A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
October 11, 2022
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 11, 2022 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, County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Gary J. Cooney, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller; and Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION and pledge
Commr. Parks welcomed everyone to the meeting. He said that the Invocation would be given by Pastor David Averill, with First United Methodist Church of Mount Dora, and that the Pledge of Allegiance would be led by Deputy Chief Tony Cuellar, with the Office of Fire Rescue. He explained that Deputy Chief Cuellar joined the office as a firefighter emergency medical technician (EMT) over 23 years prior; additionally, his career highlights included hurricane deployments, special operations, implementing technology department-wide to increase efficiencies, and serving as a paramedic for over 15 years. He related that in his free time, Deputy Chief Cuellar enjoyed spending it with family and fishing, and he thanked Deputy Chief Cuellar.
Pastor Averill gave the Invocation and Deputy Chief Cuellar led the Pledge of Allegiance.
historical fact
Commr. Parks related that the first settlers of Altoona, the Thomas Henson family, named the area after their hometown of Allatoona, Georgia, and that in 1897, a fire destroyed most of the town. He added that in 1899, the Florida Legislature passed Senate Bill 218, which abolished the municipality, noting that it remained unincorporated to the current day.
virtual meeting instructions
Mr. Erikk Ross, Director for the Information Technology (IT) Department, explained that the current 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, County Manager, requested to move Tab 2 to the consent agenda and have the presentation of the proclamation on October 25, 2022. She added that for Tab 8, the vendor application was attached to the agenda item, and for Tab 38, the rezoning agenda, Tabs 4, 5 and 6 were updated since the agenda was first published. She then requested to move Tab 39 to before the rezoning public hearings.
hurricane ian update
Ms. Megan Milanese, Director for the Office of Emergency Management, said that on Friday, September 23, 2022, her office began closely monitoring the tropical system that would become Hurricane Ian. She elaborated that they had conducted special needs callouts over that weekend in anticipation of possible shelter operations to occur in the next week. She commented that the County declared a local state of emergency on September 25, 2022, and that they were activated to a level one full activation on September 27, 2022 to support opening emergency risk shelters for residents, ensuring they had the citizen’s information line (CIL) open for anyone who needed information, and to ensure that they were providing other protective actions. She said that a hurricane watch and tropical storm warning were issued by the National Weather Service on the same day, and that they maintained 24 hour operations through September 30, 2022. She relayed that they sheltered residents, and that sheltered residents were able to return to their homes or were provided accommodations as of September 30, 2022. She remarked that on October 1, 2022, the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) remained activated to a level two partial activation due to heavy rainfall, noting that the St. Johns River in Astor reached a record flood stage, cresting at 4.71 feet. She mentioned that a no wake order was issued on October 1, 2022 for the St. Johns River in Astor due to the record flood levels, and since then the Astor Watch Incident Command Post had been maintaining 24 hour operations to support community safety and needs, along with enforcing the no wake order. She said that currently, the St. Johns River and Astor were still at a major flood stage, and that these conditions were expected to remain for an extended period because the waters there were expected to be slow to recede. She stated that the EOC was still activated to a level two partial activation as they were continuing to monitor the situation, and that they were working with Lake County Fire Rescue and the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) to ensure that community needs continued to be met. She added that they also worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and local partners such as Lake Support and Emergency Recovery (LASER) to conduct recovery activities within the county, including disseminating information regarding individual assistance that was available to residents impacted by Hurricane Ian. She mentioned that residents could apply for assistance through FEMA online at “disasterassistance.gov” or over the phone at 800-621-3362. She related that the County had opened 15 risk shelters, had a general population of 863 in their shelter census with 89 being special needs residents, and had sheltered 116 pets throughout the activation. She relayed that they had 37,586 peak power outages, though 100 percent restoration from all providers had been achieved by the previous Thursday. She added that their highest recorded rainfall amount was 9.49 inches in Mt. Plymouth, and that their highest observed wind gust was 56 miles per hour (MPH) at the Leesburg International Airport at 5:41 a.m. on September 29, 2022; additionally, they answered a total of 1,853 calls through the EOC, and they had 2,164 calls handled by the CIL, which did not include their special needs callouts. She also relayed that the County distributed 79,143 sandbags to residents, and that current property damage estimates amounted to about $4.5 million.
Commr. Campione asked about debris removal.
Ms. Barker replied that the County had activated their special contractors for removal of storm debris, noting that they were making assessments and expected to start in the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento area that had the highest amount of debris.
Commr. Campione mentioned that in northeast Lake County, their new hauler had begun service and was having some issues learning routes and having enough manpower and trucks. She commented that she was forwarding emails about this issue to Ms. Mary Hamilton, Operations Director for the Public Works Department, to address them with the hauler. She asked if the bottom line was to get the debris out to the curb.
Ms. Barker confirmed this and noted that the debris removal haulers would be moving through the county. She asked for everyone’s patience and said that if there were areas that the County needed to identify, it made it easier if they had information from residents.
Commr. Parks reiterated that a new hauler was starting the week that the hurricane affected the county, and he encouraged residents to move debris to the curb. He praised the EOC, Ms. Milanese and staff. He mentioned that many people were also self-sufficient, noting that the County appreciated this.
Commr. Campione remarked that fees were waived at the drop-off centers and the landfill for any residents who wanted to haul their own debris, noting that this was available for one more week. She also thanked the Lake County Sheriff and the Office of Fire Rescue for the work they were doing in Astor, noting that the flooding there was extraordinary.
Minutes approval
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meeting of August 2, 2022 (Regular Meeting) as presented.
commissioner’s boards and committees updATe
Commr. Shields reported that he had a Tourist Development Council (TDC) meeting on the previous day, and that some items would be coming to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). He also reported that he had an Arts and Cultural Alliance meeting, though they did not have a quorum. He opined that it was possibly time to relook at how they did boards in general, noting that it was not the first time they did not have a quorum.
Commr. Parks mentioned that this seemed to be an issue with some of the boards that the BCC served on, and that they could possibly consider using Zoom Webinar.
Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, clarified that one could not be part of the quorum when participating via Zoom Webinar.
Commr. Parks said that the County could continue to work on this and see what their options were. He said that individuals could also visit the County website and look for openings on advisory boards.
Commr. Campione stated that the Orlando Economic Partnership (OEP) went on a mission to Denver, Colorado to do economic development reconnaissance and networking, and that the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) had a special meeting in the previous week. She added that there had been a Black Bear Scenic Byway meeting, and that the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Community Redevelopment Agency had a meeting to adopt their budget, which had already been brought to the BCC.
Commr. Parks indicated that he would have a Central Florida Expressway Authority (CFX) meeting on the following Thursday, and that they would be discussing State Road (SR) 516, which would start construction in South Lake in 2023, along with the overall 2045 or 2050 plan for CFX roads through Lake County.
citizen question and comment period
Ms. Merideth Nagel, a resident of the City of Clermont who did land use and planning work, recognized and expressed appreciation for staff in the Lake County Office of Planning and Zoning, opining that they had been great to work with under challenging circumstances.
CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 4, as follows:
List of Warrants
Notice is hereby provided of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136.06 (1) of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.
Ordinance 2022-39 for City of Groveland CRA Budget Amendment
Notice is hereby provided of having received Ordinance 2022-39 adopting the City of Groveland’s CRA Budget Amendment for FY 2022 per Florida Statute 163.387(6).
Avalon Groves Community Development District Resolutions 2022-18 and 2022-22
Notice is hereby provided of having received Resolution 2022-18 from the Avalon Groves Community Development District relating to the annual appropriations and adopting the budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2022, and ending September 30, 2023, along with the FY23 Meeting Schedule, Resolution 2022-22.
Cascades at Groveland Community Development District Updated FY 23 Budget
Notice is hereby provided of having received from the Cascades at Groveland Community Development District an updated version of the adopted FY 2023 budget.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Blake asked to pull Tabs 7 and 14 to the regular agenda for a separate vote.
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tab 2, and Tabs 4 through 33, pulling Tabs 7 and 14 to the regular agenda, as follows:
PROCLAMATIONS
Recommend approval and presentation of Proclamation 2022-116 declaring the month of October as Native Plant Month, per Commissioner Parks.
Recommend approval of the White Cane Safety Day Proclamation 2022-99, per Commissioner Shields.
Recommend approval of Proclamation 2022-132 designating October 17 – 21, 2022, as Mediation Week.
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Recommend approval to conduct a Closed Session of the Board of County Commissioners to be held on November 15, 2022, to discuss Thomas vs. Lake County, in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Lake County, Florida, Case No. 2020-CA-001152. There is no fiscal impact.
COUNTY MANAGER
Recommend approval:
1. To authorize the County Manager or designee to execute an application and agreement for Pig on the Pond festival participation for 2022 and future years; and
2. To authorize the County Manager to execute any documents required for the event.
The fiscal impact is $300 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. Commission District 2.
ECONOMIC GROWTH
Recommend approval:
1. To provide Tourist Development Tax funding for host fees and related event expenses for Lake County and GOSports’ (Greater Orlando Sports Commission) bid to host the 2023 International Waterski & Wakeboard Federation (IWWF) World Waterski Championships, to take place at Jack Travers Sunset Lakes Waterski School in Groveland. The dates for this event are October 11 - 16, 2023; and
2. To authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement, once approved as to form and legality by the County Attorney, with GOSports' (Greater Orlando Sports Commission) if selected as the host location.
The fiscal impact is not to exceed $150,000 (expenditure – Tourist Development Tax funding) and will be included in the Fiscal Year 2024 Budget. Commission District 1.
Recommend approval to authorize the Chairman to execute the Third Amendment to the Lake County Small Business Development Center (SBDC) Agreement between Lake County and the University of Central Florida for the purpose of providing small business development services to current and potential business owners through group training and individual counseling in Lake County.
The fiscal impact is $150,000 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget.
Recommend approval:
1. To provide Tourist Development Tax funding for host fees and related event expenses for Lake County and the Sand Court Experts bid to host the 2022 Sand Court Experts East Coast Pair Championships at Hickory Point Beach in Tavares. The target weekend for this event is October 15 – 16, 2022; and
2. To authorize the County Manager to execute the agreement with Sand Court Experts if selected as the host location.
The fiscal impact is not to exceed $15,000 (expenditure – Tourist Development Tax funding) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. Commission District 3.
PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Emergency Management
Recommend approval:
1. To accept the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Agreement; and
2. To execute the EMPG Agreement for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 in the amount of $98,248; and
3. To authorize the County Manager to execute future amendments/modifications that do not have a financial impact; and
4. To authorize the Director of the Office of Emergency Management to execute Exhibit 3 - Single Audits, Audit Compliance Certification (page 30); and
5. To authorize the Director of the Office of Emergency Management to execute the Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion (page 52); and
6. To authorize the Director of the Office of Emergency Management to execute the Certification Regarding Lobbying (page 59).
The fiscal impact is $98,248 (revenue/expenditure - 100 percent grant funded).
Fire Rescue
Recommend approval:
1. To purchase two Pierce Custom Pumpers from Ten-8 Fire Equipment (Sanford, FL) for Lake County Fire Rescue; and
2. To authorize the Director of the Office of Procurement Services to execute all implementing documentation.
The fiscal impact is $1,377,720 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Housing and Community Services
Recommend Approval of funding for the Lake County School Board Driver's Education Program - Behind the Wheel Training.
The fiscal impact is $130,104 (expenditure - Traffic Education Trust Fund) and is within the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget.
Recommend approval of an agreement with We Care of Lake County, Inc. (Mt Dora, FL) for operation of the Lake County We Care Program effective October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023.
The fiscal impact is $116,975 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget.
Recommend approval of a Sub-Recipient Agreement with the City of Fruitland Park for Community Development Block Grant Fiscal Year 2021-2022 to build a new water line on Patricia Avenue.
The fiscal impact is not to exceed $140,400 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget.
Recommend approval to accept awarded CDBG Coronavirus (CV3) funding in the amount of $1,220,597.
The fiscal impact is $1,220,597 (revenue/expenditure - 100 percent grant funding).
Recommend approval of Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2022-135 adding $712,064 to the Section 8 Fund.
The fiscal impact is $712,064 (Revenue/Expenditure - 100 percent grant funded).
Recommend approval:
1. Of disbursement of ERA 2 funding to Community Partner Organizations;
2. To authorize Maria AbdoulKarim to execute all documents required by the U.S. Department of Treasury;
3. To authorize Maria AbdoulKarim to execute all agreements, once the agreements have been approved as to form and legality by the County Attorney;
The fiscal impact is $2,290,000 (revenue/expenditure - 100 percent ERA 2 Grant funding).
Library Services
Recommend approval to submit the Fiscal Year 2023 State Aid to Libraries Grant Application, Certification of Funds, Certification of Hours-Free Library Services-Access to Materials, and Grant Agreement.
The estimated fiscal impact is $175,000 (revenue).
Parks and Trails
Recommend approval:
1. Of Contract 22-944 for the Lake May Reserve Site #5 Improvements to Bulldog Sitework, LLC (Leesburg, FL); and
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The fiscal impact is $978,251.46 (expenditure - $856,973.80 grant funded, $121,277.66 Infrastructure Sales Tax) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. Commission District 4.
Recommend approval to advertise an Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 16, Lake County Code, to incorporate an Adopt-A-Trail Program with the Adopt-A-Park Program. There is no fiscal impact.
Public Works
Recommend approval:
1. Of Contract 22-558 for traffic striping and marking services to TruMark, Inc. (Sorrento, FL); and
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The estimated annual fiscal impact is $262,000 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget.
Recommend approval:
1. Of Contract 22-909 with CPH Consulting, LLC d/b/a CPH, LLC, (Sanford, FL) to provide for the design of Jalarmy Road & Lake Minneola Shores Roundabout, located in Groveland, Florida; and
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The fiscal impact is $255,319.39 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. Commission Districts 1 and 2.
Recommend approval to execute a Proportionate Share Mitigation Agreement with the Lake County School Board, C4 Four Corners Owner, LLC, and Pulte Home Company, LLC.
There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 1.
Recommend approval and execution of an Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the City of Umatilla for the Transfer of Golden Gem Drive. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 4.
Recommend approval to accept the final plat for Grove at Grand Island and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Grove at Grand Island final plat. The fiscal impact is $1,551 (revenue - final plat application fee). Commission District 4.
Recommend approval of an agreement with the Lakewood Ranches Homeowner’s Association, Inc. setting forth obligations concerning installation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of radar speed signs in the Lakewood Ranches Community, located in the Eustis area. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 4.
Recommend approval of Contract No. 22-553 with DB Civil Construction, LLC (St. Augustine) for the Lake Woodward Stormwater Pump Station construction project.
The fiscal impact is $791,800 (expenditure - $653,020 from the Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and $138,780 from MSTU Stormwater Fund) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. Commission Districts 3 and 4.
Recommend approval to advertise an Ordinance amending Chapter 23, Lake County Code, entitled Solid Waste Collection and Disposal and Litter. There is no fiscal impact.
Recommend approval of the City of Clermont's request to install automatic license plate readers on intersections with County roads at seven locations within the city limits. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 2.
Recommend approval to accept the final plat for Hidden Forest At Silver Creek Phase 2 Replat. The fiscal impact is $1,551 (revenue - final plat application fee). Commission District 1.
Tab 7: lake county school board millage ballot initiative
Commr. Blake related that he felt uncomfortable with the Board taking a political position on a ballot initiative.
Commr. Parks said that this was for the public safety initiative that was approved in 2018, noting that this was a renewal.
Commr. Campione asked if the Board had adopted a resolution for this item in the past.
Ms. Marsh replied that they did not adopt a supporting resolution when the ballot initiative came to them in 2018; rather, they only adopted the ordinance to place it on the ballot.
Commr. Campione then inquired how the current item came to the Board.
Ms. Barker answered that it was a request made by the Lake 100, noting that the BCC Chairman had asked to place it on the agenda.
Commr. Campione said that the item would be on the ballot in November 2022, and Ms. Barker added that the BCC approved to add it to the ballot a few meetings prior. Commissioner Campione then stated that she personally supported the item as a voter; however, she was unsure how she felt about the BCC taking a position on it. She relayed her understanding that it took a significant amount of funding to address the requirements which were put in place by the State with regard to adding counselors, social workers and school resource officers. She mentioned that this was also to meet what she thought the community wanted, which was to feel that their kids were safe when they went to school.
Commr. Shields asked why the Lake 100 thought that this item would be useful.
Commr. Parks relayed that the Commissioners could possibly support something individually with their own money and time. He said that the Lake 100 was looking for help, and that they were a large business community representative that was leading the effort, noting that individuals in the business community looked for support or a statement from the BCC. He opined that it was not out of the ordinary for a board to be asked to support something like this which was significant by making a statement, rather than fiscal resources.
Commr. Blake opined that it was appropriate for the Lake 100 board to pass their resolution of support and raise awareness, and he did not think that the BCC wanted to set a precedent of opposing or supporting ballot initiatives.
Commr. Smith commented that the BCC placed it on the ballot for the voters to support or deny, and that he did not like the idea of the Board doing this resolution.
Commr. Campione proposed to send the item back to the Lake 100 and ask them to adopt a resolution.
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board denied a supporting resolution for the Lake County School Board millage ballot initiative.
Commr. Parks and Commr. Shields voted no.
tab 14: SAFER GRANT for additional firefighters
Commr. Blake explained that the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant paid for additional public safety personnel, which were firefighters in this case, for three years. He opined that this was helpful; however, at the end of the three years, the cost would then fall to the County. He expressed concerns about the fiscal impact, and he opined that they were in an economic recession; furthermore, he did not want to accept funding with strings attached which could make it challenging if the County was in bad financial shape in three years, noting that it could potentially result in terminations or a budget crisis. He opined that this was possibly not the best time to accept this funding.
Commr. Campione thought that they went into SAFER grants with an overall master plan and knowing which positions they needed to fill at the current time that they did not have funding for. She added that the grant got them started, and then they could use the three years to ensure they had funding in place to take it over.
Commr. Blake reiterated his concerns for the economic uncertainty that the County was facing.
Chief Jim Dickerson, with the Office of Fire Rescue, relayed that Lake County was the only fire department that had minimum staffing of two individuals on a truck, noting that a neighboring county was using this for recruitment. He opined that Lake County had been good stewards with these grants and that they always looked to the future. He indicated that he would not be with the County in three years, and that he was trying to put everything in place before he left to continue to move the department forward.
Commr. Blake relayed his understanding that an argument in favor of accepting the grant that it would reduce the amount of funding spent on overtime, and that it would hopefully be a wash or a net benefit. He asked how the BCC could be assured that this was the case with this grant.
Chief Dickerson commented that his office was allowing 14 people off per day, and that they only had eight extra people per day to help backfill this. He added that six people per day could have overtime, and that whenever the 21 people came in during January 2023, it would take about three months to get them on the trucks; therefore, he hoped that in April 2023 they would see a significant decline in overtime. He also indicated that if they added a service to the county, they would have to add the staffing with it; otherwise, they would possibly return to an overtime situation.
Commr. Blake said that with Chief Dickerson’s assurances that it would be net impact in terms of the budget, he withdrew his objection.
Commr. Parks thought that it also helped with the emergency medical services (EMS) side of the Office of Fire Rescue, noting that it could get more people to serve in that capacity. He mentioned that the County had turned down SAFER grants in the past, and he thought that they had been careful about this.
Chief Dickerson noted that they were approaching 400,000 people in the county, and that they had to prepare for this growth. He stated that their call volume increased by 31 percent in the previous year, and that they were seeing a large demand on their services.
Commr. Campione inquired how the SAFER grant funding worked for dual certified paramedics and firefighters, and if the County paid the difference for the additional salary related to the paramedic certification.
Chief Dickerson confirmed this and explained that the SAFER grant would only allow firefighter/EMTs, because the purpose of the grant was to get the County compliant with National Fire Protection Association 1710, which was four people on a truck.
Commr. Shields thanked Chief Dickerson for his leadership and succession planning.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to accept a $4,862,741.94 federal Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant to hire 21 firefighters, and to purchase 21 sets of protective gear and uniforms at an estimated cost of $157,500.
appointment to the public safety coordinating council
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to appoint Mr. Chad Monty, Prosecutor, State Attorney’s Office, Fifth Judicial Circuit, as the Public Safety Coordinating Council alternate member for State Attorney Mr. William M. Gladson.
public hearing: ordinance 2022-40 minor lot splits
Ms. Marsh placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading by title only as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 14.11.00, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED MINOR LOT SPLITS, FAMILY DENSITY EXCEPTIONS AND AGRICULTURAL LOT SPLITS; CLARIFYING THAT FAMILY DENSITY EXCEPTIONS ARE ONLY PERMITTED IN THE RURAL, RURAL TRANSITION, WEKIVA RIVER PROTECTION A-1-20 AND A27 1-40 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES; PROVIDING THAT ONLY ONE LOT SPLIT IS PERMITTED UNDER THESE REGULATIONS; PERMITTING A SKETCH OF THE DESCRIPTION TO BE PROVIDED FOR PROPOSED LOT SPLITS CONTAINING PARCELS GREATER THAN TWENTY (20) ACRES IN SIZE IN LIEU OF A BOUNDARY SURVEY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Commr. Campione asked if staff initiated this modification.
Ms. Marsh confirmed that it was staff initiated to try to clean up the lot split section, noting that part of this ordinance was that if one did a lot split and tried to split further in the future, then they would have to plat.
Commr. Parks opined that it was a growth management tool, noting that if one kept lot splitting, it could lead to many small lots.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Ordinance 2022-40 amending Section 14.11.00, Lake County Code, Appendix E, Land Development Regulations, entitled Minor Lot Splits, Family Density Exceptions and Agricultural Lot Splits.
Commr. Blake voted no.
public hearing: vacation petition at anderson drive
Mr. Fred Schneider, Assistant County Manager, presented Vacation Petition #1268. He explained that the applicants were Ms. Katherine Guadagnoli and Mr. Albert Guadagnoli, represented by Mr. Taylor Tremel, with Bowen & Schroth, Attorneys at Law. He indicated that the proposed vacation was located in the City of Tavares area in Commission District 3, at Anderson Drive northeast of Lake Tavares. He displayed a map with the requested vacation area, noting that there was an existing stormwater drainage pipe and that part of it currently went through the owner’s property. He elaborated that within the vacated area, the owner had a shed and some other items and were using it as their property, and that the applicant had dedicated a stormwater drainage easement over the area of the pipe; therefore, the County would vacate the public right of way, but would retain a drainage easement for the stormwater pipe, which would retain the County’s ability to maintain the pipe. He showed a map which indicated that it was within the Tavares city limits, and that the City of Tavares had no comments or objections. He relayed that the reason for the request was for the owners to combine the proposed area to be vacated with the adjacent parcel they currently owned, noting that there were no letters of support or objection, nor were there any utility issues. He concluded that staff recommended approval of the request.
Commr. Smith asked if the City of Tavares could take over maintenance of the stormwater pipe, and Mr. Schneider replied that the County could make the request.
Mr. Tremel related that it was a situation of the property boundaries, noting that the applicants had maintained it, and that it had never been used by the public as right of way.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution 2022-136 to vacate a platted right of way located at Anderson Drive. The closest municipality is the City of Tavares.
public hearing: resolution for rate lock agreement
Ms. Allison Teslia, Director for the Office of Management and Budget, said that the purpose of this presentation was to hold a public hearing for the issuance of refunding bonds to lower debt service payments for the County’s outstanding Capital Improvement Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2015B. She provided the following background information: on August 23, 2022, PFM Financial Advisors LLC presented an opportunity to refund outstanding bonds to realize debt service savings; the Board provided direction to start the financing process and request interest rates from a select group of lenders; JP Morgan provided the lowest interest rate and was being recommended as the lender; since the August 2022 meeting, there had been disruption in the financial markets due to persistent inflation; the Federal Reserve increased interest rates in response, reducing the potential savings from $3.6 million to $2.1 million; and currently, staff was requesting approval to issue refunding bonds when the debt service savings met a threshold of five percent of the par amount, which was about $2.45 million. She added that if the required savings level could not be achieved, the transaction would not move forward and there would not be any cost to the County.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to adopt Resolution 2022-137 authorizing the Chairman to enter into a Rate Lock Agreement once debt service savings reach a threshold of five percent of the refunded bonds par amount, and to authorize the Chairman to finalize all financing documents and close the refunding if the five percent threshold for debt service savings is met.
request to terminate JPA with city of mount dora
Commr. Campione said that she brought this item forward because during the review of the Simpson Groves cases, there were two significant flaws in the joint planning agreement (JPA) that had been in place since 2004. She elaborated that there were requirements in the agreement which were contrary to the requirements of Florida law with regard to due process and protection of applicants’ property rights because essentially, the provision stated that if the City of Mount Dora indicated that they wanted to annex a property, then the County would refuse to process the application. She said that even if an application was consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and Land Development Regulations (LDR), the County would not be fulfilling their responsibilities. She added that in a situation like this, the applicant could seek a writ of mandamus from the circuit court and force the County to do their job. She opined that this was not a good provision to have in a JPA, and she stated that the County would force or make a landowner submit to an annexation application, opining that the County being the enforcer of this violated Florida law because there were specific rules for how annexations were addressed in the Florida Statutes; additionally, the County could not circumvent them. She also relayed that the JPA did not have an overlay of the LDR of the City of Mount Dora into the planning area, and that all it basically said was that the County and the City would take each other’s regulations under advisement. She opined that it had functioned well and that the County considered the City’s comments on applications; however, the County could not enforce someone else’s regulations inside of their jurisdiction. She commented that there was a 180 day notice period for the JPA to be terminated, and that this could give them ample time to work with the City to put an improved JPA in place. She felt that if they did not start this timeframe, then they could lose the impetus to get this done, relaying her understanding that they had been working on revising this JPA for years. She opined that if the JPA was left in place, there could be a conflict because there were unlawful provisions. She requested to send a letter to the City stating that the County’s goal was to use this chance to get a new JPA in place, but to go ahead and give the notice so that the time would begin to pass until it went away. She related that based on the County Attorney’s opinion, when a provision in an agreement asked or required something outside the boundaries of the law, the agreement essentially became null and void. She opined that the argument could be made that it was not an enforceable agreement, and that it was an issue to know that they had an agreement which exceeded the boundaries of the law. She opined that the County should give notice of termination, noting that it was not meant to say that the County did not want to continue working with the City; rather, they wanted to continue working with the City, noting that they were collaborating on endeavors such as the Wekiva Trail. She reiterated her request to move forward with the notification with the specific request to the City that they begin negotiations immediately for a new JPA.
Commr. Parks expressed a concern with the countywide effort of trying to do JPAs with all 14 municipalities and how this could affect it. He relayed his understanding that the County would have a JPA with the City of Mount Dora, but that it would be better and would remove some of the issues with the current language.
Commr. Campione confirmed this and added that another option would be to notify the City of Mount Dora that the County wanted to strike the problematic language; however, all they would have left would be to give each other their comments, noting that the JPA did not blend their LDR or give an applicant certainty or predictability when they came in with an application. She opined that this was what a JPA was supposed to do, along with streamlining the process and blending regulations so that as a City grew into an unincorporated area, the developments that would ultimately be in the city were consistent with how the City would approve them. She opined that landowners had to be part of this as well.
Commr. Parks noted that this could be part of the process, and he opined that it would look good to residents to have a JPA with the County, even if it did nothing more than to improve the communication between the County and a City.
Commr. Campione wondered if the City of Mount Dora would prefer to only strike the problematic language and leave the JPA in place, and she indicated an understanding that the City would like to have their LDR overlaid in an area that they believed would ultimately come into the city. She stated that if the City was not in agreement to strike the language, then the agreement could expire in 180 days, opining that they had to have something that provided the motivation to do this. She added that the County could possibly have the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) help with this item.
Commr. Parks said that 180 days could possibly be enough time to redo a JPA with the City of Mount Dora.
Commr. Campione mentioned that there could also be an extension as long as everyone was in agreement to strike the language.
Commr. Parks relayed that there were currently only four JPAs with Cities, and that there had been issues with each of them, relaying his understanding that they would change through this process with the ECFRPC.
Commr. Shields said that he had no issue with removing a 2004 agreement, but he would like to hear from the City.
The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.
Mayor Crissy Stile, with the City of Mount Dora, opined that the JPA had been working fine and that when someone came to the County to submit an application, it was passed along to the City for comments until the Simpson Groves development. She explained that the developers came to the City, that the City’s planning department provided comments, and that the City Council wanted to see more commercial and less residential. She relayed that this development was set to be the largest increase ever in the City of Mount Dora, and would create at least 3,000 more residents in their 17,000 resident city. She indicated an understanding that the developer went to the County because the City did not give them what they wanted, and she expressed concerns for the County terminating a JPA. She asked why the County was only trying to terminate the City of Mount Dora’s JPA if the other JPAs also had issues, and she opined that it was because it would benefit this development. She said that the JPA was signed off by attorneys in 2004, and that the City was open to striking parts of the agreement. She relayed an understanding that there had never been an effort to redo the JPA, and she reiterated that the City was willing to do this, particularly if there were parts that were unenforceable. She expressed concerns for terminating an agreement that could affect work on the Wolf Branch Innovation District, and she opined that they did not need to strike the entire agreement.
Commr. Campione said that she had attended meetings to revise the City’s JPA, and that this was the first time that the City had sent a demand letter essentially threatening to sue the County. She stated that in the past, the County had reviewed applications and took the City’s comments, and vice-versa. She opined that this had worked fine, but she reiterated concerns with receiving a letter basically saying that the County was going be sued if they proceeded with processing an application that they were required to process under law. She also expressed concerns with trying to take away rights that a landowner had on their property, opining that this was what made this situation different. She proposed to possibly leave the agreement in place and to strike article three, paragraph five with the problematic language, and if the City was not agreeable to striking this, then it could terminate.
Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that this could occur over the next few weeks, and the City of Mount Dora could potentially be the third City in the process of working through new JPAs to at least revise this item.
Commr. Campione said that if the City agreed to strike the language, they could keep the rest of the agreement intact and the 180 day timeframe would not come into play. She commented that they had made a significant amount of progress in the Wolf Branch Innovation District, and that this item did not set this back.
Mayor Stile relayed her understanding that the County had not adopted the City of Mount Dora’s plans for the Wolf Branch Innovation District.
Commr. Campione opined that this was where property owners had to be involved because there were already land regulations in the Wolf Branch Innovation District, noting that they could not be ignored.
Mayor Stile recalled that at the countywide meeting on September 26, 2022, Commissioner Smith had said that if there was a developer wishing to come into one of the 14 cities and annex into the city, then he wanted to work with that City to ensure that the development fit within the city. She opined that in the City of Mount Dora, the Simpson Groves development potentially did not fit with what the City Council wanted, and the applicant then came to the County. She expressed concerns for potentially terminating the JPA, and she indicated that she would have to speak to the Mount Dora City Attorney about striking the language.
Ms. Marsh said that the County had JPAs with the Cities of Clermont and Eustis, and that the City of Eustis JPA was done in 1987; furthermore, the language subject to the City of Mount Dora JPA was not in the City of Eustis JPA or the City of Clermont JPA. She added that the County had joint LDR with the City of Clermont that were adopted.
Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that they could potentially work on the troublesome part of the City of Mount Dora JPA.
Commr. Campione thought that the solution was to remove the language and if the City was not willing to do this, then they had to start from scratch. She clarified that the JPA only said that the City would take the County’s comments under advisement, and vice-versa. She said that she liked to think that they could do better than this, indicating an understanding that Mayor Stile wanted the County to adopt the City’s Wolf Branch Innovation District standards into their Comp Plan or JPA; furthermore, she noted that this was an issue which could possibly be improved in the JPA. She opined that landowners also had to be involved, noting that they had rights.
Commr. Shields asked if it made sense to table this item since Mayor Stile had to consult the Mount Dora City Attorney.
Commr. Campione stated that the County was proposing to possibly strike the part that was an issue and leave the rest of the JPA in place.
Commr. Blake commented that the Board could also pass this item, noting that it started a long clock and that if the issue could potentially be resolved before 180 days, then the Board could adjust their action.
Mr. James Homich, a resident of the City of Mount Dora, said that he was on the Mount Dora City Council when this JPA was adopted. He relayed his understanding that Commissioner Campione was saying that the language was not permissible under the Florida Statutes chapter of forced annexation; however, he indicated an understanding that they did not adopt it under this chapter. He opined that it was adopted under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and relayed that it was approved as to form and legality by the City and County Attorneys. He commented that Chapter 163.3171 indicated that it was the legislature’s intent that joint agreements entered into under the authority of this section be liberally, broadly and flexibly construed to facilitate intergovernmental cooperation between Cities and Counties, and to encourage planning in advance of jurisdictional changes. He indicated an understanding that the JPA said that any property annexed subsequent to the adoption hereof shall be limited to a maximum density no greater than the highest density allowed within the future land use (FLU) category established for the property by the County immediately prior to annexation. He opined that this item was included because the City knew that it did not have the water capacity to increase their FLU densities. He stated that in 2006, the Florida Legislature adopted Chapter 171.201, Florida Statutes, which said that the principal goal “was to encourage local governments to jointly determine how to provide services to residents and property in the most efficient and effective manner, while balancing the needs and desires of the community. This part is intended to establish a more flexible process for adjusting municipal boundaries and to address a wider range of effects of annexation.” He requested to let the Mount Dora City Attorney analyze what Commissioner Campione said before taking any action.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the floor for public comment.
Commr. Parks hoped that they could have JPAs with all 14 Cities through the countywide process, and he hoped that they could continue to be reevaluated.
Commr. Campione clarified that she had based her statements on the legal opinion of the County Attorney. She thought that if they had language which was known to be contrary to the law, then they should not keep the agreement in place.
Commr. Smith asked if the City of Mount Dora was willing to work to make the JPA better for everyone.
Mayor Stile confirmed this and said that they would prefer this over terminating the agreement; furthermore, this item could go on the Mount Dora City Council agenda for October 18, 2022.
Commr. Parks hoped to continue to work with all of the JPAs, and he mentioned that this process would include the stakeholders and landowners. He expressed concerns for situations where a developer did not receive something in the city and then went to the county, and he opined that this was a reason for everyone to get good JPAs in place.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board tabled this item until the County received a response from the City of Mount Dora.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a recess at 10:27 a.m. for 10 minutes.
public hearings: REZONING
rezoning consent agenda
Mr. Bobby Howell, 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. He indicated that Tab 1 had already been considered on the regular agenda earlier in the current meeting.
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. Blake, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tab 2, as follows:
Tab 2. Ordinance No. 2022-41
Rezoning Case # FLU-22-03-2
RLY Holdings LLC (Adoption)
Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category (FLUC) on approximately 1.26 acres from Urban Low Density to Regional Office Future Land Use Category.
rezoning regular agenda
Tab 3. Ordinance No. 2022-42
Rezoning Case # RZ-21-43-4
Pandolph Property
Amend PUD Ordinance #2019-43 to increase the allowable density to 2.96 dwelling units per net acre, increase the number of single-family residences from 7 dwellings to 75 dwellings, remove equestrian uses as a permitted land use, revise the building setbacks and maximum height, and include a new conceptual plan.
Tab 4.
Rezoning Case # RZ-22-07-3
Harbor Shores Road Planned Unit Development
Rezone approximately 34.46+/- acres from Medium Residential (R-3) & Urban Residential (R-6) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to facilitate development of a 120-lot single-family residential subdivision.
Tab 5.
Rezoning Case # RZ-22-08-3
Goose Creek Development
Rezone approximately 46.43 +/- acres from Agriculture Residential (AR) and Urban Residential (R-6) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to facilitate development of a 145-lot single-family residential subdivision.
Tab 6.
Rezoning Case # RZ-21-30-4
New Missions Property
Rezone Tract M, Lakewood Ranches from Agriculture (A) to Community Facility District (CFD) to accommodate a place of worship, office, and community assembly; and rezone Tract P, Lakewood Ranches from Community Facility District (CFD) to Agriculture (A).
Tab 7. Ordinance No. 2022-43
Rezoning Case # FLU-22-05-4
Mount Dora Groves North
Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category (FLUC) on approximately 23.76 +/- gross acres from Urban Low Density and Regional Commercial to Urban Medium Density.
Tab 8. Ordinance No. 2022-44
Rezoning Case # RZ-22-14-4
Mount Dora Groves North
Rezone approximately 144.23 +/- acres from Agriculture (A), Urban Residential District (R-6), and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) and establish a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to accommodate a 275-lot single-family residential development.
Tab 9.
Rezoning Case # FLU-22-04-4
Mount Dora Groves South (Transmittal)
Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category (FLUC) on approximately 80.32 +/- acres from Regional Office to Planned Unit Development FLUC and amend associated Comprehensive Plan Policies to incorporate the proposed development program for the Mount Dora Groves South Development which will include 783 single-family and multi-family dwelling units, 150,000 square-feet of commercial uses, and associated recreational facilities.
pandolph property
Mr. Howell presented Tab 3, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-43-4, Pandolph Property. He explained that the applicant was requesting to amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance 2019-43 to increase the number of single family residences on the property from seven to 75, and that the property was located east of United States (U.S.) Highway 441, south of Robie Avenue in the unincorporated City of Mount Dora area; additionally, the property was comprised of about 25.36 acres, and was four parcels being combined together. He related that the property was currently designated with an Urban Low FLU with a maximum density of four dwelling units per acre, and that the property was located within the Wekiva Study Area. He relayed that the proposed concept plan included a 90 foot perimeter buffer to cluster development away from the surrounding rural properties, consistent with requirements for new development within the Wekiva Study Area under Comp Plan Policy I-3.4.2 and I-3.4.5. He said that the applicant was proposing 42 percent open space on the property, and that the rezoning was consistent with the LDR and the Comp Plan. He also recalled that the Planning and Zoning Board had voted unanimously on September 7, 2022 to approve the project.
Mr. Josh Edmonson, with Poulos and Bennett and representing the applicant, relayed that some of the concerns had been about traffic impact and which roadway improvements may be required from the project; furthermore, he commented that they would be widening Robie Avenue by four feet. He said that the proposed development was projected to generate about 68 and 91 trips during the a.m. and peak hours, respectively, and that the roadway segment analysis indicated that the studied roadway segments currently operated at acceptable levels of service and were projected to continue to do so upon projected buildout. He added that the intersection analysis indicated that the study intersection currently operated at an acceptable level of service, and that the access to the site was via a driveway off Robie Avenue on the north side of the property, noting that the driveway was projected to operate satisfactorily at project buildout and did not warrant left or right turn lanes. He stated that they were allowed four units per acre but were currently proposing 2.96 units per acre, and that in their environmental assessment, there were no endangered plants or forest species. He remarked that there was a gopher tortoise on the site, and that an option included offsite relocation.
Commr. Parks asked the Board to disclose any ex parte communications.
Commr. Shields said that he had spoken with some residents.
Commr. Smith stated that he had also spoken with some residents.
Commr. Parks mentioned that he had not spoken to anyone for this application.
Commr. Campione remarked that she had received emails and corresponded on some of them.
Commr. Blake relayed that he just received emails.
Commr. Parks asked to clarify the road improvements and if Robie Avenue would essentially become a standard county road.
Mr. Jeff Earhart, Engineering Manager for the Public Works Department, responded that Robie Avenue would be going to their standard 12 foot lanes with four foot shoulders; additionally, the applicant would be addressing the whole stretch of road to U.S. Highway 441. He also indicated that the road probably had about 9.5 or 10 foot lanes at the current time.
Commr. Campione pointed out that there was Regional Office FLU in the area. She then asked if this was an area where comments were received from Dr. Richard Levey, with Levey Consulting, that there was too much Regional Office FLU in the Wolf Branch Innovation District, and if there was a recommendation that this area be downzoned to Urban Low.
Mr. Howell confirmed this.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Tracey Rinehart, a neighbor of the subject property, expressed concerns for the property being in the Wekiva River Basin, noting that the area was protected. She also indicated concerns for flooding, landfill being brought in, pedophiles, and wildlife on the properties. She asked the Board to keep the property at seven equestrian homes.
Ms. Lisa Ericson, a resident of Lake County who owned a nonprofit organization on Robie Avenue, relayed her understanding that there was wildlife in the area, and she opined that sulfur could be smelled there. She questioned how much privacy her organization would have, and she expressed concerns for putting in 75 homes.
Ms. Teresa Smith, a resident on Robie Avenue, described the area and said that she had a petition of 24 people on Robie Avenue opposing any more subdivisions or businesses on the street. She opined that the traffic study did not consider the Dollar Tree, and said that it was a three car intersection, noting that they would have to share the intersection with the Dollar Tree customers. She expressed concerns for traffic on the road, and she asked the Board to listen to the residents, opining that residents wanted to keep the subject property at one unit per three acres.
Mr. Leo Smith, a resident on Robie Avenue, opined that residents did not want the rezoning, and that they were not against the zoning that already took place there. He opined that this item would overpopulate the area, and he expressed concerns for the amount of fire rescue staff to cover the county, along with the population increases being proposed on the Simpson Groves property and in Orange County. He indicated concerns for other possible developments on Robie Avenue and for traffic on the road, opining that widening the road by four feet would not solve the issue. He expressed opposition to overgrowth and the number of homes being proposed for the subject property.
Ms. Cindy Newton, a resident of Commission District 4, stated that this property was in the Wekiva Study Area, and she expressed concerns for wetlands and for indigo snake habitat that would be destroyed. She relayed her understanding that the environmental report said that there were no wetlands on the property, and that the conclusion was based on observation in October 2021 and technical information. She displayed the historical rainfall for September and October, and she described the high recharge soils on the property. She indicated an understanding that it was against the Wekiva Study Area to dig out wetlands, and that there was a flood zone there.
Ms. Lynda Pandolph, an owner of the subject property, said that property she had owned on Robie Avenue had never flooded. She mentioned that she and her husband had acquired 25 acres and that their plan was to build a small subdivision of less than 10 lots with one unit per three acres. She elaborated that they would be required to do everything that a large developer would be required to do, and that they could not afford to do everything that was required. She said that they came to realize that they had no choice but to sell the property to KB Homes on August 21, 2021, and she indicated that owners had the right to sell properties and that builders had the right to build in accordance with zoning laws.
Mr. Paul Bliss, a resident of the Eagle Point subdivision in the City of Leesburg, spoke regarding Tabs 4 and 5 on the rezoning agenda. He commented that that Harbor Shores Road had three blind 90 degree turns and that there were no shoulders; furthermore, he expressed concerns for two subdivisions adding between 400 and 500 more cars to the area. He also mentioned that there were bears and other wildlife in the area, and he relayed concerns for how a subdivision could affect water on the roads.
Ms. Katherine de Jongh, a resident of Cross Tie Ranch, displayed an image of the proposed subdivision and opined that it was high density. She also opined that the open spaces were only small buffers around the perimeter, and she supported more attention being given to green space and fewer homes. She relayed her understanding that people had complained about the smell of sewage, and she opined that this needed to be addressed before adding more homes. She showed a map of the area and pointed out Mid Florida Materials, and relayed that she had seen many trucks coming from there with fill dirt; therefore, she opined that the natural land that served as a filtration system for water had been displaced. She thought that soil and water samples should be taken, and she asked if the Wolf Branch Sink property had been transferred back to the City of Mount Dora.
Commr. Campione clarified that it was in the City’s jurisdiction, but was owned by the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA).
Mr. Jacob Soto, a resident of the City of Eustis, opposed the development near the orange groves, opining that the groves were significant to the City of Mount Dora. He expressed concerns for congested traffic, rainwater on the roads, a loss of flood prevention associated with removing trees, protected species, and runoff into the lake.
Ms. Leslie Hoover, a resident on Robie Avenue speaking via Zoom Webinar, expressed concerns about the size of the road and the amount of cars that would be on it. She opined that an additional four feet of width on the road did not seem like enough to support the number of cars that would be added to the road, and she indicated concerns about water and sewer, noting that most of the properties on the road were on well and septic systems.
Mr. George Pandolph, an owner of the subject property, said that there were already four businesses on Robie Avenue, and he opined that it was not a country road. He relayed that he had not seen any indigo snakes, and that his property just had 12 inches of rain from a hurricane but did not have an inch of standing water.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Edmonson explained that the environmental assessment only considered wildlife that was listed as endangered or threatened species, or species of special concern. He clarified that there were no wetlands on the property, and that they would not be bringing large amounts of fill and raising the elevation of the property. He said that they would meet the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) requirements for stormwater, and that the proposal was in line with the LDR and Comp Plan.
Mr. Jay Duvall, with Traffic Planning and Design and representing the applicant, stated that they had conducted a traffic study and coordinated with Lake County staff to develop a methodology and utilize the standards that the County had established. He mentioned that the roads and intersections came within the level of service standards, and that the conclusions were that this project would only add 91 peak hour trips on the road, which was within the standards of Lake County.
Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that the road would be made into a 24 foot wide local road.
Mr. Earhart confirmed that it would be a 24 foot wide standard road with 12 foot lanes, noting that the County would be adding some stabilized shoulder on the side. He added that they could have about 2,000 trips per day before seeing some impacts on the sides, though with shoulders it should handle 3,000 to 4,000 trips.
Commr. Parks asked where Robie Avenue ended, and Mr. Earhart pointed out on a map where it turned into a dirt road. Commissioner Parks then inquired if staff could review the widths of the buffer.
Mr. Howell explained that the buffers on the west and east sides were 90 feet and were enhanced, and that the buffer along Robie Avenue was 22 feet wide.
Commr. Parks asked if the buffers would be 100 percent Florida native vegetation.
Mr. Howell mentioned that it could be in the ordinance, and that staff could work with the applicant to ensure that it would be 100 percent Florida native.
Commr. Campione inquired if this item was sent to the City of Mount Dora and if there were any objections.
Ms. Emily Johnson, Senior Planner for the Office of Planning and Zoning, confirmed that this item was sent to the City for review, and staff received a letter back which required a covenant to annex; furthermore, the development would connect to the City’s water and sewer. She added that there were no objections.
Commr. Campione recalled that with the White Rose rezoning case, something that was important to her was for the individual lots to not move into the open space; additionally, the open space did not have sod put down and it was not mowed, noting that the open space was kept as open space. She suggested to use something similar for the current item, such as possibly a three board wooden fence along the lot boundaries, along with similar fencing along the actual subdivision property boundaries. She thought that it was important to have a two or three board fence along the project boundary for the appearance of this project, noting that lots had 90 feet of open space along the boundary. She also thought that if it was included in the homeowners association (HOA) documents, then the HOA could enforce the County’s fertilizer ordinance within their own neighborhood, pointing out that the subject development was close to the Wolf Branch Sink.
Commr. Parks recalled that this language had been in some previous zoning hearings where the County required that the homeowner be educated about property fertilizer management and sign this when closing. He added that there could also be a management plan for open space areas.
Commr. Shields asked who would be maintaining the roads inside the project.
Commr. Parks thought that they would set up a municipal service benefit unit (MSBU) for public roads, and Mr. Howell confirmed that this was within the ordinance.
Ms. Marsh clarified that the Board had not adopted the ordinance yet to do an MSBU in all subdivisions, and that the Board could require it, but would have to adopt it per subdivision.
Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that it would ensure that the subdivision would be responsible for ongoing resurfacing, etc.
Ms. Marsh confirmed this.
Commr. Parks explained that on a yearly basis each individual homeowner would be paying taxes through the MSBU that went specifically for the care between each right of way line, rather than funding coming out of the County’s General Fund countywide.
Commr. Campione pointed out that the ordinance included dark sky lighting requirements, bear management requirements, and architectural design standards for the homes, noting that they were consistent with previous PUDs. She stated that she would add a standard, with regards to homes where the rear of the home faced a right of way, for there to be architectural enhancements on the rear, such as banding around the windows or shutters that make it more attractive. She said that this area was designated as Regional Office FLU, and that it was determined by a consultant who the City of Mount Dora and the County retained to work on the Wolf Branch Innovation District that there was too much Regional Office in this area and that it should change to an FLU designation of Urban Low, which was a significant lowering of intensity. She reiterated that the County did not receive any objections from the City of Mount Dora, noting that it would be consistent with what would be approved if it was already contiguous and was being processed by the City. She also thought that the requirements in the ordinance were consistent with what the County had done with other PUDs, mentioning that it was a high standard for the open space requirement and allowed for a large amount of non-impervious surface to help with water recharge, along with wildlife passage and habitat in the buffers. She said that the stormwater tract appeared to be in its location because of the lay of the land to provide for that storage.
Commr. Campione made a motion to approve this item with the following modifications: the HOA would have to enforce the County’s fertilizer ordinance within their own neighborhood; architectural enhancements on the rear of homes that faced a right of way; place buffer fences to delineate where the open space was and the outer boundary of the property; and Robie Avenue being widened.
Commr. Parks asked if she would mind adding assurance that the buffers would be managed appropriate toward native Florida habitats.
Commr. Campione clarified that the ordinance already stated that there had to be a land management plan for the buffer.
Mr. Earhart inquired if the intent was that the roads would not be maintained by the County.
Commr. Parks said that internally, they would have the MSBU.
Ms. Marsh commented that the applicant could plat this as either gated, where the HOA would address the roads, or they would have to do the MSBU if they were publically dedicated roads so that the internal residents paid for future maintenance; furthermore, the County was not dictating how they had to do this. She then recalled that for the White Rose ordinance, staff included the language that “at the time a house is built, a four board equestrian style fence must be placed across the rear property line of each lot to create a continuous delineation for the common open space.”
Commr. Campione expressed a preference to place the fences when the applicant did their site development, and opined that it should be done with platting.
Ms. Marsh asked to clarify if it would be this language, but for the developer to construct it before developing.
Commr. Shields indicated that he would like to see lower density and more space for the wetlands.
Commr. Campione agreed, but she did not feel that the Board could go this far to force them to do this.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Tab 3, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-43-4, Pandolph Property, with the following modifications: the HOA would have to enforce the County’s fertilizer ordinance within their own neighborhood; architectural enhancements on the rear of homes that faced a right of way; language that “at the time a house is built, a four board equestrian style fence must be placed across the rear property line of each lot to create a continuous delineation for the common open space,” with this being done before developing pursuant to the plat; and Robie Avenue being widened.
Commr. Shields voted no.
Harbor shores road pud and goose creek development
Mr. Howell presented Tab 4, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-07-3, Harbor Shores Road Planned Unit Development. He explained that the applicant was requesting to rezone approximately 34.46 gross acres from Medium Residential (R-3) and Urban Residential (R-6) to PUD to facilitate the development of a 120 lot single-family residential subdivision at a density of approximately 3.88 dwelling units per net acre. He said that the property was located south of County Road (CR) 44, northwest and east of Harbor Shores Road, and was within the Urban Low FLU, which allowed for a maximum density of four units per acre. He stated that the concept plan depicted the access to the site from Harbor Shores Road, and that minimum lot sizes were proposed at 40 feet by 120 feet, or 4,800 square feet, with a 1,200 square foot unit size. He added that the concept plan also proposed 60 percent maximum impervious surface, and 25 percent minimum open space. He relayed that the proposed rezoning was consistent with LDR 4.03.01, which allowed PUDs in all land use categories, and the Urban Low FLU, which allowed a maximum density of four dwelling units per buildable acre. He elaborated that the rezoning was consistent with Comp Plan Policy I-3.4.5, which stated that central water and sewer facilities could be connected to a regional system when available, and that utilities would be provided by Lakeside Waterworks. He concluded that staff found the rezoning amendment to be consistent with the LDR and the Comp Plan, and that the Planning and Zoning Board had unanimously recommended approval on September 7, 2022.
Commr. Parks noted that the current item and the item for Goose Creek Development were related, and he asked if the Board could hear that tab as well.
Ms. Marsh confirmed this, noting that they were the same applicant; however, the Board would need to vote on them separately.
Commr. Parks asked the Board to disclose any ex parte communications.
Commr. Shields indicated that he had spoken with residents.
Commr. Smith said that he had met with the engineering firm and residents, and had done a site visit.
Commr. Parks remarked that he had a site visit and discussions with Mr. Jason Sayre, who was representing many residents in the area.
Commr. Campione stated that she had done a site visit but did not have any direct communications.
Commr. Blake mentioned that he had received emails from residents.
Mr. Howell then presented Tab 5, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-08-3, Goose Creek Development. He explained that the applicant was requesting to rezone the property from Agriculture Residential (AR) and R-6 to PUD to facilitate development of a 145 lot residential subdivision. He said that the property was located south of Goose Creek Road and east of Golden Tree Drive in the City of Leesburg area, and that the property was approximately 46.43 acres in size; additionally, it currently had an FLU of Urban Low, and was vacant and undeveloped. He commented that the proposed rezoning was consistent with LDR Section 4.03.0.1, which allowed PUDs in all land use categories, and the Urban Low FLU, which allowed a maximum density of four units per acre. He mentioned that the minimum lot widths, as depicted on the concept plan, were 50 feet, and that minimum unit sizes were 1,200 square feet. He stated that the proposed open space was 25 percent of the site, and that the rezoning was consistent with Comp Plan Policy I-3.4.5, which stated that central water and sewer facilities could be connected to a regional system when available, and that utilities would be provided by Lakeside Waterworks. He recalled that the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval on September 7, 2022 with the caveat for this item, along with Tab 4, that the surrounding road networks be included in the five year capital improvement program.
Mr. Bill Ray, with Ray and Associates and representing the applicant, asked the Board to support the Planning and Zoning Board and staff recommendations of approval, noting that they were not asking for any changes in intensity and density of the subject site as detailed in the Urban Low designation; rather, they were present primarily because the PUD was a requirement of the Comp Plan. He elaborated that any development greater than 50 lots in the Urban Low FLU required a PUD.
Mr. Sayre, a resident on Harbor Shores Road who had filed a notice of appearance, submitted a petition signed by 389 local residents, and a second petition signed by an additional 150 residents. He relayed that the Harbor Shores Road community was just over 750 homes consisting of various types of residences, and he opined that they did not have neighborhoods similar to those being proposed on the current day. He opined that the proposed neighborhoods were tract homes with minimal lot lines and no character. He mentioned that his neighbors would present information related to their concerns for these proposals, and said that they were not completely opposed to growth, but would like to see it controlled and have it match their local community. He commented that the BCC would hear during their presentation where some residents felt that developers had taken advantage of current codes and/or land use abilities in an effort to maximize their profit level at the community’s expense. He also questioned the timing of the proposals for approval, relaying his understanding that the BCC had recently agreed that communities like these did not match the rural makeup, thus the Board had created the rural conservation subdivision design standards. He indicated an understanding that this initiative had been sent to the State for approval, and was expected to take effect shortly. He opined that several key components of the Board’s initiative were not present with the current items, and he relayed that residents had met with the developers and had voiced their concerns; additionally, he commented that the developers’ response was to be happy that they were not building out to their full capabilities, and that someone else would build if they did not.
Ms. Marsh asked to clarify if the individuals speaking under Mr. Sayre were providing expert testimony, noting that typically, the applicant or party applicant would bring up experts versus giving everyone else unlimited time to speak.
Commr. Parks opined that they had an organized presentation and that based off their knowledge of the area, they would be qualifying themselves as experts.
Mr. Sayre mentioned that each of their presenters would present for three minutes or less, and that this was firsthand and their interpretation of what they understood, along with their knowledge of the local area.
Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that the notice of appearance was filed to be organized and to let Mr. Sayre speak for longer during his introduction.
Ms. Susanne McKee, a resident on Blue Heron Way, said that the Comp Plan read “it is the aim of Lake County to compose a 2030 Comprehensive Plan that balances demand for public utilities, development and conservation, and provide concurrency provisions for infrastructure, transportation and public education while attaining adequate revenue to finance these demands.” She commended the Board for their work on the Comp Plan entitled “Planning Horizon 2030,” noting that it contained several pages of objectives and regulations, and established design standards for new subdivisions in rural Lake County. She elaborated that the plan further stated that “the purpose of these regulations is to provide housing in a manner that also preserves agricultural and forestry lands, natural and cultural features, scenic view sheds and rural community character that would be at great risk of becoming lost through conventional development purchase.” She relayed her understanding of a rumor that 2,000 homes and apartments had already been approved within a five to six mile radius of their neighborhoods, and she hoped that “Planning Horizon 2030” would keep the Harbor Shores Road and Goose Creek communities a rural community. She mentioned the narrow road leading to the construction sites which passed existing homes and subdivisions, opining that trucks would be competing for space on a narrow, winding road with others. She said that within the Harbor Shores Road PUD request, it stated that Harbor Shores Road shall be widened along the developer’s frontage, and improvements to other sections of the roadway may also be required to accommodate the developers’ traffic impacts; however, she opined that only widening in front of the developer’s frontage was not going to make any impact on the safety and the existing communities. She also opined that CR 44 would be overburdened with traffic from the additional 2,000 units already approved. She opined that the Board had addressed the need to responsibly keep Lake County from becoming something that it was not meant to be, and that residents expected them to uphold this. She also requested for the Board to compare the current home densities in the area and the road improvements which were needed before approving these two developments.
Mr. Bob Peyton, a resident on Quail Run, did not believe that the County had considered the impact of roughly 2,600 additional vehicle trips on Harbor Shores Road. He explained that Harbor Shores Road from CR 44 to Lake Eustis was the only access road currently serving six developments, that the road did not have streetlights or sidewalks, and that it only had minimal swales. He explained that Harbor Shores Road to Pine Island Drive was 1,355 feet long and was two lanes, and he opined that it would be challenging to do anything with it because there was a drainage ditch four feet off the edge of pavement on the western side, with residential driveways on the eastern side. He relayed that the entrance area to the subject development was about a quarter mile long and had two school bus stops, and that children had to cross both lanes to arrive there. He added that there were four intersection roads from the developments there, and he said that he had parked on Harbor Shores Road on a Monday from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., noting that there were 3,037 vehicles that traveled the road between those hours. He expressed concerns for adding 1,300 average daily trips, opining that they needed to maintain the density of development which was in each community in the area, and to improve the infrastructure before doing anything. He believed that the eastern turn lane from CR 44 into Harbor Shores Road was 274 feet, and the western side was 350 feet long, relaying his understanding that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) required 350 for deceleration distance. He opined that they also needed to do construction work on CR 44, and he expressed concerns for traffic backing up on Harbor Shores Road turning onto CR 44 for a long time with that many vehicles and distance.
Mr. Gary Wiepking, a resident on Formosa Island Road, indicated concerns for protected wildlife located on the subject properties. He said that he had found an eagle’s nest in the Harbor Shores Road PUD property, and he showed pictures of an eagle. He relayed his understanding that the environmental assessment did not show an eagle nest; however, he could not find this report on the Office of Planning and Zoning website. He indicated his understanding that there were also gopher tortoises on the site, and that the animals must be relocated. He expressed concerns for the development disrupting the black bear population, and he relayed his understanding that there had been recent sightings of eastern indigo snakes, which were endangered and cohabitated with gopher tortoises. He asked if the Board could think of a good reason to disrupt the protected animals, and said that he hoped to see treetops rather than rooftops.
Ms. Elaine Wiepking, a resident of Shangri-La by the Lake, expressed concerns for water pressure, and for what would happen if there was not enough water for 256 more homes in the area. She asked if the projects should have to prove that there was enough water, and she inquired where the $1.7 million for new upgrades, if the two new projects were built, would come from and if residents’ water bills would continue to rise. She also indicated concerns for the narrow road with only one way in and out, mentioning that three large dirt trucks had to straddle the middle line to come and out. She asked how many trucks would affect residents for the years that these developments would be under construction, along with about 500 new cars being added. She questioned what the new neighborhoods would add to their neighborhood.
Captain John Davis, a resident on Eagle Point Court, indicated concerns for density and for 265 houses in the subject subdivisions. He expressed concerns that this would be over 1,000 people, and he indicated concerns for the homes having 15 foot backyards, five foot setbacks and 25 feet in front of the house to park a car. He relayed his understanding that this would generate 530 new cars with about 1,000 trips per day, and he indicated concerns for there not being enough school buses for the children. He relayed further concerns for garbage, water pressure, trucks, two years of construction, and traffic from people looking at the new homes. He asked the Board not to change the zoning.
Ms. Gail Gordon, a resident of Lake County, relayed that homes behind Blue Lake Estates, which had property raised by a few feet, had flooding from runoff. She said that she lived across the street from one of the proposed developments, and that they already had standing water in her neighborhood after a storm. She showed pictures of standing water in the area, and said that a number of residents on Harbor Shores Road had drainage issues, wells and septic tanks. She also relayed concerns for increased traffic, noting that there was only one entrance and exit. She opined that they needed another entrance and exit, and she requested for the builder to purchase another piece of property so that residents could have another exit.
Mr. Caesar Geiger, a resident on Eagle Point Court representing the Eagle Point HOA, relayed that subdivisions took vacant land and created impervious areas. He mentioned that detention areas were created for runoff, but they were sized for 10 year, 25 year or 100 year storms. He opined that they had just experienced more than a 100 year storm with Hurricane Ian, and that the proposed detention areas were in a wetland area. He relayed his understanding that they were the highest elevation in the area compared to other properties in the area, and he expressed concerns about water flowing onto other properties when there was a storm that exceeded their capacity. He also indicated an understanding that a T intersection would be made at Enchantment Lane and Harbor Shores Road, and he said that many residents would have to stop at that intersection, noting that there was only a 95 foot space for vehicles to stop for that traffic sign.
Ms. Toni Peyton, a resident on Quail Run, asked if the County had reviewed the negative impact on the existing groundwater table, potential flooding, and the need for water drainage infrastructure. She said that the proposed developments on Harbor Shores Road fell under the SJRWMD, and that the district had identified Lake County as an area where future water supply needs could not be met without causing unacceptable impact to the water reserves and natural systems. She relayed her understanding that Lake County was designated as a priority water resource caution area, and that a 2018 study found had that the state’s aquifers had dropped 32 percent; additionally, Silver Springs had seen a 60 percent decline in its water output in the last decade. She stated that diminished aquifers allowed for groundwater pollution infiltration into surrounding well water systems, and she commented that recent studies showed that household water use was the fastest growing drain for aquifer systems. She also opined that diminished aquifers could have impacts on the lakes including algae intrusion, water clarity issues, stagnation, brackish water, and wildlife issues, adding that increased flooding could impact Lake Eustis and the surrounding communities. She relayed her understanding that plans called for water services to the new developments to be provided by U.S. Water Solutions Company, and that the system would draw from the existing aquifer. She opined that the BCC also needed to consider the potential for sinkhole development as the aquifer demand increased, and she expressed concerns for effects of development on the existing wetlands. She opined that the development was placing catch basins for stormwater runoff inside protected wetland areas, and that there was no status of the consumptive use permitting and environmental resource permitting required before the developments were approved.
Ms. Melodie Downey, a resident of Shangri-La by the Lake, asked where the developers would be allowed to place signs, and if the development was a mile in off CR 44, would they be able to place signs on CR 44 at the entrance. She also expressed concerns for the speed of traffic going through there, and she stated that the intent of LDR Chapter 11 was to provide signage regulations to preserve scenic, economic and aesthetic values.
Ms. Gordon played a video of a news report regarding a house that flooded near Estes Road in the City of Eustis.
Mr. Sayre said that he had sent an email to the BCC which included information indicating that the Harbor Shores Road PUD was being built above or at the 100 year flood area. He relayed that pictures previously shown of a house’s backyard were related to the 100 year flood. He then opined that from Harbor Shores Road and CR 44 to the where the Goose Creek Development would be, there would be at least 1,500 more cars per day and several vehicles per minute. He expressed concerns for children being able to play, and added that there were no established sidewalks for bicycle riding on Harbor Shores Road. He added that the plan which was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board was only to increase the road widths touching the Harbor Shores Road community, noting that this did not relate to the other mile of roadway, which was 20 feet wide at best, with no paved shoulders.
Commr. Campione said that she was trying to understand the route that the applicant was trying to propose in and out of the proposed developments. She relayed her understanding that Harbor Shores Road would be the only entrance in and out of this property.
Mr. Mohammad Abdallah, with Traffic and Mobility Consultants and representing the applicant, confirmed that Harbor Shores Road was the main public roadway serving the community. He then pointed this out on a map.
Mr. Sayre indicated that the entrance to the Harbor Shores Road PUD was about 1.25 miles from the intersection of Harbor Shores Road and CR 44; additionally, the Goose Creek Development was around 1.5 miles from this intersection. He opined that one would travel the same thoroughfare of Harbor Shores Road, and make a right hand turn at Shangri-La by the Lake on Forest Lake Road, which at best was 18 to 20 feet wide, and then make a left hand turn.
Commr. Campione inquired how much width of right of way currently existed on Harbor Shores Road, and Mr. Earhart replied that there was 66 feet of right of way. Commissioner Campione then asked if there was the same amount of right of way on Forest Lake Road.
Mr. Earhart believed that it was the same amount, and he added that a depression area was close to the road near CR 44. He elaborated that they could probably widen there, but he was unsure if they could add sidewalks.
Commr. Campione inquired about the existing zoning on the property, relaying her understanding that the request was made because there was a rule that if one was straight zoning what they already had and wanted to do more than 50 lots, then they had to receive a PUD zoning, which was what the Board was hearing currently to consider things like roads and access points.
Mr. Howell mentioned that the zoning for the Harbor Shores Road PUD was R-3 and R-6, and the Goose Creek Development was AR and R-6.
Commr. Campione asked about the yield with the R-6 and AR if it was a straight zoning and if there was not a requirement for a PUD zoning.
Mr. Howell responded that the rough calculation on the AR property was about 31.6 acres and 126 units if it did not have to go through a PUD; furthermore, the R-6 property had three parcels and there could be 19 units on each for a total of 183 units. He then mentioned that the PUD was requesting 145 units for Goose Creek Development. He stated that the Harbor Shores Road PUD R-3 parcel of about 28 acres would yield about 112 units, and that for the two R-6 parcels, one was 1.85 acres with a possible seven units, and the remaining 5.6 acres could yield roughly 22 units, for a total of 141 units; additionally, the applicant was only requesting 120 units.
Commr. Campione pointed out that the applicant was asking for a lower number of lots than they could already have, and she opined that the most significant issues were safety and transportation. She opined that it was challenging to maneuver around those roads, and that there was an issue with the width of the roads; furthermore, she also opined that there was an issue with safety for where people could walk if the roads were occupied with vehicles. She expressed concerns for water and how to ensure that building a property to address flood zone issues did not affect adjoining properties which were not built to that level, along with there being adequate storage for runoff.
Commr. Smith recalled that there was a project near the City of Clermont that the Board could not deny due to a road issue, and he asked about the possibility of a lawsuit occurring if the Board denied this item.
Ms. Marsh responded that there were a few different issues with the roads, and that if it was a deficiency issue for the number of trips on the road, this was something which fell under statute and the developer essentially pays and goes. She elaborated that a safety issue would be different, and that the Board would have some flexibility. She did not believe that this was a deficiency issue because there was level of service on the road, and the Board would have to consider if road improvements could be made, who paid for it, and if it was attributable to the developer.
Commr. Parks inquired if the owner of the land was the applicant, and Mr. Ray denied this. Commissioner Parks then asked if the applicant was applying to get the PUD zoning and then if the land would be sold.
Mr. Ray said that this was correct.
Mr. Sayre displayed a video of driving on Harbor Shores Road, and he opined that there was not much room for any sidewalk and/or road widening at the first blind curve. He described the road width of 20 to 22 feet, and relayed his understanding that Forest Lake Road was not finished by the County and was only about 19 to 20 feet wide. He also indicated that Golden Tree Drive was only 20 to 22 feet wide and was not a finished road, opining that this was the only area where they possibly saw the ability to widen.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a recess at 12:56 p.m. for 30 minutes.
Harbor shores road pud and goose creek development cont.
Commr. Parks relayed that Tab 6 would likely be delayed and would occur after Tabs 7, 8 and 9, noting that the applicant’s representative was not present.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Bridget Johnson, a resident on Goose Creek Road, expressed concerns for part of the road which was not County maintained, noting that neighbors had to maintain the road. She opined that there was nothing that the County could do to widen the road without buying property from residents, and she added that an emergency exit from the proposed development would likely come onto her road. She also relayed that all of the residents on the non-County maintained road had well water, and she indicated concerns for what adding 140 or more homes to the area could do to the aquifer and water supply. She expressed concerns for 140 to 280 additional vehicles entering and exiting on CR 44, and she also questioned how this would affect EMS and firefighters.
Mr. Kevin Donaghy, a resident of Lake County, expressed concerns for population growth and emergency calls. He asked who paid for the environmental studies, and Commissioner Parks replied that the developer would submit it as part of the application. Mr. Donaghy inquired about noise studies, and he indicated concerns for property values, crime, and who was certifying that any fill for the development was equal to or above Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) standards. He also opined that the road coming into the Harbor Shores Road PUD could not be widened.
Mr. Dave Pittelkow, a resident of Lake County, expressed concerns for traffic and for turning on and off Harbor Shores Road from CR 44. He commented that there was no shoulder on the turn lane on CR 44, and he was unsure if traffic lights would help. He also indicated concerns for the safety of people riding bicycles on Harbor Shores Road, for wildlife, and water usage.
Mr. Julian McGowan, a resident on Harbor Shores Road, indicated concerns for safety on the road coming in and out of the development, for a strain on the aquifer, and wildlife. He requested to possibly have less density.
Mr. Michael Daniels, a resident of Lake County, indicated concerns for wildlife in the area, and he opined that the proposed development did not fit Lake County. He also relayed concerns for traffic and trucks.
Mr. Jim Mull, a resident of Shangri-La by the Lake, opined that school buses could not turn around on Harbor Shores Road, and said that Mr. Sayre had to install a pad at the end of the road so that buses could turn around. He expressed concerns for more children and school buses, and for turning onto CR 44. He also relayed concerns for curves on Harbor Shores Road where vehicles were over the line, and he mentioned that there was wildlife in the area.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Ray said that they were present to address the PUD that was required by the Comp Plan. He mentioned that with the existing zoning, they were entitled to build more lots than they were currently asking for, noting that with the PUD there would be 25 percent open space, an upgrade of the existing utility system paid for by the developer at a cost of approximately $2 million, a signalized intersection at CR 44, and a petition to be put on the five year capital improvement plan, which would allow the county to dedicate funds that affected the whole community to address safety issues. He commented that the roadway portion in front of both projects would be developed in accordance with County standards, and that currently as reviewed by staff and the applicant’s consultant, through the project buildout they would meet the level of service established for the roads in this area. He remarked that the majority of the existing development was developed prior to the stormwater regulations that the new developments must comply with. He mentioned that the water plant was permitted by FDEP and the SJRWMD, and that the applicant had to model the aquifer, drawdown rates and capacity; furthermore, they could only do what those two State agencies allowed them to do. He said that they would meet current design standards for rainwater runoff, noting that through the PUD process they could limit the amount of impervious area. He stated that the buffers were in their development order, and that they had a naturally planted buffer with a management plan. He added that the Board was allowed to impose things such as the fencing to separate the buffer from the rest of the developments, and that wildlife in the State of Florida was protected where it was found at the time that a site disturbance was proposed. He explained that for gopher tortoises, 90 days before site disturbance a 100 percent site survey would have to be conducted in accordance with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) standards, by an approved and authorized agent. He added that all potentially occupied gopher tortoise burrows were then either protected or excavated, and all captured tortoises would be relocated to an approved recipient site in the state at the developer’s expense. He mentioned that the other protected species were governed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Wildlife Conservation Council, and when the developer was proposing to disturb the site, an updated survey would be done and they would follow and comply with those regulations. He reiterated that developments over 50 units were required to do a PUD, recognizing that it was in accordance with the Comp Plan of an Urban Low FLU, noting that the FLU was established after approximately eight years of public hearing and input in development of the first Comp Plan.
Mr. Abdallah stated that the application was essentially a net reduction in density, which translated to a reduction in the number of potential trips being generated by these properties. He displayed an aerial image of the area and said that Harbor Shores Road was an existing public road which currently served hundreds of units. He said that their review of the capacity was that it was sufficient for the road to serve the proposed developments under these applications. He added that through the development of the Goose Creek Development, the applicant would provide a crash gate at Goose Creek Road, noting that it was not a public connection because there was only 30 feet of public right of way, and that there would be a secondary emergency access for the entire community. He reiterated that the applicant would be improving the right of way and roadway along the property boundaries and bring them up to current standards, which helped to support further improvements in the future. He relayed that they identified an issue at the intersection of CR 44 and Harbor Shores Road, and that the applicant was committed to constructing a traffic signal there, which would serve the proposed communities and existing residents. He opined that the application met the standards set forth by the County, along with the level of service requirements and the additional improvements for access.
Mr. Sayre clarified that he had filed for his notice of appearance on behalf of himself, and that none of his speakers were grouped in with him. He added that they were speaking as firsthand witnesses to their local community.
Ms. Marsh explained that if there was a lawsuit, the County did not control who was named; however, generally when one filed a notice of appearance, then one became a party, and anyone they called as a witness under their party status would be subject to becoming possibly a party to that lawsuit. She added that there was nothing that the County could do to stop this.
Mr. Sayre mentioned that the applicant had stated that they would have to go through the Goose Creek Development for emergency access, and he said that the Board had received an email from the Carr family about how it took emergency vehicles 15 minutes to reach Harbor Shores Road on two instances. He questioned where they found 66 feet of potential right of way to widen roads, opining that a 24 foot wide road was not possible, along with sidewalks. He stated that Commissioner Smith had rode with him during a site visit and that they had stop their vehicle to let a dump truck pass on Forest Lake Road, and he opined that the only way to widen that road would be to minimize residents’ property. He expressed concerns for how many school buses and accidents there could be after building 140 homes, and he displayed an image of the 100 year flood area. He expressed concerns for building this many homes in proximity to this area, opining that they had to build up and then drain the water; furthermore, he opined that it would not be sufficient. He expressed concerns for stormwater runoff, and he opined that the traffic light at CR 44 and Harbor Shores Road had been needed since a 2003 traffic study. He mentioned that the developer was only adding four feet of width to Harbor Shores Road along their property, noting that the applicant for the previous tab was willing to work on Robie Avenue to add a sidewalk and 12 foot lanes. He pointed out open space that the applicant would be using, opining that this did not take into consideration four feet of extra width. He indicated that he had to give up a portion of his land for trucks to be able to turn around, and he indicated concerns for construction semi-trucks getting lost or ending up in yards and damaging property. He read a closing statement which referenced Lake County’s mission statement, and he asked how this project enhanced and protected quality of life for local citizens. He relayed that residents felt that the current state of roadways and the lack of infrastructure did not support nor align with well-made and planned decisions. He said that the County’s first goal read “providing exceptional public safety and emergency response services to achieve a safe and secure community,” and he asked that with only one main road into the proposed developments, which struggled to reach 20 feet wide in many places, how was the County able to assure the protection of life and property, provide exceptional response and efficiency, and reduce response times when all it took was a vehicle crash or a downed tree to shut down the only residential entry and exit point to the existing and proposed communities. He indicated that a stated goal of the County was to “adopt effective and reasonable regulations which protect citizens’ quality of life, property values and investments in Lake County;” furthermore, he opined that approving a PUD and rezoning this area would be the opposite of this goal. He said that the County’s third goal was to “plan, develop and maintain a high quality, safe and reliable transportation network,” and he opined that his community’s less than normal road width did not measure up to providing a variety of transportation options, as they had no dedicated sidewalks or bike lanes. He added that the goal also placed a priority on maintenance projects for County maintained roads, sidewalks and complete streets, which called for shared utilization of roads between vehicles and pedestrians. He opined that this had not been done along Harbor Shores Road or Goose Creek Road, and he commented that the County’s fourth goal was to “enhance the quality of life of Lake County residents by providing active and passive recreational opportunities, library services, and promoting conservation, preservation and protection of natural resources. This goal emphasizes preserving wetlands and promoting Keep Lake Beautiful (KLB), which seeks to reduce the litter and pollution along roadways, lakes, river and wetlands.” He then asked how removing rural land with documented wildlife and priority wetlands improved the appearance of Lake County. He mentioned that goal number five was to ensure that new residential and commercial development were well planned, attractive and high quality, and he opined that the proposed projects did not appear to meet many standards set forth within this goal. He also opined that these developments, especially the Harbor Shores Road PUD, lacked a sufficient, well designed and natural in appearance water retention area. He reiterated his understanding that it appeared that a portion of this project was being built upon the 100 year flood line, and he opined that water retention areas appeared to be undersized for the water load of this magnitude. He said that the open space for this project was at or just above 25 percent, and he opined the density was in stark contrast to the appropriate residential densities to achieve compatibility and complimentary land uses, as no other surrounding neighborhoods were classified as a PUD. He commented that the Board had recently recognized that similar developments were making their way out of local municipalities and into the rural environment, and he relayed his understanding that a majority of the Board had agreed and that action needed to be taken; therefore, the Board had formed the rural conservation subdivision initiative. He indicated an understanding that this initiative had been sent to the State for approval and was expected to return shortly; additionally, he opined that this was why the county was seeing the influx of developments countywide by developers prior to this initiative being put in place. He opined that the community supported the County’s goal of respecting individual property rights, and he asked that if the Board would not deny the request, to delay the approval until the rural subdivision initiative was active and the development met those standards.
Commr. Parks asked to clarify whether the applicant had legal access to Goose Creek Road.
Mr. Chuck Hyatt, representing the applicant, replied that when looking at the geographic information system (GIS), there was old platted right of way. He believed that there was 30 feet of access, but they needed 50 feet for legal access. He added that they had reached out to property owners trying to purchase a few tracts along Goose Creek Road, noting that the applicant wanted their main entrance off Goose Creek Road rather than Harbor Shores Road.
Ms. Marsh stated that staff would have to verify if there was a 30 foot access, and she was unsure if a 30 foot access was sufficient for fire rescue to access the property.
