the County to submit concepts to the City.

Commr. Parks thought that they were close to this, and that this could possibly be discussed when they had the next session and when they would meet with Mr. Randall Arendt, a landscape planner. He indicated that he was intending to begin this as soon as possible.

Commr. Campione mentioned the possibility of the City removing the land use for rural and agricultural, along with the planning area.

Ms. Marsh relayed that the Eustis City Planner had told the City Commission that agricultural and rural residential uses would still be permitted under their suburban residential category; additionally, it had been described to the City Commission that those had been extra land use designations that were not needed in their Comp Plan.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that there was not anything that precluded the City from adopting a joint area plan for the 1,000 acre area, noting that both the County and the City could adopt it.

Commr. Campione opined that by removing those land uses, it was saying that the City did not want those items.

Ms. Marsh asked if the consensus was for her to deliver the same message that the Board would like the City to postpone this item, or if they just wanted her to attend and listen.

Commr. Campione inquired if she could say that the County was hoping that they could work together on a joint plan or land uses.

Ms. Marsh said that it would likely be helpful if Commissioner Parks could attend.

Commr. Parks indicated that he would attend with Ms. Marsh, and that he could offer some ideas or suggestions.

Commr. Campione said that for raising the issue of the annexation language, if the BCC wanted to back off on this, then she could follow their lead; however, she felt that it was an issue that was unfair. She opined that the City had not made the County sign annexation agreements in the past, and that there was no real basis behind it, noting that the City would not receive any taxation from it. She stated that Commissioner Parks could indicate that the reason why the Board did not want to have that clause was that they had not had to do it before, and that they had been connected to the City’s utilities before for the same property without annexation.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:01 p.m.

_________________________________

SEAN PARKS, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK