A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

June 6, 2023

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 9:00 a.m., in the County Commission Chambers, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Kirby Smith, Chairman; Douglas B. Shields, Vice Chairman; Sean Parks; Leslie Campione; and Josh Blake. Others present were: Jennifer Barker, County Manager; David Langley, Assistant County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Stephanie Cash, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION and pledge

Commr. Smith welcomed everyone to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting, and noted that it was being streamed live on the County website; furthermore, they were also broadcasting the meeting via Zoom.

Pastor Bobby Rowe, with the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in North Lake County, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

virtual meeting instructions

Mr. Levar Cooper, Director for the Office of Communications, 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 through 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, said that there were no updates to the agenda.

citizen question and comment period

Ms. Cindy Newton, a resident of Commission District 4, said that she would like to invite everybody to attend a Strong Towns event, which was open to anyone interested in the future of Lake County. She elaborated that there would be a presentation about how Cities could build wealth and resilience while avoiding development practices that would lead only to the appearance of wealth, opining that this was currently happening because of the urban sprawl in Lake County. She related that residents would have the opportunity to voice their opinions and learn what Strong Towns was all about, and that this would be held in the Cities of Clermont and Leesburg.

Commr. Smith asked if this information was on the County website, and Ms. Barker indicated that it was.

Mr. Joshua Politz, a resident of Lake County, relayed his understanding that Restore Lake had proposed plans to use a facility in an area that was not zoned for this use, and said that Pastor Brian Broadway had told him that the public hearing to rezone the property was just a formality as they could do whatever they wanted there. He opined that this was illegal and untrue, and that much work had been done without a permit, also noting that Commissioner Shields had toured the facility. He commented that they had hundreds of people in their Save the Green Swamp group, and that they wanted more information. He stated that their goal was to block the rezoning of the Restore Lake project; however, there was already a mobile home and a multifamily dwelling on the property, which was built as a 7,000 square foot barn, and opined that Pastor Broadway wanted to house people in that location, which was not authorized.

Commr. Smith asked if this issue would be discussed at the next planning and zoning meeting.

Ms. Mary Ellen Stern, Executive Director of Economic Growth, replied that the Restore Lake application had been withdrawn as of May 24, 2023, and that it would not be coming before the BCC for consideration.

Commr. Smith commented that if this issue came back, the County would send out notices.

Commr. Shields remarked that he had toured the facility seeking more information about Pastor Broadway’s business and how it benefited the community, and noted that the Board only set policy and was not code enforcement. He said that he had received emails stating that at a prior planning and zoning meeting, Pastor Broadway had asked for an increase in density in the Green Swamp area, and that in previous BCC meetings he had always voted against these types of requests.

Commr. Parks commented that the Board often did research on the issues, and that they visited the sites and talked to any interested parties.

Commr. Smith added that the Board visited the sites to understand the situations and to talk to the people affected by them, and said that this information could help in making decisions.

Ms. Dani Page, a resident of Lake County, questioned what the County planned to do regarding Pastor Broadway’s buildout of the 7,000 square foot building on the Bay Lake Road property, opining that it was illegal, and asked if they would be allowed to use it or be required to return it to its original state. She inquired if he would be held monetarily accountable with any fines for what he did, noting that the land in the Green Swamp was of critical state concern and zoned Agriculture.

public hearings: REZONING

rezoning consent agenda

Ms. Stern displayed the advertisements for that day’s rezoning cases on the overhead monitor in accordance with the Florida Statutes, and related that the Planning and Zoning Board had approved the following cases: Tab 1 was approved by on the consent agenda; Tab 2 was approved on the regular agenda with a vote of four to two; Tab 3 was unanimously approved on the regular agenda; and Tabs 4 and 5 were unanimously approved on the regular agenda on September 7, 2022. She added that the BCC had previously denied Tabs 4 and 5 with a vote of three to two, and that on April 11, 2023 the one year res judicata requirement was waived.

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. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tab 1, as follows:

Tab 1. Ordinance No. 2023-33

Rezoning Case # FLU-22-11-4

East Lake Sports and Community Complex

Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category (FLUC) on approximately 42 +/- acres from Receiving Area A-1-20 to Public Service Facility & Infrastructure FLUC and amend associated Comprehensive Plan Policies to support the development program for the LCBCC East Lake Sports and Community Complex Development to allow for the expansion of the existing park facility.

rezoning regular agenda

Tab 2.

Rezoning Case # RZ-22-27-4

Storage Masters

Rezone approximately 2.38 +/- acres from Residential Professional District (RP) to Planned Commercial District (CP) and amend Planned Commercial District (CP) Ordinance #36-87 to incorporate the 2.38 +/- acre parcel identified by Alternate Key Number 1597846 to facilitate the development of an additional mini storage warehouse.

Tab 3. Ordinance No. 2023-34

Rezoning Case # RZ-22-32-5

Costin Property

Rezone from the Ranchette District (RA) to Agricultural Residential District (AR) for the creation of two, two-acre lots to accommodate for the development of single-family dwellings.

Tab 4. Ordinance No. 2023-35

Rezoning Case # RZ-22-07-3

Harbor Shores Road PUD

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. Ordinance No. 2023-36

Rezoning Case # RZ-22-08-3

Goose Creek PUD

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.

STORAGE MASTERS

Ms. Stern presented Tab 2, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-27-4, Storage Masters, and explained that the applicant was requesting to rezone approximately 2.38 acres from Residential Professional (RP) to Planned Commercial (CP), and to amend CP Ordinance 36-87 to incorporate the 2.38 acre parcel identified as alternate key 1597846 to facilitate the development of an additional mini storage warehouse. She mentioned that the subject property was located north of Sorrento Avenue and east of Mt. Plymouth Loop in the Sorrento unincorporated area, and she displayed a map indicating that the subject property was currently designated as Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street Future Land Use (FLU) category; additionally, it had been zoned RP by Ordinance 1995-25 and CP by Ordinance 36-87. She showed the concept plan and said that the applicant had an existing 40,000 square foot mini storage warehouse, parking lot, and stormwater retention area and had proposed a new 30,400 square foot mini storage warehouse, parking lot, and stormwater retention area located on the adjacent parcel with alternate key 1597846. She commented that access was proposed from Mt. Plymouth Loop, and that the impervious area for overall development was 49.06 percent, which was consistent with the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street FLU. She concluded that staff found the rezoning request inconsistent with Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 7.00.04(B)(10)(e) and the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street FLU category as designated by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). She related that the applicant was requesting a waiver in reference to this LDR section, and that the Planning and Zoning Board had approved this item on the regular agenda with a 4-2 vote, noting that the Wekiva River Protection Area (WRPA) LDR was inconsistent with the 2030 Comp Plan.

Mr. McGregor Love, an attorney representing the applicant, commented that the total property was 4.37 acres, and he showed an image with the existing zoning of RP. He mentioned that the rest of the unified project would be zoned CP, and that the overlays included the WRPA and the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Community Redevelopment Area (CRA). He recalled that the CRA was established in 2012, and that it was slightly over 2,000 acres in eastern Lake County. He related that the CRA goal was to create a redevelopment plan that included strategies for transitioning the economy from a small rural community into a family-oriented community and a destination for visitors. He mentioned that it was funded by tax increment financing, and that any CRA tax revenues from increases to real property values went directly to the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento CRA trust fund, which was dedicated to the improvements and incentives that a CRA was designed to provide. He relayed the development history of the property, and he clarified that the request was to amend Ordinance 36-87 to include the subject property to the east and allow for 30,400 square feet of additional mini storage. He related that the existing storage facility was just under 40,000 square feet with 400 total units, and was a mix of climate controlled and non-climate controlled units; additionally, it was currently 96 percent occupied, opining that this showed that there was a demand for these units in the area. He commented that the proposal was to build a 30,400 square foot climate controlled mini storage warehouse on the property, and that even though the maximum allowed impervious surface area was 60 percent, this would only be 49 percent. He added that access to the property was via a joint access aisle, and that it was not an outdoor or a drive-up facility. He displayed a closer view of the concept plan and pointed out that the building was 145 feet from the right of way line and was separated with a masonry buffer wall and a stormwater pond. He relayed that reasons supporting the proposed use included the following: the proposed use was an expansion of an existing storage facility and was not a new project; the topography and dimensions of the property made it unsuited for small-scale commercial; the incremental tax value of the improved land would add funding to CRA; and the proposed use was consistent with the FLU. He relayed that the property was higher at the northern boundary, and that the retention needed to be located along the right of way. He opined that direct access to State Road (SR) 46 was infeasible, as Comp Plan Policy I-3.4.9 indicated that “Development shall use joint or shared access to the maximum extent feasible in order to minimize impervious surfaces,” which the request was consistent with. He indicated that the minimum connection spacing under the code for this speed limit would be 440 feet, and that there was around 280 feet available. He opined that even if there was a demand for it, the subject parcel was inappropriate for small scale commercial, and that it was not laid out practically for that type of use; rather, he opined that it was appropriate for an expansion of this facility. He opined that the area had seen little development of vacant parcels since 2012, and he reiterated that the incremental tax value would go directly to the CRA. He mentioned that the current taxes for the subject property as of the previous year was around $1,900, and that the current taxes for the developed west parcel was about $25,000; therefore, the value of the subject property would presumably increase substantially, and the difference between the $1,900 and the improved value would go directly to the CRA to fund incentives which could further the cause of the CRA. He disagreed that only small scale commercial was appropriate within the CRA, and opined that it was not consistent with the Comp Plan description, which discussed a balanced mix of uses that were intended to establish a diverse, sustainable community by meeting the housing and daily needs of people from all stages of life, incomes and professions. He opined that individuals who were renting or who had smaller units had a need for self-storage because there was a current 96 percent occupancy rate, and that this was a part of a balanced mix of uses; additionally, self-storage was among the lowest nonresidential traffic-generating uses. He remarked that the Comp Plan policy for the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street FLU and the WRPA had not been reconciled as clearly in the code as what otherwise might be helpful, and that the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street FLU was intended for nonresidential, residential, and a mix of uses. He commented that a substantial portion of this district was located in the WRPA, and that there was a policy under code which indicated that nonresidential development in the WRPA was only appropriate at certain discrete intersections, as reflected in the staff report. He said that the subject property and no portion of the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street FLU was within one of those intersections, and he questioned if nonresidential development was allowed. He commented that if one was to interpret this as they could not develop within the WRPA which was also designated for the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street FLU, then this portion would not be allowed to be used for nonresidential purposes. He recalled that this had been discussed at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing and that there had been a recommendation of approval, despite not having requested a waiver. He added that it was suggested for the applicant to make a waiver request, given that it was at odds with the foundational intent of the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street FLU; furthermore, they made this waiver request concurrently with their zoning request.

Commr. Smith asked the Board to disclose ex parte communications.

Commr. Shields indicated that he had spoken to some residents.

Commr. Parks said that he had met with Mr. Clark Morris.

Commr. Campione mentioned that she had many discussions because of her service as liaison to the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento CRA, and that she had various discussions with members of the community, including chamber of commerce members and CRA members.

Commr. Blake relayed that he had a meeting with Ms. Joann Maynard and Mr. Clark Morris, and that he had a phone conversation with Mr. Tim Bailey, along with various emails.

Commr. Smith indicated that he had meetings with several citizens and had done some site visits.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Maureen Miller, a resident on County Road (CR) 435, commented that Mt. Plymouth already had a main street center which emerged from the efforts of planning experts, students in city planning, and volunteers. She opined that this plan had the potential to attract investment in the community, along with attracting more businesses, increasing property values, and benefiting Lake County’s economic picture. She opined that the proposed request for changing the RP zoning to CP was inconsistent with the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street FLU category’s intent to preserve the sense of place and shared identity. She expressed concerns for the 1995 rezoning to build a self-storage facility, and opined that it was not a justification to continue with this. She opined that it would be the Board’s decision to approve a zoning variance which was contrary to the community’s best interest, or to allow the Mt. Plymouth community to flourish and grow with its own plan. She urged the Board to deny the request, opining that this rezoning would effectively discard their plans for the future and relegate their main street center to being unattractive.

Mr. Merle Bishop, a planner representing the applicant, relayed his credentials and said that he had reviewed this request and Mr. Love’s statement that it was consistent with the requirement for mixed use, noting that he agreed with this. He also believed that if this was a new self-storage facility, then he would agree with the residents; however, he opined that this was a successful business as indicated by the 96 percent occupancy rate, relaying that they wanted to expand. He asked the Board to allow a successful business in this location to expand their current use and current operation, opining that allowing it to expand did not prevent the policies that promoted the development of this area as a main street and having a sense of place. He opined that many of the businesses coming there would probably have a need for this type of use, and he relayed his understanding that the policies and the LDR currently conflicted and needed to be resolved. He indicated his understanding that if the policy which stated that commercial development could only occur at four intersections was strictly adhered to, then none of this property could develop. He added that the WRPA disallowed nonresidential development, and that the policies which promoted a sense of place or a main street could not be realized if the policies were strictly enforced; therefore, the applicant made the request for a waiver because of this inconsistency between the Comp Plan and the LDR. He requested the Board’s consideration for approval.

Commr. Campione asked if this project could be designed in such a way that they could have a sense of place.

Mr. Bishop replied that he had seen self-storage which would blend in more in terms of architectural style, use of color, and use of materials. He added that it could be made to fit more appropriately within the community, and that he had expressed this concern with the new owner, noting that there were design standards currently in the code that they would have to adhere to. He relayed that the owner had plans for a masonry building, and that they would try to make it blend in with the community.

Commr. Parks inquired about how they planned to meet the intent of the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street FLU category.

Mr. Bishop said that there would be sidewalks, and that there were not any sidewalks currently. He relayed that the building was set back from the road, and that if they were able to put it up on the road, there would be the opportunity to make this design look like a typical commercial building. He commented that the retention was placed upfront, similar to the other development, because of the topography, noting that the property sloped from the north to the south. He added that they would retain trees on the property and install landscaping and other materials, and that they would not use colors or materials which would not be in keeping with a typical downtown commercial development.

Commr. Campione stated that the current property had bright yellow and words on the wall.

Mr. Bishop clarified that his client did not do this, and that his client was purchasing this property with the intention of being able to do this expansion.

Commr. Campione asked if the owner would retrofit what he was expanding to make it all uniform.

Mr. Bishop indicated that the owner was not present, but that he would tell him of Commissioner Campione’s concerns.

Ms. Newton relayed that the staff determined that this request was inconsistent with the LDR and the Comp Plan, and opined that they could not waive the Comp Plan. She commented that the WRPA was restricted to these intersections at the current time for commercial development, and that this property was not in those areas; furthermore, she opined that it was out of compliance with the two acres. She remarked that this was a State protection area, and opined that the property did not fit either of these requirements. She said that the Comp Plan also limited density and intensity of the land use within the WRPA, and she opined that this was an existing nonconforming facility. She stated that the intent and goal of the WRPA was to bring nonconforming areas into compliance rather than expanding them and compounding the issue, and opined that the proposal should be denied.

Mr. Fred Antonio, a resident of Sorrento, stated that he had visited the site, and opined that there was not anything unique about the subject property that would make it appropriate only for the proposed expansion. He opined that it could be used for other types of development or activity, and that seeing it as a storage area would not benefit the community.

Mr. Clark Morris, a concerned citizen, opined that the community would like to see a walkable downtown and a traditional neighborhood design, and that there was a higher and better use for this location. He believed that storage facilities should be hidden in sections of town away from where people lived, and he expressed concerns about the aesthetics of the existing facility. He opined that there was a higher use that could make the subject property owner more money in the long run, as well as having other properties around it be higher value and make more money.

Ms. Joann Maynard, a member of the Mt. Plymouth Landowners League, opined that the majority of residents in Mt. Plymouth opposed more storage units on Sorrento Avenue. She relayed that a poll was conducted on Nextdoor.com, and that of the 72 residents that responded, 96 percent wanted more mom and pop stores, sidewalks, and more walkability, noting that only four percent wanted more storage units. She opined that changing the zoning to CP would not create pedestrian activity, and she listed the following existing businesses on the south side of their main street: a restaurant; a flooring business; a pharmacy; and a hair salon. She opined that the business district on their main street should be a community center that catered to the local population, as well as Lake County visitors, and she asked the Board to consider the impact that this would have on the community and their physical surroundings. She opined that storage units were not their vision for their main street, noting that studies had been done by the University of Central Florida (UCF) at the request of the Mt. Plymouth Sorrento CRA with community participation to create this vision. She asked what happened to the results of the study and this vision, and she opined that the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento area was the gateway to Lake County from Seminole County; additionally, she questioned if the Board would want their main street to look like a second rate community. She relayed that the Office of Parks and Trails and the community were working to promote visitors and locals to bike or walk the Mt. Plymouth historical on-road bike route and the Neighborhood Lakes trails, and to visit Lake Edwards and the Sunken Gardens. She asked the Board to deny this request.

Ms. Frances Nipe, a resident on Pine Valley Drive, showed a map of the area and pointed out CP zonings, opining that the area had much CP already where storage units could be placed. She expressed concerns for having more storage units in their market district, and she indicated that the Wekiva Trail would go by their main street, opining that this would bring much ecotourism to the area. She objected to the requested project, and noted that the parcel was in the WRPA where only RP and planned unit developments (PUDs) were permitted. She opined that the applicant was not showing a traditional storefront or office front as required in the Comp Plan design standards, and she indicated that the policy stated that it was the intent of this category to establish a market within walking distance to support shops, and provide opportunities for walking, biking, and alternative transportation. She mentioned that a sidewalk was proposed in the complete streets plan and the redevelopment plan, and suggested a compromise to put a traditional storefront or office in the front with the storage units in the back.

Ms. Theresa Hines, the prior owner of Storage Masters, stated that the storage site served the immediate community and had been full for years. She recalled that when they built the storage site, they received a beautification award from the chamber of commerce, noting that it had a continuous block wall and was unobtrusive. She opined that it could be more heavily landscaped to blend in with the community, and that it had served the community for years. She added that when they built the facility, they thought that there would eventually be an expansion.

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

Commr. Smith asked about why the County said the request was inconsistent.

Mr. David Langley, Assistant County Attorney, explained that the current WRPA LDR was passed in 1995 and reflected the older Comp Plan passed in 1991. He elaborated that there was no Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento CRA or intended commercial, retail or walkability in the 1991 Comp Plan. He added that in 2011, the County passed the current 2030 Comp Plan, and that there was an apparent inconsistency between the LDR and the intent for commercial because the LDR tied all commercial to the intersections; therefore, one would not be able to do the proposed commercial northeast of SR 46 and CR 437. He mentioned that the LDR could be more specific and the Board could slowly broaden them as a tool for growth, and that currently, the LDR was significantly more restrictive than the Comp Plan allowed.

Mr. Love opined that there had not been much development in the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento CRA since it had been created about 10 years prior, and that the subject development would help fund the CRA and add incremental tax value which would allow the plan to be better acted on by providing incentives for future development of what was traditionally associated with the CRA. He opined that this use was consistent with the CRA, and that it was part of a balanced mix of uses which would serve the nearby residents. He reiterated that this was an expansion, and opined that the access issues made it impractical for being directly off the main road; additionally, the topography would make it challenging for frontloaded commercial. He opined that when considering the history of the property and what it would mean for the CRA trust fund, it was an appropriate use.

Commr. Parks inquired if the LDR should be changed before something like this was approved.

Mr. Langley indicated that the Board could send it back and make the LDR more applicable to what the 2030 Comp Plan intended for the area.

Mr. Love relayed his understanding that the Comp Plan was inconsistent with the LDR, and that the Comp Plan allowed for nonresidential commercial uses. He stated that the LDR said that one could only develop commercial at five intersections; therefore, he opined that the LDR needed to be amended.

Commr. Campione recalled that the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento area had been designated as an urban compact node and was given special treatment because there was old zoning there. She said that it was supposed to be singled out as an area that was going to be a main street area, and that the designated intersections were in the act to basically say that they were only going to allow real commercial in these specific places. She stated that the urban compact node was supposed to have its own rules, and opined that the County needed to bring these items together in a way that made sense. She recalled the idea of a compromise for the design of the project to fit the main street feel and look to provide what the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento CRA had been trying to accomplish, while still providing what the market showed was needed. She questioned how to accomplish this but still be true to what the CRA Board had worked on, and opined that there was a good compromise to be found. She added that at the same time, the County could work on making its LDR consistent with the Comp Plan. She thought that the Board should postpone this item to a date certain and work with the applicant to come up with a compromise to address the regulations.

Commr. Parks agreed with this, and opined that a compromise could be made. He also expressed concerns with not being consistent with the Comp Plan.

Mr. Love indicated that the request was to amend the 1987 ordinance which covered the existing development, and that if there were conditions that the Board would like to impose which would make the existing development more consistent with the current plan for the area, then this could be discussed.

Commr. Campione opined that since it was a CP zoning, it would seem appropriate for the applicant to possibly come up with what the design would look like. She asked if they could make a design which would demonstrate the following: adhering to the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento CRA design criteria; allowing for a mix of uses; serving the immediate community; providing walkability and acceptable aesthetics; and allowing commercial in the rear of the property.

Commr. Smith inquired if delaying this item for a month would put undue stress on the applicant or cause any issues with the sale of the property.

Mr. Love responded that a continuance of 30 days would be agreeable.

Ms. Barker relayed that this would be the July 11, 2023 BCC meeting, which would be a regular BCC meeting combined with a planning and zoning meeting.

On a motion by Commr Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board postponed Tab 2, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-27-4, Storage Masters, to the July 11, 2023, BCC meeting.

costin property

Ms. Stern presented Tab 3, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-32-5, Costin Property. She explained that it was located at 1022 Darcy Road in unincorporated Lady Lake and was approximately 4.24 acres, and that the request was to rezone the property from the Ranchette District (RA) to Agricultural Residential District (AR) for the creation of two, two-acre lots to accommodate the development of single-family dwellings. She stated that the subject property was currently designated as Urban Low FLU, and that the concept plan showed the proposed east lot as being approximately two acres, which included an existing house, and the other lot as being approximately 2.24 acres for another single-family dwelling. She relayed that staff found the rezoning application consistent with the LDR and the Comp Plan, and that the applicant was in attendance to answer questions.

Commr. Smith asked the Board to disclose ex parte communications, but there were none.

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. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 3, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-32-5, Costin Property.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:18 a.m. for 12 minutes.

harbor shores road pud and goose creek pud

Ms. Stern presented Tab 4, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-07-3, Harbor Shores Road PUD. She stated that it was located south of CR 44, northwest and east of Harbor Shores Road and west of Lake Eustis, and that the request was to rezone approximately 34.46 acres from Medium Residential (R-3) and Urban Residential (R-6) to PUD to facilitate development of a 118 lot single-family residential subdivision at a density of approximately 3.82 units per acre. She stated that the subject property was currently in the Urban Low FLU, which allowed a maximum density of four units per acre, and that the revised concept plan showed the 118 single-family residential lots and the changed entrance, noting that other changes included a vinyl fence around the property adjacent to the public right of ways and additional amenities for passive recreational uses. She relayed that the minimum proposed lot size was 40 feet by 120 feet with a minimum 1,200 square foot lot size, and that the proposed development standards included 60 percent impervious surface ratio (ISR) and 25 percent minimum open space. She commented that staff found the rezoning amendment to be consistent with the LDR and Comp Plan, and that the Planning and Zoning Board had recommended for the BCC to include the widening of the additional sections of Harbor Shores Road in the five year capital improvement plan. She then presented Tab 5, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-08-3, Goose Creek PUD, noting that it was located south of Goose Creek Road in the City of Leesburg, and that the request was to rezone approximately 46.43 acres from AR and R-6 to PUD for the development of a 145 lot residential subdivision. She related that this property had a FLU of Urban Low density, and that the proposed rezoning was consistent with the LDR with a maximum density of four dwellings per acre. She displayed the updated concept plan, which showed 145 single-family dwelling units with access from Goose Creek Road and Eagle Point Court, including additional right of way through the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA) property, and said that they had added a proposed vinyl fence around lots one through 39. She relayed that the minimum lot width was 50 feet with a minimum lot size of 1,200 square feet, and that the proposed open space was 25 percent. She stated that staff found the rezoning application consistent with the LDR and Comp Plan, and that the applicant had a presentation for the Board.

Commr. Smith asked the Board to disclose ex parte communications.

Commr. Parks disclosed that he had communicated with the applicant a few months prior.

Commr. Campione said that she had conversations with the applicant’s engineer, Halff Associates, Inc.

Commr. Blake disclosed that he had conversed with the applicant previously, and that since then, he had received emails from residents.

Commr. Smith stated that he had email and phone call conversations with both the engineer and the applicant.

Commr. Parks asked that the staff show the land development code 9.07.04 about permits required, and questioned if the floodplain application was made before the zoning permits were submitted.

Ms. Janie Barrón, Chief Planner for the Office of Planning and Zoning, explained that when the application was distributed, their liaison for the Public Works Department reviewed the application for flood and transportation concurrency.

Commr. Campione inquired if the question referred to flood determination, noting that there could be no work on the floodplain before site work was done.

Commr. Parks stated that the code said, “Any owner or applicant who intends to undertake any development activity within the scope of this section, including buildings, structures and facilities exempt from the Florida Building Code, which is wholly within or partially within any flood hazard area shall first make application to the Floodplain Administrator and the Building Official, if applicable, and shall obtain the required permits and approvals. No such permit or approval shall be issued until compliance with the requirements of this section and all other applicable codes and regulations has been satisfied.” He opined that it referred to zoning and was applicable.

Mr. Jeff Earhart, Engineering Manager for the Public Works Department, relayed his understanding that they had not received anything related to the floodplain, noting that they would generally see that in the design phase.

Commr. Campione commented that she had not heard this questioned before as part of a zoning application, and relayed her understanding that there could be no work in the floodplain until there was a permit.

Commr. Parks pointed out that per Lake County code, they were supposed to get a floodplain administration certificate or permit before zoning.

Mr. Earhart relayed his understanding that this was not their standard practice.

Commr. Parks asked if the Public Works Department would be able to address the local road widths in the vicinity.

Mr. Earhart replied that the majority of the roads were 20 feet wide with a 66 foot wide right of way, and that they had the ability to widen a large percentage of them; however, there were several curved areas with limited right of way, which would not allow for a gentler curve; furthermore, sidewalks could be placed in some places but not others because of close driveways.

Commr. Parks inquired if they were all access roads less than 24 feet.

Mr. Earhart answered that they were all 20 foot access roads.

Commr. Shields questioned what the funding mechanism would be to pay for widening.

Ms. Barker replied that the County could utilized a variety of funding mechanisms, such as impact fees, Infrastructure Sales Tax, and gas tax.