Mr. Ray clarified that the subject land was designated as Urban Low, which had a density, intensity and vision for the development that the County had envisioned to occur on that land. He added that it also had existing zoning, and that these were rights entitled to the landowner which could not be waived or rolled over. He said that they were developing lower than the allowed density and intensity shown on the property, and that the PUD, which was a requirement of the Comp Plan, had to be filed for as a procedural issue; additionally, it was not changing the density or intensity of the existing entitled rights. He mentioned that they were providing 25 percent open space, which was in accordance with the County’s definitions of what was allowable, after the dedication of four feet of right of way that was required, or whatever the County determined that the applicant had to dedicate. He commented that the wetlands would have a 50 foot buffer as required by Lake County, that they would have environmental permits, and that they were proposing to provide a secondary emergency access for the entire community, in addition to upgrading the utilities at the applicant’s cost. He elaborated that they were providing a signalized intersection which was currently recognized as a dangerous intersection, and that they were proposing that the property be placed on the five year capital improvement plan so that the County had a mechanism to address the needs of the community. He mentioned that the subject property was mapped by FEMA within a 100 year flood zone with a note that said “no 100 year flood elevation has been established.” He explained that as they went forward into engineering design, the applicant would do a 100 year flood study of the basin to determine what this elevation was, and that if they encroached on the 100 year flood zone, then they would have to provide compensating storage so that there was no increase in potential offsite flooding. He said that they were in compliance with the Comp Plan and had staff recommendation for approval, along with a recommendation for approval from the Planning and Zoning Board. He asked the BCC to support their request.
Commr. Smith expressed concerns that the applicant had every right to do what they could on the property on the current day, noting that if the request was not to build more than 50 homes, then they would not be present at the current meeting. He indicated a concern that the County was possibly setting itself up for litigation if they went against the applicant’s due right with this property. He said that the applicant was meeting the Comp Plan and LDR, and was improving some of the safety factors.
Ms. Marsh explained that there was a provision in Florida law called the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act, which meant that there was less than a constitutional taking. She elaborated that the State of Florida established this act so that if it did not rise to the level of constitutional taking, but was still some action of the government that impacted one’s property rights, then one could sue the government for this. She opined that this had not been a very popular act historically, although in the past couple of years more property owners were taking advantage of it. She mentioned that Lake County had two claims over the past four to five years, both of which the County ended up having to settle for $3 million or more. She said that the current case was not a true rezoning, and that these properties already had these entitlements since they were Urban Low, which allowed four units per acre, and had the R-6, AR and R-3 zoning designations. She reiterated that the developments were only coming to the current BCC meeting because the PUD requirement was that any time 50 lots or more was done, the applicant had to come to the BCC, noting that the BCC was not present to look at density, but to consider surrounding issues such as roads, stormwater, aesthetics, etc. She mentioned that density was not something that could necessarily be addressed by the Board, and it was not something that the Board would typically deny based on other factors, although they had the ability to do this if there were reasons why they should not do the PUD. She asked for a map of the area to be displayed, and she pointed out that in 1991 when the County instituted essentially its first Comp Plan, the subject area was designated as Urban Low, which was four units per acre and basically an urban expansion area. She also pointed out other FLU designations on the map, noting that there was some rural and conservation, but it was going more north. She stated that the entire area, under the 1991 Comp Plan and going forward into the current Comp Plan, was all designated for urban type growth.
Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that if the applicant was asking for a PUD, then the BCC went through the basis of review. He elaborated that if there was something that had been presented, which from the Board’s studying and listening did not meet the basis of review, then he thought that legally it would withstand the test of not granting the PUD.
Ms. Marsh confirmed this and added that if the Board had reasons based on evidence that this fell under the standards of rezoning set forth in the code, then the Board could deny this PUD.
Commr. Parks said that he did not support the request for both cases. He opined that the PUD process was often utilized because the entitlements for straight zoning and platting were potentially higher than the PUD process, noting that the PUD process could possibly be less impactful, and that most of the time this was likely the case; however, he stated that he did not see this in the current case because there were about seven or eight different parcels.
Ms. Marsh believed that there were four parcels for Goose Creek Development, and two parcels for the Harbor Shores Road PUD. She also believed that three of the four parcels for Goose Creek Development were five acres, and that the applicant could come in with three individual plats on each that would be under the 50 unit threshold for a PUD; additionally, she was unsure what they could do for the larger parcel for acreage, and she stated that they could bring in four separate plats. She elaborated that there were two parcels for the Harbor Shores Road PUD, but she believed that one parcel was access to the lake, noting that it would be one plat for 50 units or less without needing any Board approval.
Commr. Parks commented that each plat had to be done individually, opining that some of the individual parcels were not as usable. He said that he saw this as the benefit of the PUD, and that he did not see it as an argument that the Board had to approve the PUD to get a lesser intensity. He explained that his reasons would be, based on standards of review, Section F, Environment, and Section I, Conflicts with Public Interest. He opined that the buffering was not detailed like it had been in previous cases, and that dark sky lighting criteria was not spelled out in the ordinance. He expressed a concern that it was such a large area within the FEMA floodplain and how this could be overcome, and relayed that his most significant reason was likely Section E, Demand on Public Facilities and Safety. He believed that based on the anticipated trip generation of this proposed development, it would result in an increased safety risk along Harbor Shores Road, Forest Lake Road, Golden Tree Drive, and Eagle Point Court due to the width and condition of the road currently, in addition to the risk to pedestrians without sidewalks. He referenced page four of both proposed ordinances that made reference to these conditions, and he said that he had an experience of driving in the area, noting that as a solid waste truck came, they had to pull over to the side of the road on Forest Lake Road.
Commr. Campione explained that if the Board voted to deny this, the landowner would be able to bring individual subdivision plats which would not come before the BCC, noting that it was an administrative function. She mentioned that they would have to build stormwater ponds and other items, but there would not be design requirements for the homes other than what the code required. She added that the applicant had a right to do this and that the Board could not take this away, and that the yield looked like it included 80 more lots than what they were requesting on the current day; however, there was no guarantee that the landowner would plat and receive this number of lots, though the potential was there. She said that she saw the road network of this area as a severe safety issue, noting that if a tree fell, then there was no way to get an ambulance or firetruck there. She opined that this was not in harmony with public interest or the intent and purpose of the County’s regulations, and that it was premature to approve this number of homes. She stated that the only other alternative would be a condition that the applicant would have to pave and do widening from their property to CR 44, though this would not withstand a legal challenge. She stated that with this in mind, she felt compelled to vote against approving the requested PUD, and the applicant would have to work with what they had unless they came up with another way to create a better road network for the safety and welfare of residents.
Commr. Smith asked if Ms. Marsh thought that the road network would justify the safety concerns. He agreed that the road was not well thought out there, but noted that there were already around 1,000 homes in the area.
Ms. Marsh thought that if the County was challenged, then they could make this argument to the court; however, she could not guarantee what the court would do with this. She thought that the Board had enough grounds to make this finding based on the evidence and testimony they heard on the current day.
Commr. Parks opined that they would be making a substandard condition worse.
Commr. Campione added that the County would also ordinarily require a secondary access.
Commr. Smith wondered about the possible 30 foot access on Goose Creek Road, noting that the County was unsure if it was there.
Commr. Shields relayed that he supported what Commissioner Parks and Commissioner Campione had said, and that he would not feel good about approving this item with the safety issues.
Commr. Campione thought that the code was set up with this PUD requirement for subdivisions over 50 units so that in situations like this, the Board could try to address deficiencies through conditions in the PUD; however, she opined that there were no conditions that the Board could place on this PUD which would address the issues.
Commr. Parks opined that he saw some of the lots as being problematic to do individually, and said that there would still be some conditions that the applicant would have to meet if they went through a straight zoning.
Commr. Shields stated that if there was value for the applicant with a PUD process, then the County would be back to negotiating for the best they could get for the community.
Commr. Blake opined that when there was a landowner with entitlements who held out and waited a long time to develop their property, and if it got denied in spite of that because other landowners had already developed, then the unintended consequence was sending a signal to large landowners to be the first to develop. He believed that the applicant was entitled to this.
Commr. Blake made a motion to approve Tab 4, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-07-3, Harbor Shores Road Planned Unit Development, but the motion failed due to the lack of a second.
Commr. Blake made a motion to approve Tab 5, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-08-3, Goose Creek Development, but the motion failed due to the lack of a second.
Commr. Campione made a motion to deny Tab 4, recognizing that the property had an Urban Low FLU designation, had current zoning, and could be platted despite this denial.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board denied Tab 4, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-07-3, Harbor Shores Road Planned Unit Development.
Commr. Smith and Commr. Blake voted no.
Commr. Campione made a motion to deny Tab 5, recognizing that the property had a zoning and FLU designation that would allow the property to be platted otherwise. She opined that the PUD could not create sufficient conditions to address safety concerns regarding this property.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board denied Tab 5, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-08-3, Goose Creek Development.
Commr. Smith and Commr. Blake voted no.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a recess at 2:49 p.m. for five minutes.
mount dora groves north and south
Commr. Parks said that Tabs 7, 8 and 9 would be addressed at the current time, noting that Tab 6 would be addressed afterward because the applicant was not present and would be returning. He commented that Tabs 7, 8 and 9 would be addressed together since they were related, and asked the Board to disclose any ex-parte communications.
Commr. Shields said that he had spoken with Ms. Tara Tedrow, an attorney representing the applicant, along with residents.
Commr. Smith stated that he had spoken to the applicant, the engineer, the attorney, residents, and Mount Dora City Councilmembers.
Commr. Parks relayed that he had spoken with Ms. Tedrow, Ms. Raquel Martin, a concerned citizen, Ms. Lourdes Serafini, a concerned citizen, and some other residents.
Commr. Campione commented that she had spoken with the landowners, the applicant, the engineer, Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, an attorney who had represented the applicant, Ms. Tedrow, Ms. Marsha Ford, a resident of the City of Mount Dora, Mayor Stile, several of the Mount Dora City Councilmembers, and a group from Loch Leven.
Commr. Blake said that he had met with Ms. Bonifay and engineers, and that he had received emails.
Mr. Howell presented Tab 7, Rezoning Case # FLU-22-05-4, Mount Dora Groves North. He explained that the applicant was requesting to amend the FLU map to change the FLU designation on approximately 23.76 acres from Urban Low and Regional Commercial to Urban Medium. He added that the property was located north of U.S. Highway 441 and south of Loch Leven in the unincorporated City of Mount Dora area. He relayed that the entire development parcel contained approximately 144.23 gross acres which were currently designated with Urban Low, Urban Medium and Regional Commercial FLU categories, and that the properties were zoned Agriculture, R-6 and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1). He elaborated that the applicant was seeking to amend the FLU of the property to Urban Medium to achieve consistency across the entire parcel, and that the concept plan proposed 275 lots of a single family residential subdivision, developed at a density of about 4.42 units per acre and 20 percent open space, consistent with the proposed Urban Medium FLU. He relayed that staff found the Comp Plan amendment consistent with the LDR and Comp Plan, and that the Planning and Zoning Board had voted unanimously 7-0 at the September 7, 2022 meeting to recommend approval of the project. He then presented Tab 8, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-14-4, Mount Dora Groves North, noting that it was the companion rezoning to PUD from Agriculture, R-6 and C-1. He displayed the concept plan, noting that the Planning and Zoning Board had unanimously recommended approval at their September 7, 2022 meeting, and that staff recommended approval. He presented Tab 9, Rezoning Case # FLU-22-04-4, Mount Dora Groves South (Transmittal), which was a large scale FLU request. He explained that the property was 80.32 acres in size, and that the request was to change the FLU from Regional Office to PUD. He added that this proposal included 783 single family and multifamily dwelling units, 150,000 square feet of commercial uses, and associated recreational facilities. He said that the property was located south of U.S. Highway 441 and north of Limit Avenue in the unincorporated City of Mount Dora area, and that the properties were currently designated with the Regional Office FLU; furthermore, the properties were currently zoned Agriculture and R-6, noting that a companion PUD rezoning would be presented to the Board at a later date if this item was approved. He stated that the applicant was seeking to develop the property as a mixed use development, and he displayed the concept plan. He reiterated that there would be 783 single family and multifamily dwelling units at a density of approximately 9.75 units per acre, along with 150,000 square feet of Employment Center District (C-3) commercial uses, and associated recreational facilities and amenities. He added that the concept plan proposed approximately 25 percent open space, and that staff found the Comp Plan amendment consistent with the LDR and the Comp Plan. He concluded that on September 7, 2022, the Planning and Zoning Board had unanimously recommended approval of the large scale FLU amendment.
Commr. Campione asked to confirm that under the current land use on the north side, the square footage of commercial would be 1,587,762 square feet, with 436 residential units; however, the request was for only 275 single family units and no commercial.
Mr. Howell confirmed this.
Commr. Campione then inquired that under the current land use on the south side, the applicant could develop 1,050 residential units and 10,496,218 square feet of commercial, but they were only proposing 150,000 square feet of commercial and 783 units.
Mr. Howell stated that this was correct.
Commr. Parks asked if there was a site plan for Tab 8.
Mr. Howell replied that there was not, and that staff had a conceptual plan; furthermore, there was no lot layout at the current time.
Commr. Campione mentioned that the ordinance included minimum lot sizes and minimum square foot of homes, along with design criteria and elevations.
Commr. Parks inquired if this was the City of Mount Dora’s design criteria being incorporated.
Mr. Howell relayed his understanding that it was proposed by the applicant on the north, and that the south was from the City of Mount Dora code.
Ms. Marsh clarified that there were changes made to the north parcel based on communications between the developer and the City.
Ms. Tedrow displayed a map of the subject property and said that it was a small scale FLU amendment, noting that they were calling this the Mount Dora Groves North project. She explained that there were 12.15 acres of Regional Commercial, and about seven acres of Urban Low that they were asking to get changed to Urban Medium, which was currently about 19.16 net acres, so that everything would have the same FLU. She said that Urban Medium already comprised about 43 or more acres of the northern parcel, and that they also had a companion rezoning of the entire 144.23 gross acres, or net developable 62 acres, from Agriculture, R-6, and C-1 to PUD, noting that R-6 had a density of six units per acre. She showed an image of the property, noting that the 144.23 gross acres extended into Loch Leven and seemed larger than it actually was, and mentioned that it fronted U.S. Highway 441. She relayed that this property had been owned by the Simpson family for a significant period of time, and that the applicant had submitted letters of support from the Simpson family indicating that they had reviewed and were in full support of the applications. She remarked that the existing FLU and entitlements would allow 329 dwelling units and over 1.58 million square feet of commercial. She opined that this was a significant downzoning, and said that the applicant had worked with the City of Mount Dora on the north and south projects. She commented that the developer had accepted nearly all of the requests from the City, and that as of their conversation on the previous day, it was indicated that there would be no objection from City officials because the applicant had agreed to everything that was asked to be incorporated. She explained that on the north, the applicant was requesting only 275 single family units, and that 436 units would be allowed under Urban Medium. She displayed a Comp Plan policy which showed that their location on U.S. Highway 441 met the criteria for Urban Medium, and she showed a comparison table from the staff report regarding the entitlements for open space, building height and the allowable development program; additionally, she opined that it was a significant downzoning with 54 less dwelling units and about 1.58 million less commercial square feet than what was otherwise permitted. She said that between the north and south PUDs, there was a reduction of 321 dwelling units than what was permitted currently, and over 11.9 million square feet of commercial. She stated that the City of Mount Dora design standards would be included in the project, and she mentioned that it would be 85 to 90 percent less traffic, or 37,891 less trips, compared to what they were currently entitled to on the northern parcel. She showed a concept plan and pointed out where they would be building a signalized intersection on U.S. Highway 441, opining that there were many benefits that the project would provide from a transportation impact standpoint. She elaborated that the signalized intersection would line up with the PUD project on the south, noting that residents would be able to utilize their frontage road from Publix to turn south on U.S. Highway 441, and that this was at the request of the City. She mentioned that the frontage road would go from an arrow on the concept plan to the Loch Leven shopping center, and that from the arrow south to the Country Club of Mount Dora would be a golf cart trail that they were asked to include. She reiterated that they had incorporated nearly all of the City’s standards into their PUD criteria, and that as of the previous day, they were told that there no further objections would be raised. She added that Lake County staff had confirmed that their application was consistent with the purpose and intent of the applicable code sections, in addition to exceeding many of the code standards by incorporating the City’s requirements; furthermore, the application was consistent with all elements of the Comp Plan. She recalled that staff and the Planning and Zoning Board had recommended support, and she requested approval of the FLU map amendment and rezoning.
Commr. Parks asked if the 50 foot buffer setback from the lake would be in a conservation easement.
Ms. Tedrow believed that this was what the ordinance required, and said that it was undevelopable acreage.
Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that there would also be a type A buffer.
Ms. Tedrow explained that the type A buffer was on the northwest boundary, and that the frontage road would be at the red arrow on the concept plan. She stated that they would have the frontage road, an additional wall, and then more buffering before getting to the right of way of U.S. Highway 441; additionally, the residential area would be behind the frontage road. She also mentioned that the golf cart trail would be constructed out of asphalt or concrete, and that there was significant buffering from adjacent residential areas to the east. She elaborated that the property was buffered by a 70 foot FDOT easement, an FDOT pond, and the Country Club of Mount Dora golf course before getting to Country Club Boulevard. She then presented information regarding Mount Dora Groves South. She clarified that the rezoning ordinance was not being heard at the current time, and that the current request was for a large scale FLU map amendment on 80.32 acres from Regional Office to PUD to allow for 783 units with a combination of single family and detached and attached multifamily, as well as a maximum of 150,000 square feet of commercial uses, along with associated recreational to support the residential. She indicated that this equated to 103 single family homes, 320 detached multifamily homes, and 360 attached multifamily homes. She showed a map of the project and noted that there were no wetlands or floodplains on the site. She said that the site was currently entitled to 1,050 dwelling units and 10,496,218 square feet of commercial; additionally, duplexes, single family homes and multifamily was permitted by right in the county under their existing entitlements. She mentioned that the City of Mount Dora had agreed on the traffic report, and that traffic analysis showed an 85 percent reduction, or about 60,000 less trips; additionally, the project would not be using the type of capacity that had been planned for at least two decades. She mentioned that they would be doing an extension of Grandview Street which would connect west to Donnelly Avenue and east to U.S. Highway 441; furthermore, the City had requested a roundabout, and the applicant agreed to this. She added that J.W. Simpson Lane was also being connected to U.S. Highway 441, noting that they would have three access points going to U.S. Highway 441, one of which lined up with a signalized intersection access point across the street to their northern portion of the project. She opined that this would provide a solution to some traffic concerns at Donnelly Street and U.S. Highway 441, and alleviate a significant amount of congestion, noting that the applicant had also been asked by the City to put in a frontage road interior to the project along U.S. Highway 441 that would connect to Bristol Lakes Road. She said that staff had confirmed that all of the criteria had been met, that it was consistent with the purpose and intent of the code, and that it was also consistent with the Comp Plan. She added that staff had provided support, and that there had been a 7-0 recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Board. She commented that the rezoning item was on the agenda for the Planning and Zoning Board on the following day, and that all of the criteria that was asked to be included, as of the previous day, was agreed to by the City. She relayed that the applicant had committed to agree to those design standards, opining that this would not be possible without the PUD if they went with straight zoning and current entitlements.
Commr. Campione asked to confirm that the design items included architecture of the commercial buildings, light fixtures, street lighting, etc.
Ms. Tedrow confirmed this and displayed the redline ordinance. She mentioned that the applicant first accepted about 18 of the City’s 36 pages of standards, and that the applicant had currently accepted approximately 35 of the 36 pages. She added that for the items that could not work, the applicant had received a nod of approval from the City of Mount Dora’s planning staff in a negotiation. She then reviewed the items in the ordinance, and she assumed that the City would be providing utilities. She opined that they were unable to be considered urban sprawl because they were in an urban area, because they were a significant downzoning, and because they did not meet statutory definitions for urban sprawl. She commented that if the City would not provide utilities, noting that the City had provided a will serve and capacity letter, then the developer would have to determine alternative means of doing this.
Commr. Parks inquired how many residential lots along the lake she thought could occur.
Ms. Tedrow replied that preliminary estimates were 34 to 36 lots with a 70 foot minimum width. She added that the adjacent County Club of Mount Dora had 80 foot wide lakefront lots.
Commr. Campione pointed out that there was a reference to the County’s requirements with regards to docks and boat ramps, noting that an issue raised to her by residents on Loch Leven was that the boat ramp would strictly be for lakefront lot owners. She thought that this was a reasonable request to include in the ordinance.
Ms. Tedrow said that the applicant had heard requests to not have any docks on the lake. She clarified that this would be a private gated community, and that a community dock would only be for the 275 homes there.
Commr. Campione thought that the boat ramp should be limited to the lakefront lot owners.
Commr. Parks indicated a concern for there being 34 to 37 more docks on the lake, and he asked how many docks could be placed there.
Ms. Tedrow relayed that if 36 lots were able to be engineered there, then it would potentially equate to a maximum of the 36 homes having docks. She added that there were spacing and permitting standards with other government agencies with jurisdiction over dock review.
Commr. Campione opined that someone who purchases a lakefront lot should be able to place a dock, though not everyone would necessarily do this.
Commr. Parks said that he had asked the question because there could be a potential safety hazard with many adjacent docks, noting that it also could possibly not be good for the environment.
Ms. Tedrow noted that they would have to be longer docks and commented that this was a concept plan; furthermore, their final site engineering still had to come before the County.
Commr. Campione inquired if there could be a requirement that the HOA would have the authority to enforce the County’s fertilizer ordinance within their community, and Ms. Tedrow relayed that the applicant had no issue incorporating this.
Commr. Parks asked if the City of Mount Dora had any comments.
Mr. Vince Sandersfeld, Planning Director for the City of Mount Dora, relayed that his department did not have any further comments on the north or south projects; additionally, he relayed that about 68 percent of the City’s standards were negotiated.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bobby Di Bonaventure, a resident on Castelli Boulevard, asked if the boat ramp would only be for the lakefront lot owners.
Ms. Jiratthaya Manorattanasakool, a resident of Lake County, opined that the State of Florida was starting to look the same everywhere and that there was no character. She opined that their community should be more distinctive, livable, and beautiful, and she also indicated concerns for nature vanishing, along with noise, light and congestion.
Mr. Leo Smith, a resident on Robie Avenue who had spoken earlier in the meeting, expressed concerns for the amount of traffic that would be added to U.S. Highway 441, and for traffic being backed up. He relayed that he was not happy with how this area had developed, and how the Board was voting.
Ms. Lourdes Serafini, a resident of Lake County, opined that in the effort to protect property rights, one forgot everything else that was part of the Comp Plan. She stated that the Comp Plan mentioned quality of life, urban sprawl, and the encouragement of business and employment opportunities. She opined that people moved to the City of Mount Dora for the beauty and its appeal, and she expressed concerns for losing this and for all the lakefront homes possibly looking the same. She requested more trees, and she indicated a concern that the proposed development would remove the character. She also expressed interest in having more amenities, restaurants and grocery stores for residents.
Ms. Joan Langford, a resident of Lake County, expressed concerns with various aspects of the proposed development including a wall along U.S. Highway 441 and for where the golf carts would go. She opined that they did not have enough amenities in the City of Mount Dora to support what they currently had, and that they had roads which needed traffic lights and widening. She opined that the city needed infrastructure, restaurants and commercial, and she expressed concerns for placing a wall in an area that she opined should be open space and shopping. She relayed her understanding that the rental homes would cost $3,000 per month, and she questioned who could pay this. She asked where stormwater would go, and she indicated concerns for fertilizer from yards going into the lake.
Ms. Magali Arce, a resident of the City of Mount Dora, expressed concerns for safety and the potential increase in crime. She relayed her understanding that there were approximately 35 police officers in the city, and she opined that this was insufficient for the community and the new development. She indicated concerns for accidents on U.S. Highway 441, and she opined that there needed to be a regular police presence on U.S. Highway 441 and other roads in the city. She also opined that they needed more traffic lights, and she asked the Board to consider residents’ concerns.
Mr. James Homich, a resident who had spoken earlier in the meeting, opined that if the Board approved this item, then they would be in direct violation of the JPA with the City of Mount Dora. He opined that this item was occurring because the developer could not get what they wanted at the City, and he mentioned that this development was located at the heart of the City of Mount Dora; furthermore, he opined that the only governmental body with the knowledge and the need to do this was the Mount Dora City Council. He also indicated concerns for the applicant eliminating commercial from the development.
Mr. Stan Austin, a resident of Lake County, asked if the JPA with the City of Mount Dora was still in place, and he hoped that the City and the BCC could work together. He relayed his understanding that the Board had added a covenant to annex into the City of Mount Dora to the Pandolph Property case, and he said that he would like to see the same thing for the current item. He inquired about dark sky lighting, and he indicated that if FDOT chose to vacate the retention pond, then he would like to see something be added so that it would remain green space. He asked if a new traffic study would be done based on the new configuration of roadways and for the access road, and he requested for the road infrastructure to be addressed before building.
Mr. Jeff Field, a resident of Loch Leven, opined that this proposal was in violation of the JPA with Mount Dora. He read an excerpt from the Comp Plan regarding the FLU and how the mistakes that were made in the early 2000s should not be made again, which indicated that it would be irresponsible to ignore the situation and continue with the assumption that growth would happen as opposed to putting in place specific policies and methods to have healthy, sustainable growth. He opined that development from different proposals on the current day did not hold true to what was proposed by the County in 2010, and he expressed concerns for traffic and water quality issues; furthermore, he opined that putting another 38 homes on the lake was unsustainable from a safety and water quality standpoint. He opined that the current proposal was not consistent with what the County had spoken to in the past, and what they were bound to under the current JPA.
Mr. Josh Hemingway, a resident on East Fifth Avenue, thought that the discrepancy in the JPA needed to be looked into more thoroughly before deciding the validity of it. He relayed his understanding that according to the JPA, the south side of the proposed development was recognized as Regional Office, noting that the applicant was proposing 150,000 square feet of commercial, and that this worked out at 10,000 square feet of commercial per one dwelling unit. He indicated an understanding that this would only allow about 16 homes on the south, and that the calculations of Regional Office and what the applicant was proposing was inconsistent. He relayed that he had emailed the Board an item related to Seminole County, and he expressed that he would like to see the possibility of the developers paying for the City of Mount Dora to employ independent consultants to validate some of the things they had brought forward. He also opined that it was necessary to start getting second opinions.
Ms. Suzanne Scheck, a resident on North Tremain Street, opined that the Board was not listening to the people, and that residents bought their homes because they liked the area. She opined that police, fire rescue and water were already being challenged, and she indicated concerns for sinkholes.
Ms. Raquel Martin, a resident of Lake County, opined that the current item was a large project for the City of Mount Dora, and that the city was a destination, which led to tourism. She reviewed the proposed zoning, and she opined that there needed to be a balance of commercial. She expressed concerns that the proposed development would change the character of the City of Mount Dora, and she displayed images of what she opined residents wanted for future generations, adding that that the city would see urban sprawl, and that residents wanted modern urbanism. She indicated concerns for property values, opining that the proposed development would have minimum lot sizes and that it would not have character. She also expressed a concern for there being a three-quarters of a mile long wall at the entrance of the city, and she relayed her understanding that if U.S. Highway 441 was widened to three lanes, then a turn lane with no setback could be added into the proposed community. She expressed concerns for the golf cart trail that was proposed, and for there likely only being a 20 foot buffer for the wall. She opined that this was a safety issue, and that the proposed development would only have a 20 foot setback. She opined that it was challenging to add a traffic light, and that development on the subject properties had to be consistent with the surrounding nature of the city. She opined that many individuals knew Lake County because of Mount Dora, and that the proposed development would hurt the city’s legacy.
Ms. Cindy Newton, a resident who had spoken earlier in the meeting, asked how many 40 foot lots there would be behind the lakefront lots, relaying her understanding that they could still have an impact on the watershed because it was in the Wekiva Study Area. She indicated an understanding that a LCWA study had indicated that “based upon the completed study, it appeared that the declining water quality characteristics of Lake Joanna could be largely attributed to the stormwater runoff flowing into Lake Joanna from the overflow and from the drainage basins discharging through the Loch Leven watershed.” She indicated her understanding that the City of Mount Dora had approved more townhouses on the other side of the drainage, and she expressed a concern for placing more infrastructure without knowing the impact. She opined that this could impact more of Lake Joanna’s water quality, which flowed into Lake Swatara, and said that she would like to have a provision for this issue to be considered.
Commr. Campione relayed that the baffle system was in place in the canal that went from Loch Leven to Lake Joanna, and that it was working well. She added that they were hoping to get some data on the amount of phosphorus being removed, noting that most of it was the result of the Loch Leven subdivision and the overflow from retention areas where there was a significant amount of fertilizer use. She added that the County was working with FDOT, noting that SR 44B was a state road and that FDOT was supposed to be doing widening in the future; additionally, the County was hoping to have some retention area for water coming from the Loch Leven area toward Lake Joanna. She also thought that regarding a second baffle, the LCWA was waiting to evaluate whether it was sufficient for purposes of nutrient removal.
Mr. Hemingway relayed his understanding that Commissioner Campione’s business was in the City of Mount Dora, and that she was a real estate attorney who was developing 26 homes in the city.
Commr. Campione denied that she was developing any properties.
Commr. Parks indicated that Commissioner Campione would disclose if there was any conflict of interest, and that she had no material interest in the property decision.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Ms. Tedrow said that the applicant wanted to respect the community and its identity, and she mentioned that the City of Mount Dora’s commercial and residential design standards were incorporated into the PUD rezonings, noting that this had been negotiated by City staff. She indicated that the applicant had met with the City, and that the City had indicated on the previous day that there were no more requests or objections. She explained that FDOT determined whether a traffic signal was warranted, and that the proposed ordinance indicated that the developer was required to signalize the intersection at U.S. Highway 441 and the access to the subject property in the event that FDOT found it warranted, which they were currently reviewing. She opined that it would be warranted, and she clarified that the request for frontage roads came from the City. She added that the applicant had included those frontage roads to alleviate traffic on north and south U.S. Highway 441, and that they had included a golf cart trail because the City had asked them to. She also relayed that the applicant was not building sound walls for turnpikes; rather, they would be building a wall that they had negotiated with the City that was set back from the right of way. She explained that they calculated their setback from the right of way that FDOT had already set aside for the three lane road widening on U.S. Highway 441; therefore, it would not be 35 feet onto the subject property. She commented that it was measured from the existing right of way, which would either have a frontage road or a golf cart trail, and then set back from there would be 25 feet of additional buffering, in addition to a wall with softening effects that the applicant had agreed to with the City. She remarked that by definition, urban sprawl was single use low density in rural areas where the extension of facilities is impractical or adds burdens to local governments, by definition under Florida statutory law; additionally, she expressed concerns for calling the subject development urban sprawl when they were in an urban area, and where they were downzoning and providing a mixed use compact development where services were already in place. She mentioned that they were downzoning with a 90 percent reduction in traffic, and that the limitations of the PUD ordinance included specific intensity and density limits on the south and north properties. She said that around 100,000 less cars would be generated from an average daily trip basis because of this downzoning, and she thought that the applicant had made a good faith effort to bring a project that did not just satisfy the Comp Plan and County policies, but also satisfied the City’s code and their design standards. She opined that the project would have a significant benefit to the City of Mount Dora in the long run from its design, functionality, alleviation of traffic, a transportation planning standpoint, and from an overall layout and general benefit. She commented that the City had indicated that 73 Walmarts could be constructed on the south portion of the project, but that rather than one set of commercial strip centers, the applicant was going to bring a mixed use compact development, significantly less dense and intense, with traffic lights connecting to a small single family neighborhood given the size of the property and their current entitlements. She believed that the applicant had satisfied all of the conditions which warranted an approval for the three items on the agenda.
Commr. Shields asked about the City of Mount Dora standard for the wall.