Ms. Stern stated that in reference to the code, staff would review the process since it was not their practice to bring the floodplain into call until it was required for construction.

Mr. Langley commented that in the draft of the ordinance, it required the developer to be in compliance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Comp Plan, and the LDR, which referenced the floodplain requirements.

Commr. Parks remarked that if the ordinance was approved, then the applicant would go through the normal criteria and would have to create compensating storage, which had been an issue after prior hurricanes.

Commr. Campione asked if this code referred to the zoning application or the zoning clearance, and opined that the County may have to change the zoning application process.

Ms. Barrón stated that it specifically referenced permits, not development applications.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the applicant would need zoning clearance to obtain a permit, and that the County had not interpreted it to refer to the zoning application.

Commr. Smith opined that the applicant should not have to submit a site plan before obtaining the zoning.

Ms. Barrón said that this policy had not been revamped, opining that it could be confusing; therefore, they would work with the Public Works Department and revisit it.

Mr. Logan Opsahl, an attorney representing the applicant, stated that the Harbor Shores property had an FLU of Urban Low and the current split zonings of R-3 and R-6, which allowed a maximum density of four dwelling units per acre and required 25 percent open space. He pointed out that there were some real densities existing currently on the property, and that they were proposing 118 units, which was a slight decrease in density. He stated that Lake County required any development over 50 units to acquire a PUD zoning, and that it allowed the Board to ensure that the property complied with other performance standards. He mentioned that they complied with the open space requirement and offered other amenities and voluntary restrictions as a result of communication with residents and staff, including moving the access to another portion, which could help alleviate traffic. He explained that the vinyl fence proposal was a result of a voluntary community meeting held with residents who had requested that they provide additional screening and barriers, noting that there were also other changes requested, including open space and rental limits. He relayed that they were proposing some family amenities, such as a tot lot, a dog park, a pocket park, or other passive recreational amenities, and that there would be water treatment system upgrades to increase service reliability and to alleviate the possibility of issues. He remarked that regarding environmental impacts, there were wetlands on the property, which necessitated additional regulatory review procedures, and that they had an environmental assessment done, which found some gopher tortoise burrows. He related that dark sky lighting would apply to individual lot owners as well as the property at large. He stated that regarding flooding concerns, they would have to go through the permitting process, which was already discussed, before any development could commence, and that even though there was some existing flooding in the general vicinity of the project after the hurricanes of the previous year, drainage and water retention infrastructure could help properly contain it. He commented that they had done a traffic signal warrant analysis, and that the traffic engineer concluded that a traffic signal would not be required at the intersection of CR 44 and Harbor Shores Road for the added traffic from the two projects. He mentioned that staff had concluded that this application was consistent with all elements of the LDR and the Comp Plan, and that the proposed PUD met the adopted level of service standards. He then stated that the Goose Creek project was proposing 145 lots where the existing zoning entitled them to 185 lots, and that they were required to have the open space and the other voluntary restrictions that had been discussed and were contained in the PUD ordinance; additionally, some of the surrounding subdivisions had similar densities to what was requested. He stated that the prior plan had a single access point to the south, and that the additional access to Goose Creek Road diverted traffic away from the area improving the traffic concern and allowing for proper site circulation for traffic safety. He related that the environmental requirements had already been addressed in the ordinance, and that the dark sky lighting would also be applied to this property. He said that there would be landscaping and other buffering, and that the same rules would apply to flood management on this project as on the other project; furthermore, the staff report concluded that this request was in harmony with the general intent of the Comp Plan and LDR.

Mr. Chuck Hiott, with Halff Associates, Inc., mentioned that many of the requests came from the residents, and that they responded to the residents and conceded on a few, but not all, of their requests, such as rentals, noting that they left this issue to the discretion of the buyer. He commented that regarding access to the Goose Creek project, the original plan had one point of access, which was a safety issue, and that they had approached the LCWA to obtain the necessary right of way off Goose Creek Road for the second access, which would take some of the traffic off of Harbor Shores Road. He relayed that the entrance to the Harbor Shores Road project was originally on the south side, which the residents objected to, and that they had gone back to the County to change the entrance to the west side at an existing intersection.

Commr. Parks questioned if they were including the drainage retention areas as open space, and Mr. Hiott said that was correct. Commissioner Parks then asked if those drainage areas would be sodded.

Mr. Hiott replied that there would be sod and dry ponds, and noted that because it was next to Lake Eustis, the stormwater requirements were more stringent than normal. He stated that if the dry ponds had to be wet ponds, they would then have to be treated for phosphorous and nitrogen going through the system.

Commr. Parks inquired if the 50 foot setbacks from the wetland areas per the Comp Plan was to the lots or including the lots.

Mr. Hiott explained that the wetland lines shown on the map had not been approved by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and could change; therefore the lines showed a 25 foot upland buffer that was required by the SJRWMD with a 15 foot minimum, and that the 50 foot setback was to the lot line.

Commr. Parks pointed out that on the Harbor Shores site plan, it said that the 50 foot setback was to the building.

Mr. Hiott mentioned that there was a building setback of 50 feet from a wetland, and that the map showed a 50 foot setback to the lot line in most cases. He relayed his understanding that according to the Comp Plan, there was a 50 foot wetland buffer, which could be in the lot and did not need to have its own tract, and that the Comp Plan allowed them to put stormwater retention within 25 feet of that. He explained that a lot draining from front to back could not bring stormwater from the backyard to the front yard, which would require a swale in the backyard, and that the 25 foot drainage area handled the stormwater from the lot itself, noting that it could not be any closer than the 25 foot undisturbed requirement per the SJRWMD.

Commr. Parks stated that his interpretation of the Comp Plan was different.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that before they developed the land, they would need approval from SJRWMD and Lake County permitting, and that the rules of both would need to be observed.

Commr. Parks opined that the ordinance referenced this site plan, and that the Board should ensure that it was correct.

Mr. Hiott remarked that they were not asking for anything that was different from what was currently in the code, and that they would have to follow whatever the law dictated regardless of what the site plan said.

Commr. Campione asked if the plans shown were construction plans.

Mr. Hiott replied that they were just concept plans, and that not knowing where the wetland line was could cause changes in the plan, which depended on information from the SJRWMD.

Commr. Campione opined that what was needed was a statement in the PUD clarifying that this was a conceptual plan, and that the construction plans would be more specific and have more details.

Commr. Parks remarked that he would like to see the language; however, the Board would be making a decision on the current day off of the concept plan.

Mr. Hiott commented that what the Board was seeing was what they were requesting, and that the Comp Plan stated that there could be nothing impervious within a 50 foot wetland buffer, which included a building, shed, or pool. He explained that because they had to construct a sidewalk in the cul-de-sac, which was impervious, they had asked for some variances, which had been approved, and that this allowed them to meet the SJRWMD 25 foot buffer standard and allow for the sidewalk to be within that 50 foot wetland buffer.