Ms. Tedrow explained that the wall idea was a combination of County and City requirements, and that the City had asked them to enhance the wall with certain column features and landscaping, which were incorporated into the ordinance. She reiterated that the wall would be set back, landscaped, and significantly buffered; therefore, it would not just be set up against U.S. Highway 441.
Commr. Campione said that it was standard to have a barrier or buffer, and she did not think landscaping or just a basic fence was a good idea. She clarified that it would not be a turnpike wall, and that it would mitigate sound and create a transition between the frontage road and the entrance to the subdivision. She added that it would be a gated subdivision, and she noted that Loch Leven was also a gated subdivision and had a wall, in addition to Dora Landing having a wall. She mentioned that her request for the wall had been to have architectural enhancements that would make it special and set the right standard of quality. She then recalled that she had asked about a boat ramp being limited to the lakefront properties within the HOA.
Ms. Tedrow confirmed that it was not a public boat ramp, and would be limited only to those inside the gated community on the north. She elaborated that per the HOA, they would not have boats being stored on the non-lakefront lots.
Commr. Campione inquired about a community dock, and Ms. Tedrow mentioned that the County’s code was specific for boat docks and community boat ramps.
Commr. Smith stated that he did not see a boat ramp for the gated community residents as an issue, and he agreed with Commissioner Campione that a community dock would be warranted.
Mr. Sandersfeld relayed that there were no further comments from the City of Mount Dora for any of the design issues of the ordinance, and that the City appreciated the developer working with them. He requested a covenant to annex, and said that the City would be providing utilities, noting that they would need to work through an annexation agreement and a utility agreement.
Commr. Campione thought that the developer had to work out the utility issues, and she did not think that the County should be involved in this.
Commr. Shields asked why the County did not send this item back to the City of Mount Dora.
Commr. Campione thought that the County had an obligation when an application was received to review it. She opined that the applicant had done a significant amount to try and work things out with the City of Mount Dora, but when an application came before the BCC and it met their requirements, then the BCC had a legal obligation to approve it. She added that if the BCC denied it, then they could be putting themselves in a position of being the subject of a legal issue.
Commr. Shields relayed his understanding that it would be annexed into the City of Mount Dora.
Commr. Campione confirmed that this was more than likely to occur, but the applicant still had to negotiate the terms of those types of agreements. She noted that when this item was being discussed with the City of Mount Dora, one of the positives was that the City of Mount Dora Northeast Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) was going to be expanded to incorporate the property on the south side. She thought that the applicant was going to have their property rights in the county acknowledged, noting that the item met the County code and also had incorporated the City’s design standards. She opined that the legal parts of the JPA were about design standards and the character of an area, and that a JPA should not be used as a tool to force someone to do certain things.
Commr. Shields indicated his understanding that it would be the same product if the applicant went to the City of Mount Dora instead of the County.
Commr. Campione clarified that this was not necessarily the case, and that there could be a City which said that they had the utilities and could request whatever they wanted, or else utilities would not be provided. She opined that at some point, the applicant felt that they were not receiving fair treatment, and that they wanted to have their rights recognized that they already had.
Commr. Shields said that this was with the previous attorney, noting that there was a new law firm representing the applicant.
Commr. Campione opined that it would not change how people were going to react. She stated that the Board was present to establish a fair hearing and assure that due process was adhered to.
Commr. Smith indicated that one of the most compelling items to him was all the work that the developer, the City of Mount Dora and the County put together, noting that the City had no further comments.
Commr. Campione stated that she had tried to see if the CRA could still happen, opining that it was beneficial to the City of Mount Dora Northeast CRA and to the community. She mentioned that one of the main projects they were trying to do in the CRA was a community center and gymnasium, and she opined that this could benefit the young people of the community. She felt that there was an opportunity for the County to help facilitate this, noting that the FLU on the south side still had to be transmitted to the State, and they also had to go through the PUD process. She opined that there was more than sufficient time for the County to work in coordination with the City, the developer and the landowner, to facilitate this and ensure that the CRA captured that revenue and could use it for the benefit of that community.
Commr. Parks noted that the rezoning for the south portion would be heard at the following day’s Planning and Zoning Board meeting, and he asked when this would come before the BCC.
Ms. Marsh responded that it would not come back to the Board until comments from transmitting the south FLU were received, noting that it could take about 60 days; furthermore, the south Comp Plan amendment could come back with the rezoning around January 2023 if the Board transmitted it. She clarified that the north side was only a small scale Comp Plan amendment and did not have to be transmitted, noting that this was why the Board had both the rezoning and the Comp Plan item for the north side. She added that normally when the Board had to transmit it, they did not see the rezoning until the Comp Plan amendment came back from the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (FDEO), and they did it as one adoption process.
Commr. Campione asked that for the PUD on the north side, if the developers could include two more photographs for elevations which were shown in the applicant’s PowerPoint. She elaborated that the ordinance referenced those elevations as examples.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Tab 7, Rezoning Case # FLU-22-05-4, Mount Dora Groves North.
Commr. Shields voted no.
Commr. Parks mentioned that he had an issue with Tab 8 because he wanted to see a site plan associated with this. He indicated that he would rather the Board table this item until later; however, he thought that it was good.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board approved Tab 8, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-14-4, Mount Dora Groves North, with the following modifications: the changes displayed by the applicant; the two additional elevations; the language regarding having the fertilizer ordinance be enforced by the HOA; to require that the boat ramp would be for residents only; and for the buffer wall to have architectural enhancements.
Commr. Shields and Commr. Parks voted no.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Tab 9, Rezoning Case # FLU-22-04-4, Mount Dora Groves South (Transmittal).
Commr. Shields voted no.
new missions property
Mr. Howell presented Tab 6, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-30-4, New Missions Property. He explained that this item was originally presented to the BCC on May 3, 2022, and was tabled; furthermore, following that meeting, the applicant had submitted an application to rezone tract M, Lakewood Ranches, from Agriculture to Community Facility District (CFD) to accommodate a place of worship, office, and community assembly, and to rezone tract P from CFD to Agriculture to remove the existing uses on the approved CFD ordinance. He mentioned that the properties were located within the Wekiva Study Area and the Wekiva-Ocala Rural Protection Area (RPA), and that they were north of SR 44 and west of Green Forest Drive in the City of Eustis area. He said that both parcels were vacant and had a Rural FLU, that tract M was approximately 10.8 acres in size, and that tract P was about 20.58 acres and was zoned CFD by Ordinance 2021-25. He stated that the requested uses for tract M included a place of worship and accessory uses such as wellness and holiday gift packaging. He showed the concept plan and noted that it depicted access to the site from SR 44, and that it proposed 18 percent maximum impervious surface area, 71 percent open space, and a 50 foot maximum building height. He concluded that staff found the rezoning amendment consistent with the LDR and the Comp Plan, and that they were recommending approval of two ordinances, with one to rezone tract M, Lakewood Ranches, from Agriculture to CFD, and one to rezone tract P, Lakewood Ranches, from CFD to Agriculture. He added that on September 7, 2022, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval of the two ordinances on the regular agenda.
Commr. Parks asked the Board to disclose ex-parte discussions.
Commr. Smith said that he had discussions with residents.
Commr. Campione mentioned that she had spoken to residents at the subdivision adjoining the subject property.
Commr. Blake commented that he had received some emails.
Commr. Parks indicated that he had only received emails.
Mr. Tim Green, President of Green Consulting Group and representing the applicant, said that this property was part of the Lakewood Ranches subdivision, and he recalled that they had heard concerns that the CFD would be expanded beyond its uses; however, the uses were specific in a CFD. He indicated that the uses included a place of worship, religious education, community assembly, office, wellness, holiday gift packaging and an athletic field, along with other accessory uses approved by the County Manager or designee. He relayed that it was not a traditional church, and that they did missionary work in Haiti, noting that the owner was moving the operation from the City of Orlando to Lake County. He commented that they packaged gift boxes and shipped them to Haiti during the Christmas season, and that they needed space to warehouse the items and place them in shoebox packages.
Commr. Campione asked about semi-trucks to pick up and deliver items, and forklifts, noting that these vehicles made noise when backing up.
Mr. Green clarified that this was seasonal, and opined that it was not an industrial use.
Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that organizations like this could receive large donations.
Mr. Green relayed that on the conceptual site plan, they included a place for a truck to back up to the facility; however, it was a religious facility and a place of worship.
Commr. Smith noted that the applicant already had what they wanted on tract P, and he inquired why they were moving it to tract M.
Mr. Green explained that one reason was that there would be significantly less driveway to get to the building. He added that this was all that the County would see built on the site unless it came back to the BCC and was rezoned to a different zoning. He opined that this was probably the least intense item that could be on this land, including the agricultural uses which were already on the property, noting that it could be a greenhouse from boundary to boundary. He added that the use was also moved because they would be connecting to the City of Eustis utilities; furthermore, it would be the same layout that they had on the east side.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Katherine de Jongh, a resident who had spoken earlier in the meeting, said that she owned a lot in Lakewood Ranches. She displayed a map of the area, and opined that tract P was a better location because there was a hill which did not leave drivers much time to navigate a turn or stop. She commented that she did not support the rezoning request for tract M from Agriculture to CFD based on the inconsistencies in the primary uses of the project narrative. She disagreed that the primary uses were going to be a place of worship and a place for religious education and community assemble; rather, she opined that it would be more office and gift packaging. She believed that it was mostly going to be a distribution hub for New Missions, Inc., and she relayed her understanding that a CFD was allowed in areas where special or substantial community interest uses were necessary and desirable. She opined that the activities that would occur there would not benefit the residents who lived in the area, and relayed information from the organization’s website. She opined that while their activities may be headquartered in the U.S., they were carried out overseas. She opined that this item was a relocation of the home office of New Missions, Inc., that would serve to benefit its President who lived in the adjacent neighborhood. She indicated an understanding that their current facility in Orange County had 102 parking spaces, and that the proposed facility would be 126 parking spaces; additionally, the Orange County facility was designated as office, though they wanted to be a CFD in Lake County. She indicated an understanding that their square footage would be reduced by 528 square feet, and that their hours of operation could be seven days per week, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. year-round. She displayed an image from the organization, and opined that they assembled and shipped upwards of 13,480 shoeboxes annually for a charitable donation in Haiti. She showed information from their website indicating that they had serve days beginning on October 1, and that the shoebox activity operated from July through December. She displayed an image from October 7, 2022 where 13 palettes were delivered, and relayed her understanding that volunteers came and spent weeks there. She expressed concerns for there being an increase in traffic, along with noise and smells. She asked for the Board to encourage the applicant to stay with the primary use, noting that she wanted assurance that it would not be a distribution hub in her backyard.
Ms. Newton noted that this property was located in the Wekiva Study Area and the Wekiva-Ocala RPA. She displayed the concept plan, and expressed concerns for there only being 10 foot setbacks with no landscape buffers. She opined that what was being said verbally was not comparing to what was seen on paper, and she stated that she wanted to see a new concept plan before this item was approved. She supported exterior lighting incorporating dark sky standards, and she relayed her understanding that in previous meetings, it had been suggested that the active recreation would be expanded, which she opined would decrease the open space. She requested more clarity on this item.
Ms. Elizabeth Heine, a neighbor of the subject property, asked the Board to deny the CFD on tract M, and to approve the zoning on tract P. She opined that the CFD zoning was inappropriate, noting that as proposed, there was no buffer of the easement and there was only a 10 foot setback. She opined that a large buffer should be available to separate this from her property and rural neighbors, and she commented that as proposed, it was a 50 foot tall, 15,000 square foot building. She opined that this height was out of place, and that it should not be allowed next to rural homes and her horse pasture, especially without a buffer. She expressed concerns for water quality and impervious surfaces, and she opined that there was no demonstrated need for this facility. She indicated that she had spoken to the owner of New Missions, Inc. on the previous day, and that it did not match what was on the plan; furthermore, she relayed her understanding that it would be a one story building with no parking in the back, no lights and no plans for soccer. She indicated that she could support the CFD if everything the owner told her was on paper, and she requested that the language be amended. She proposed to have a 20 foot maximum building height, excluding the roof, to impose a reasonable buffer of 20 feet, dark sky lighting standards, a fence to prevent intrusion from SR 44, changing the proposed hours to nonintrusive hours aside from indoor hours, and no assembly or outdoor activities past 6:00 p.m. on a Sunday through Thursday. She added that from what they discussed on the previous night, everything that she was requesting was what the owner wanted, relaying her understanding that the setback would be the only difficulty. She opined that a revised site plan would be needed to show residents what the owner was actually planning.
Mr. Robert Hendrick, a neighbor of the subject property, opined that what was on paper did not match what the owner had stated. He commented that the driveway was a landscaped entrance that the Lakewood Ranches HOA paid for, and he relayed there was a blind hill near the subject property. He opined that it was an equestrian and agricultural area, and that the original CFD ordinance was fine. He expressed concerns for the owner selling the property and for the buyer being able to have the uses on the zoning.
Commr. Campione asked Mr. Hendrick if his request was to ask the property owner to work with Mr. Green and come back with a revised site plan which incorporated what was represented to Ms. Heine and to him, or if he was opining that tract P would be more appropriate, noting that it already had a CFD.
Mr. Hendrick questioned why it was being moved, and opined that there was plenty of access.
Commr. Campione opined that it did not seem like industrial type uses should come off the HOA driveway, and that they could at least have it more toward the commercial node around the intersection. She expressed concerns for moving toward the equestrian and agricultural area.
Commr. Smith pointed out that if it was moved east on tract P, it would be next to a CVS Pharmacy and a Circle K, which were already industrial type services; furthermore, if it was to the west, then it would be next to a home and bridal establishment and single family homes. He questioned why the facility was being moved.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Green stated that it was a place of worship, and he opined that it met the code provision for what a place of worship was. He indicated that he had recently packaged 100 packages at St. Patrick’s Church, and he did not think that it had interrupted anyone’s life, noting that they did not have to ask to do this. He indicated that there was a loading area on the site plan and a large building on the site plan, and that they did not hide that they would be packaging items. He relayed that active recreation had to be shown as such because the applicant wanted a place to play, and that it had to be labeled as active recreation because it was in the Wekiva Study Area and did not count as open space. He opined that the road length was a reason to move the facility, noting that it would be 10 acres versus 20 acres, and that the applicant wanted to place the facility as far away from the entrance to his subdivision as possible; additionally, staff was requesting for them to connect to that road because it was a public road. He said that buffers were not shown on the site plan because buffers were covered not in the CFD, but in the LDR for CFD buffers against other zoning categories.
Commr. Campione asked what it would require.
Mr. Green replied that he did not have the code in front of him; however, they would have a 30 foot buffer against the homes in the plat of Lakewood Ranches. He did not think that the building would be 50 feet tall, but that this was what was in the code. He commented that dark sky lighting was in the code and was in the ordinance, and that a fence along the north side of the property would be fine. He mentioned that it would be the same building as on the other plan.
Commr. Parks opined that it might be better to go back to the drawing board on this item.
Mr. Green mentioned that the application was submitted in August 31, 2021, and that it had been approved by the Planning and Zoning Board twice.
Commr. Campione said that it sounded like his client was saying one thing to residents, opining that those things should be on the site plan.
Commr. Blake asked if it would be best to table this item to give Mr. Green a chance to talk to his client, and Mr. Green thought that this would be best.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board tabled Tab 6, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-30-4, New Missions Property, until the applicant had sufficient written information for what he was going to do on the property.
commissioners reports
commissioner smith – vice chairman and district 3
national sausage pizza day
Commr. Smith related that it was National Sausage Pizza Day.
commissioner parks – Chairman and district 2
comments about meeting
Commr. Parks thought that the Board gave a fair process at the current meeting, and that everything was done nicely.
Commr. Campione thought that they had a very competent BCC and staff, and she expressed appreciation for the long hours and hard work.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:33 p.m.
_________________________________
SEAN PARKS, chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
GARY J COONEY, CLERK