Commr. Parks inquired what the 50 foot wetland buffer to the building meant, and relayed his understanding that it could not be part of somebody’s platted lot.

Mr. Hiott stated that they could change that building setback if the buffer could not be in the lot.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that it was part of the Comp Plan.

Ms. Barrón indicated that this was correct, and that in the ordinance under the Section 1 terms, it stated that to the extent that there were conflicts between the exhibit, or the concept plan, and the ordinance, the ordinance would take precedence. She related that when they reviewed any application, they addressed all those comments, noting that the revised concept plan was recently provided for staff to insert for the current BCC meeting. She explained that should the request be approved, staff would review that information and the preliminary plat application, and that it could also be entered as a specific condition of the setback area.

Commr. Campione opined that if no portion of a wetland buffer could be included within the confines of a platted lot, it should be clarified in the ordinance, and Ms. Barrón indicated that this could be done. Commissioner Campione then inquired if the tot lot and the dog park that were referenced would both be incorporated into the development.

Mr. Hiott relayed that they had agreed with the residents to construct some parks in the two developments to keep families in the neighborhood, noting that they did not have the locations yet.

Commr. Campione stated that the ordinance said that amenities could include those referenced, opining that it should say that it shall be included.

Mr. Hiott indicated that this would be agreeable to do; however, they did not yet know what the amenities would be.

Commr. Campione said that the ordinance should specify this.

Mr. Hiott asked if the ordinance could indicate that one of those amenities shall be included in each development, such as a dog park, tot lot, walking trail, or a gazebo with grills. He relayed his understanding that the Goose Creek development would have a large open space on the adjacent LCWA property, which hopefully would be open to the public, and that the Harbor Shores development could just have a tot lot.

Commr. Campione opined that the LCWA property would be a great place for open space and recreation; however, it was not a dog park.

Commr. Parks commented that according to the definitions in Chapter 2 of the land development code for open space, it said that “minimum required open space may include permeable stormwater management areas if it enhances amenities utilizing native vegetation,” which was why he had asked about the sod.

Mr. Hiott remarked that stormwater retention areas were sodded for erosion protection, and that whatever native vegetation was planted there had to be maintained.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Michael Daniels, a resident of Forest Lake Road, opined that the second access to Goose Creek Road would not help the wildlife, such as gopher tortoises, bears, and bobcats. He expressed concern about the density in the area and the traffic, and opined that it was a beautiful area, which was why he had come to live there. He expressed concern about flooding in the Harbor Shores Road area, noting that after the hurricanes of the previous year, there was water within three feet of the road. He hoped that the Board would listen to their concerns and reject the application as was done the time before.

Ms. Susanne McKee, a resident of Blue Heron Way, recalled that this application was denied based on the safety issues of Harbor Shores Road, and opined that this had not changed, noting that it was not being improved and could not be widened or given sidewalks. She asked where exactly the vinyl fencing would be placed, noting that the northern side of the property was wooded.

Ms. Sharon Carr, a resident of Harbor Shores Road, expressed concern for the safety of children walking to the bus stops and fishing areas and of the many retirees who walked, biked, and picked up trash on the narrow roads; additionally, there were many residents who used golf carts in the area. She opined that with the additional traffic, their safety would be compromised, and that road improvements, including road widening, turn lanes, stop signs, a traffic signal, and an escrow account for future repairs were needed and should be required for the safety of the residents.

Mr. Robert Peyton, a resident of Harbor Shores, stated that he opposed both the Goose Creek and Harbor Shores Road developments based on the increased density and traffic issues, opining that it would increase liabilities for Lake County because of the issues that existed in the area currently. He expressed concern about the safety of children who had to cross the street to get to the bus stop, and opined that there would be about 400 more car trips daily because of the increased housing. He expressed concern about CR 44, which was a 55 mile per hour road, and pointed out that there were no proper turn lanes into the area. He opined that there would be an increase in traffic accidents, and that infrastructure improvements should be made before considering more development projects. He also opined that this would negatively affect the current residents, and he requested that the Board would consider the impacts to the community.

Mr. Jason Sayre, a resident of Lake County, presented some surveys of adjacent properties, opining that they were included in the open space calculations for the proposed developments. He opined that the wetland was being considered and calculated as part of the open space, and that this should not be done. He also opined that the Board should not agree to a rendering while not knowing where the wetland boundaries were, what the proper setbacks were, and what the actual open space calculation was.

Mr. Langley commented that Mr. Sayre was a party at the previous hearing for this application; however, they had not received a notice for this public hearing. He said that he did not know if Mr. Sayre’s intent was to be a party to this proceeding, noting that if he was a party to this hearing, it would make him liable to any suits that came from this.

Mr. Sayre indicated that he did not want to be a party, and recalled that he had previously introduced a petition signed by over 500 residents at the October 11, 2022 BCC meeting. He opined that circumstances had not changed, and pointed out that there were many residents in attendance opposing the projects. He related that they opposed these projects for many reasons, including the following: Harbor Shores Road was a substandard road; the proposed developments did not match the current density makeup of the local area; there were improper calculations of wetland and open space on the most recent rendering of the Harbor Shores Road project; and the entrances off of CR 44 had issues, opining that there should be a turn lane to allow access to these communities.

Mr. Gary Wiepking, a resident of Shangri-La by the Lake, expressed concern about the eagle’s nest on the Harbor Shores Road property, and relayed his understanding that it was an active nest. He mentioned that an Audubon EagleWatch representative had been monitoring the nests on this property and the LCWA property, which was adjacent to the Goose Creek project, opining that this should be taken into consideration. He stated that even though the fledglings had left the nest, they were still circulating in the area, and that the nest was still active. He relayed his understanding that an active nest would require the applicant to preserve a 660 foot circumference around the nest, and that if it was inactive, it would require 330 feet, which would have an impact on this project. He expressed concern about the gopher turtles, and opined that many neighbors would be watching the nest and the property to ensure no violations were being made. He said that he wanted some kind of assurance from the developer that they would take the wildlife into consideration.

Mr. John Davis, a resident of Eagle Point Court, recalled that at the prior hearing for these cases a video of cars driving down Harbor Shores Road was presented. He opined that Harbor Shores Road was still unsafe, and that the Board had voted against these projects previously because it was unsafe. He remarked that the developer was offering nothing to improve Harbor Shores Road, and that there was no possibility of a traffic signal, opining that they had made the two intersections on CR 44 more dangerous. He opined that they could not drive to these properties safely, and he encouraged the Board to vote against these developments.

Ms. Toni Peyton, a resident of Harbor Shores, opined that these projects created safety issues for the children, and that they had reduced setbacks; additionally, they were ruining the natural green space and drastically damaging their wetlands and wildlife. She expressed concerns about safety, the number of vehicles on the roads, and overdevelopment, and she asked for a decrease in density. She opined that the developer was using the wetlands as a green space, and that they needed a better alternative for the green space.

Ms. Elaine Wiepking, a resident of Shangri-La by the Lake, expressed concern about the lack of availability for emergency services, and wondered what would happen when there were 275 more homes, opining that the emergency responders were already overextended. She expressed concern about the narrow road, and opined that the traffic appraisal was not accurate as it was not done at peak times during snowbird season; additionally she wondered where the children would ride their bikes.

Ms. Melodie Downey, a resident of Shangri-La by the Lake, opined that impact fees would not cover the damage being done to the roads, and suggested that the County require a construction bond from the developer to pay for the repaving of Harbor Shores Road once the project was complete. She mentioned that the open burning of land clearing debris required 1,000 feet of distance from any residential area, and that the Harbor Shores Road property was surrounded by residents. She commented that she would like representatives from their group working with staff to ensure that there was 1,000 feet of clearance.

Ms. Katherine MacGowan, a resident of Harbor Shores Road, opined that Harbor Shores Road was dangerous as it was narrow with winding curves, and she asked the Board to consider this when making their decision.

Mr. Julian MacGowan, a resident of Harbor Shores Road, expressed concern about the safety of Harbor Shores Road, and asked that the Board would deny the application.

Ms. Lisa Hayden, a resident of Dennis Road, displayed an aerial image of CR 44 between Goose Creek Road and Shelley Drive, and opined that the developer would have to add right turn lanes from CR 44 onto Goose Creek Road and Shelley Drive, creating a safer ingress.

Mr. Austin Sayre, a resident of Harbor Shores Road, opined that the Board should deny the project because of safety issues; however, if it could not be denied, then he opined that the application could be tabled until the following conditions were met: maintaining the safety of the existing community; vetting the access management plan; conducting a proper traffic study; reviewing the green space calculations; and widening Harbor Shores Road using capital from the developer.

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

Mr. Opsahl expressed appreciation for the feedback, and said that they would include both a tot lot and a dog park in each development. He commented that regarding the wildlife, there were requirements and criteria that they had to meet, and that even though they had an environmental assessment report, they would provide another one per the terms of the code; furthermore, they would follow all the regulations for buffering and mitigation for the eagle’s nest. He related that regarding density, R-6 was the existing zoning, and they were entitled to that use, which was up to six dwelling units per acre, noting that they were removing densities as they currently existed. He relayed that sidewalks, accessibility, and safety were important to them, and that they would be building sidewalks for pedestrian safety. He opined that the second access to the Goose Creek project was important because it would alleviate traffic from Harbor Shores Road, which was also important to the residents who came to the voluntary community meetings. He remarked that they would update the traffic study, and that they would work with staff to address issues per the requirements of the code. He clarified that on the Harbor Shores Road project, the vinyl fencing would go around the property along Harbor Shores Road, and noted that this was a request from one of the voluntary meetings.

Commr. Campione commented that according to the site plan, it looked as if there would still be some trees between the back of the lots and the right of way, and she inquired if the trees would need to be removed to put in the fencing.

Mr. Opsahl replied that some trees may have to be removed to install the fencing, and that they would have to comply with the code for tree removal.

Commr. Smith questioned if the fencing was not in the original plan, but was added after the community meetings, and Mr. Opsahl indicated that this was correct.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that even though there was much opposition, this seemed to be an important issue to agree to; however, one comment was that if there was fencing, then the wildlife would be impeded.

Mr. Opsahl commented that they were trying to meet as many requests as possible to alleviate some concerns while balancing interests, and that this was one point that was raised that they agreed to.

Commr. Parks remarked that regarding open space, the drainage retention area should be vegetated with native species, and opined that they could not use bahia grass.

Mr. Opsahl relayed his understanding that University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences UF/IFAS did list bahia grass as either native or Florida friendly; however, they would comply with the Board’s requests.

Commr. Parks pointed out that on the concept plan, the drainage retention areas were referred to as amenities, and that even though they had a function and a purpose, people cared about how they looked, opining that it should be included in the ordinance.

Mr. Opsahl commented that they would work with staff on that clarification, and that one of the revisions of the PUD was that they would comply with or exceed all code requirements.

Commr. Blake asked what the issue was with that kind of sod.

Commr. Parks answered that it referred to the retention area as a multiuse area, and that the intent of open space was to benefit residents, opining that it should be aesthetically pleasing. He opined that there was also value in wildlife that would utilize it, and that native vegetation increased the water retention; additionally, he opined that a native drainage retention area was better.

Commr. Campione inquired if the intent was to give it more of the appearance of being a natural wetland feature, and she asked how they would maintain it.

Commr. Parks opined that it could be dedicated to the County; however, in most cases, it was the responsibility of the Homeowner’s Association (HOA).

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the SJRWMD required it to be dedicated to the HOA, making them accountable for its upkeep.

Commr. Parks opined that for an area to qualify as open space, it should be landscaped with native vegetation.

Ms. Barrón commented that both ordinances contained language specifying that “drought tolerant, native trees and vegetation shall be utilized for all street trees, landscape buffers, and stormwater retention/detention areas.” She related that if approved, the preliminary plat would have to be consistent with what was in the ordinance and with the open space definition as it was in the LDR and the Comp Plan.

Commr. Parks questioned if the applicant would be willing to continue to meet with the neighbors to share their plans as they moved forward.

Mr. Opsahl replied that he would share his contact information after the presentation and be a facilitator.

Commr. Parks stated that both of the applications had come before the Board because there were more than 50 units being proposed, and opined that even if the applicants had done R-6, which was up to six units per acre, they still had to comply with the Comp Plan, which limited it four units per acre; therefore, they were not guaranteed six units per acre.

Ms. Barrón indicated that this was correct, and that any new use or rezoning had to be consistent with the FLU and the Comp Plan.

Commr. Campione inquired about the possibility of a turn lane on CR 44.

Mr. Earhart stated that the right of way on CR 44 was about 66 feet, and that it was possible that a shorter type of turn lane could be constructed, opining that it would be a good idea.

Commr. Campione commented that the additional right of way obtained by the applicant from the LCWA to extend Goose Creek Road to the applicant’s property could provide access to the LCWA property for future use and public access, opining that it would benefit the entire area. She opined that the access to the Goose Creek project changed the whole dynamic of the situation, providing a secondary access, and that she wanted to ensure that there could be a turn lane placed on CR 44 to accommodate the additional traffic. She remarked that regarding improvements on Harbor Shores Road, the County could utilize typical funding sources for traffic improvements.

Ms. Barker indicated that this was correct, and that these funding sources included impact fees, sales tax, and possibly gas tax.

Commr. Campione stated that she concurred with the Office of Planning and Zoning to include the widening of the additional sections of Harbor Shores Road in the five year capital improvement plan, and that the concerns expressed by the residents were concerns that already existed, opining that the road improvement should be moved up in priority because of the need. She mentioned that the zoning on this property was already zoned for residential purposes, noting that the current Board had not authorized a new zoning or higher density for this project. She explained that the applicant was asking for authorization to do these projects as planned developments as opposed to a straight zoning, and that the BCC could not legally prohibit them from developing as a straight zoning because the code already said they were allowed to do this. She opined that the Board had to follow the rule of law according to the regulations that were in place, and that this was important for functioning in a society with rules, regulations, and laws. She related that when the project first came to the Board, she had been concerned with safety because there was only one access, and that this would also open the community to better access for public safety purposes.

Commr. Smith agreed, and reiterated that the applicant had agreed to the extra expense of providing a secondary access and moving the access points.

Commr. Shields opined that the Board could deny an application based on safety concerns, and that he did not see anything that would fix the issues that were already present.

Mr. Hiott remarked that if these projects were approved, they would obtain an updated traffic study, and that they would work with staff to construct turn lanes. He mentioned that the wetland areas were flagged by a biologist; however, they had not yet been approved by the SJRWMD. He remarked that the 25 percent open space would be met per the County code, and that they would ensure that the 50 foot buffer would be a tract and not in the lots.

Commr. Campione asked if they would agree to those conditions as well as the following: calculating any extra wetlands identified by the SJRWMD according to code; providing each subdivision with two amenities, such as a tot lot and a dog park; and following all the County requirements regarding turn lanes and access management once their traffic study was done.

Mr. Hiott indicated that this was agreeable.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board approved Tab 4, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-07-3, Harbor Shores Road PUD, with the conditions discussed.

Commr. Parks and Commr. Shields voted no.

Commr. Parks opined that there were safety issues that had not been addressed, and that it was not consistent with Section 9.05.04 of the Lake County code regarding access management because the safety issues had not changed much. He said that the applicant still had to adhere to the code and the Comp Plan, and opined that it was not an entitlement to assume that they were going to have six units per acre.

Commr. Smith opined that adding a second access was a significant safety improvement.

Commr. Parks opined that there were more improvements that needed to be done, such as improved road widths.

Commr. Campione stated that the purpose of the requirement of a PUD for developments with more than 50 units being proposed was to give the Board an opportunity to look at the specific site and include additional conditions that would not necessarily be included with straight zoning, and that she did not agree that it gave the Board a right to deny it. She opined that as long as they were complying with the Comp Plan, they had a legal right to an approval of those lots, and that the safety issues raised before were related to the fact that there was only one access, which would be further overburdened. She also opined that focusing on making improvements was a good policy; however, she opined that the Board did not have the right to deny the application based on safety issues.

Commr. Parks opined that even if these roads were moved up on the priority list for improvements, there were other roads that also needed to be on the priority list, such as Lakeshore Drive. He opined that the situation needed to be alleviated in some way, and that even though it was not the applicant’s fault, it was a result of poor planning and could make the situation worse.

Commr. Shields recalled that at a prior BCC meeting, the Board approved a road improvement project that he had issues with because of how it was being paid for. He relayed his understanding that some road projects had been planned for 10 years, and opined that the County should build the infrastructure before the houses, if possible.

Commr. Campione commented that the funding for road improvements was pieced together from multiple sources, and that some roads were part of a long-range plan. She recalled that the Lakeshore Drive issue did not involve an existing zoning, and opined that much had been accomplished through the PUD process.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board approved Tab 5, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-08-3, Goose Creek PUD, with the conditions discussed.

Commr. Parks and Commr. Shields voted no.

commissioners reports

commissioner shields – vice chairman and district 1

Water SAfety Day

Commr. Shields mentioned that he participated in a Water Safety Day event with the Lake County Health Department during the Rowing Regatta.

commissioner parks – district 2

Citrus Tower ribbon cutting

Commr. Parks relayed that he and Commissioner Shields attended the ribbon cutting for the Citrus Tower, and that they had a Christian Bible College there that focused on the Old Testament, noting that there were people from all around the world there that day.

Clermont Elementary School Closure

Commr. Parks related that the historic Clermont Elementary School closed in the prior week, and that there was a nice ceremony to commemorate it, noting that it had been there during the segregation period.

Aurelia M. Cole Academy

Commr. Parks commented that there would be a future ribbon cutting in the summer for the Aurelia M. Cole Academy, which would be for grades K-8.

commissioner campione – district 4

astor county library groundbreaking

Commr. Campione stated that she attended the library groundbreaking ceremony in the Astor area.

Commr. Parks mentioned that even though he had missed the groundbreaking, he had been in that area two weeks prior.

Commr. Campione hoped that the Board would be able to attend the future ribbon cutting event, and opined that staff did a great job at the groundbreaking ceremony, which resulted from much preparation. She related that much thought had gone into keeping the basketball facility available while the building was being built, and that there would be a short period of time when a temporary court would be used.

Eustis city commission meeting

Commr. Campione relayed that she attended a Eustis City Commission meeting, and that they had discussed the site specific Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA) suggested by Hanover Homes. She related that the City Mayor and staff were authorized to work with the County staff, and that she would continue to work with them on a product that could be discussed with the Board. She hoped that this would result in a small area study for that area, which could be included with the joint planning agreement (JPA) effort.

Lake Yale alum treatment presentation

Commr. Campione remarked that in a future BCC meeting, she hoped to bring forward a presentation from a company that had proposed to do an alum treatment on Lake Yale for the LCWA, which had been halted by a Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) rule. She stated that Representative Keith Truenow had been working to change this rule, and that even though the rule had not been changed, there was a possibility that the treatment could happen internally; additionally, FDEP could possibly sign-off on the right type of project. She mentioned that the LCWA was going to issue a request for proposal (RFP) in case the rule was changed or a different interpretation came from FDEP, and that they could then move forward. She requested that the company make a presentation at a future BCC meeting with the LCWA Board in attendance, showing what it involved and what they would be able to accomplish if they were able to obtain the permits to go forward with this project. She opined that it would be a huge water quality breakthrough, and that it could be a pilot program that could be used in other lakes throughout Lake County and the State of Florida.

Commr. Smith inquired if she was referring to the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Group, LLC (SWIG).

Commr. Campione answered that this was different, and that SWIG removed nutrients from water that went into the lake, such as runoff, noting that the presentation was for water bodies that already had water quality issues.

commissioner smith – chairman and district 3

city and county managers

Commr. Smith related that he had spoken to a group of current and future City Managers and County Managers in the City of Orlando.

astor county library groundbreaking

Commr. Smith said that he had attended the groundbreaking event for the Astor County Library, noting that it had a drive-through book drop-off and pick-up area.

National drive-in movie day

Commr. Smith mentioned that it was National Drive-in Movie Day.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:28 p.m.

_________________________________

kirby smith, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK