A special MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

october 16, 2023

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in a special joint workshop with the Mount Dora City Council on Monday, October 16, 2023 at 6:00 p.m., at Sorrento Elementary School. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Kirby Smith, Chairman; Douglas B. Shields, Vice Chairman; Sean Parks; and Leslie Campione. Commissioner not present: Josh Blake. Mount Dora City Councilmembers present at the meeting were: Crissy Stile, Mayor; Marc Crail, Vice Mayor; John Cataldo; Cal Rolfson; Dennis Dawson; Nate Walker; and Doug Bryant. Others present were: Jennifer Barker, County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Patrick Comiskey, Mount Dora City Manager; Patrick Brackins, Mount Dora City Attorney; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.

pledge of allegiance

Commr. Smith welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Commr. Parks led the Pledge of Allegiance.

welcome from chairman smith and mayor stiles

Commr. Smith thanked everyone for attending. He noted that this was going to be a workshop about the Wolf Branch Innovation District (WBID) and that there would be no public comments.

Mayor Crissy Stile said that she was glad that they could do this, and she introduced Mr. Patrick Brackins, the new Mount Dora City Attorney.

overview of the workshop and history of the wolf branch innovation district

Dr. Richard Levey, with Levey Consulting, commented that his task was to facilitate the current workshop, noting that they would be focused on the Richland Communities proposal. He hoped to bring some clarity and better understanding for the proposal, and said that the developer would have time to present the project. He indicated that he would present the history and a timeline of what had occurred over the last decade, along with the findings from speaking with all of the Commissioners and City Councilmembers, and then Richland Communities would present their proposal. He relayed that he would do a review of the Richland Communities proposal compared with the WBID plan, and then they would open it up to discussion. He stated that this item had a long history of collaboration between the County and the City of Mount Dora, taking advantage of the new State Road (SR) 453 interchange with SR 46, noting that this had created new regional access for this part of Lake County. He said that there were large land holdings in the area to address the objectives of the plan which was to create employment and a mixed use-type environment; furthermore, there was land set aside for employment uses. He recalled that starting in April 2014 the City had Renaissance Planning Group do an economic development district master plan for this area, which was long before the start of the expressway construction. He said that in October 2017 the City and the County came together and agreed upon an interlocal agreement for acquiring services to do master planning for the WBID; additionally, the Duke Energy site assessment program occurred in November 2017 and designated this as one of their key locations in Central Florida for potential employment development. He relayed that he produced a strategy report in 2018, and that in 2019 the County agreed to a Florida Job Growth Grant agreement for $2.5 million for the design of Round Lake Road and the construction of a lift station for the city. He remarked that later in 2019 the City adopted the WBID implementation plan, and the County adopted the same plan and directed their staff to develop future land use (FLU) map amendments, Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) policies and Land Development Regulations (LDR) amendments. He said that in November 2019 the City adopted a slight modification to one of the policies through a resolution, and that in October 2020 the City and County extended an agreement with Levey Consulting to continue on the implementation and help the City and County develop LDR language to implement the plan. He said that in 2021 the City adopted their LDR amendments which completed the City’s implementation of the WBID plan. He relayed that one of the obligations of the grant agreement was that there had to be at least $15 million in private capital investment and 3,700 new jobs by December 2033. He then commented that the strategy report examined suburban office space and trends in the United States (U.S.), along with identifying potential users. He displayed an image of the 2019 plan document, noting that it had graphics with an employment district and a gateway district. He commented that some of the existing conditions in 2019 included comparing the County’s existing Regional Office FLU and the City’s Employment Center district, and that the residential uses on the County side would be constructed after or simultaneously with the commercial uses. He indicated that there was a timing of the housing in the County policies, and that the City had limited multifamily residential as a conditional use. He relayed that there was a 10,000 square foot per one dwelling unit standard in the County plan, and that the plan categories constrained residential use at the time. He recalled that they had reached a conclusion and a policy recommendation to the City and the County that the future of the employment center would be better off if more housing was mixed in closer to jobs for more of a mixed use area, elaborating that the resulting plan allowed more residential than was previously allowed pre-2019.

presentation of findings from pre-workshop interviews

Dr. Levey mentioned that he had spoken with each of the Commissioners and City Councilmembers and came away with items where he felt there was much agreement between all 11 of them. He commented that everyone agreed that the area should be an employment center, and that they were looking to solve any differences between the County and City with regards to the view of the area and how the Richland Communities plan played into implementing the WBID directives and policies. He said that some of them expressed concerns about communication internally, externally and between each Board, and he relayed that most of them acknowledged that the world had changed. He elaborated that the plan was developed pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and that suburban office and employment was currently different than it was pre-COVID-19. He thought that the markets had changed, and said that many of them had opined that it was fine to modify the plan to address some of these changes in market conditions. He indicated that everyone had commented that they did not want to see all housing come without the jobs, and that he came away from these conversations thinking that there much alignment between the City and the County.

presentation of richland communities proposed plan

Ms. Tara Tedrow, an attorney representing Richland Communities, recalled that they had a community meeting and presented the project. She displayed an image of the land use plan, noting that they had broken up the project into two different planned unit developments (PUDs); furthermore, she thought that the two PUDs had an integration of uses that would ultimately support the viability of both projects on a go forward basis. She commented that there was greater acreage on the north site with 260 acres total, noting that 233 acres were in the WBID. She added that there were 245 acres on the south site in the WBID, with 333 acres total. She said that this acreage allowed them to have a master and comprehensive planning of both of these projects and to ensure compatibility, proper transitioning and buffering between uses. She commented that they had a mixture of different types of uses, along with a variety of densities and intensities among those uses. She specified that for the north site, the color coding on the map corresponded to how some of the densities would work out on the plan, noting that mixed use employment showed 12 dwelling units per acre up through moderate density residential at 18 units per acre; additionally, there was low density residential at four units per acre. She said that there was also frontage along SR 46 showing some commercial up through their mixed use village center. She stated that there was open space and stormwater retention integrated throughout the project, and she showed an image of the south site. She explained that the south site predominately had their industrial uses and that it was the hub of where their employment generating uses would come from in the south. She specified that they were showing different varieties of industrial uses on the west side of County Road (CR) 453, and that on the east side they had more low density residential projects of four units per acre which was standard single family detached homes, along with medium density residential in more traditional townhome style products. She commented that their master plan focused on their village center to the north, their residential enclaves in the south PUD, and their employment center in the south. She displayed the master plan study for the village center, and said that the map corresponded to product types such as multifamily/single family attached, traditional multifamily, and mixed use multifamily where office or retail would be on the ground floor with multifamily units above, with stormwater management public park spaces interspersed throughout. She displayed images of the village center product and commented that it was more of a traditional mixed use product where retail, commercial and restaurants would be on the first floor with traditional commercial frontage along SR 46 with parking in the rear. She added that there would be green spaces and pedestrian connectivity throughout, and that the intensity and density of their uses started to scale down. She commented that they had looked at everything surrounding their property lines to see how it could be scaled appropriately to have the most compatible types of uses and designs, and that the village west would have more traditional multifamily product and some townhome products. She said that the village west area also had a park designed to buffer between the different types of uses, and she showed an image of the Round Lake Road residences. She added that they were going to use massing and types of façade treatments to ensure compatibility with existing single family offsite residential uses to give a character and feel that would be compatible with adjacent residential uses to the best of their abilities. She indicated that they would use green spaces and stormwater to create more buffering and compatibility with uses, and she then showed the master site plan for their south PUD employment center. She relayed that they had some single family detached product on the southwest portion, along with some single family attached above the detached product with some open space, stormwater and green space there. She said that they had the majority of their job creation across CR 453, and she clarified that there would be job opportunities in a village center or commercial frontage on their north PUD; however, they thought that the south PUD was where the majority of jobs would come from because they had the flexibility to design the type of industrial park that national experts brought in by Lake Economic Area Development (LEAD) said they needed. She pointed out light industrial, office and commercial, and said that on the east/west connector road on the southern portion of their product they had created a greenway corridor for some buffering between themselves and the Orange County residents to the south. She also specified that they had the ability to design a one million square foot facility all the way down to a 20,000 square foot small space. She then displayed examples of what it could possibly look like if they had light industrial uses with those warehouse, showroom and office types of support. She said that they had some residential enclaves designed to be both townhomes and traditional single family attached and detached product. She mentioned that there were planned transportation improvements, planned parks and planned trails, noting that neighborhood parks, trails, walking paths and conservation areas would be dedicated off the PUD.

review of richland plan vs wolf branch innovation district plan

Dr. Levey commented that there was much work to do in the PUD to reach the level of execution on the proposal. He then displayed a comparison of the Richland Communities proposal with the adopted WBID standards, noting that there was a different picture when treating the PUDs separately. He said that the open space requirement was 15 percent of net buildable area, and that Richland Communities exceeded the minimum percentage in the north, though they fell short in the south in both acreage and percentage; however, this was only the large open space tracts shown on the PUD plan and did not include all of the internal open space such as stormwater, parks, etc. He added that he was not concerned about meeting the 15 percent open space requirement collectively for the entire plan, as well as for the south, and he thought that this could be addressed in the PUD. He stated that floor area ratio (FAR) determined how much nonresidential square footage could be done in the plan, noting that at 1.0 FAR in the north they had a maximum of 2.2 million square feet that they could do, and they were proposing the same amount; therefore, they were in alignment. He added that on the south PUD they could do up to 10 million square feet and were proposing the same number; furthermore, they collectively met the employment FAR requirement of the WBID plan. He stated that for density there was a minimum of eight units per acre with no maximum, and on the north they would have to do a minimum of 1,000 units but were proposing 2,870 units. He indicated that on the south they would have to do a minimum of 84 units but were proposing 190 units, and that collectively, 3,060 units met the minimum requirements. He noted that he was only looking at the WBID lands and that there were some lands outside of the boundary of the employment center district which were included in Richland Communities’ plan; however, he did not think that the total number of units outside the district was significant. He commented that a residential land allocation had been adopted and that a maximum of 25 percent of the employment center land area could be shown as residential. He elaborated that they exceeded this amount on the north, that they fell within the standard on the south, and that they exceeded this collectively. He mentioned that the measure was the percentage rather than the acreage, and that the percentage on the north was a maximum of 25 percent with 56.5 percent being proposed; however, he remarked vertically integrated mixed use buildings were not counted toward the 25 percent, that this was the worst case scenario, and that he suspected that this number would decrease. He said that there was a maximum of 25 percent on the south and that Richland Communities fell below this, and that collectively the two sides of SR 46 was 28.8 percent, which was only marginally over the maximum. He relayed that for jobs/housing ratio they had a 900 square foot per dwelling unit standard in the plan, that Richland Communities fell slightly short of this at 766 square feet per dwelling unit on the north, and that on the south they exceeded this at almost 54,000 square feet per dwelling unit; furthermore, when combining the two they had slightly over 4,000 square feet of nonresidential for every dwelling unit in their proposal which far exceeded the 900 square feet per dwelling unit. He clarified that this plan established itself as an employment center, and that Richland Communities had just separated the character of two sides of SR 46. He stated that a maximum of 20 percent of floor area must be for commercial uses, and on the north they showed slightly over 33 percent, and that on the south they had relatively none; additionally, they collectively had a maximum of 20 percent of floor area and were showing six percent. He said that the intersection of Round Lake Road and SR 46 had been called a gateway where the destination retail was intended to go; however, in this plan it was clear that Richland Communities saw the destination retail further east. He was unsure which one was better, and stated that conventionally one would see retail at the intersections of major roads, though their plan had an internal road and Richland Communities was thinking that an intersection he pointed out on the map was a legitimate destination retail location at the village center. He thought that both ideas had validity and that this was a policy issue to be discussed regarding whether the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and Mount Dora City Council wanted to limit the destination retail to Round Lake Road and SR 46, or whether they thought that there was an idea of integrating retail in the village center and the mixed use community. He suggested that this high level analysis showed great potential alignment with what was currently adopted, noting that there were some details which warranted going into the PUD review process. He also suggested that the two staffs should meet and do a collaborative review, along with coming back with some recommendations for both Boards for if the plan needed to be modified. He added that if it was determined that there was complete alignment, then they could explore this and find a proposal which could satisfy the vast majority of adopted standards.

discussion

Mayor Stile expressed support for the two staffs meeting together. She opined that some of what was just said was accurate, and she commented that the City’s zoning department had provided comments in June 2023 to both the developer and the County; however, she relayed her understanding that a response was not received.

Dr. Levey thought that part of the concern was that the two PUDs were sent separately, and that City staff only commented on half of the project. He opined that if it was all together, then City staff might have found more commonality in the plan.

Mayor Stile pointed out that there was only one corridor to exit on the south side which put all of this traffic onto Round Lake Road, noting that Round Lake Road went into the Sullivan Ranch subdivision. She also indicated concerns for residential being built first, questioning who was to say that the commercial would ever come. She indicated her understanding that they were all in support of doing this all at the same time or getting the jobs first, noting that jobs were what this district was built for. She recalled that there was a public meeting for the WBID and that it was adopted by the County; however, she opined that the County’s code was never changed. She said that part of the communication issues with how these developments were coming to the county when they would eventually be annexed into the city was that the City’s plan was not adopted into the County’s code. She added that when County staff was reviewing plans, they were looking at a code for the WBID which was different from the City’s code. She said that the City’s police, fire department and hopefully their utilities would service these residents, though if it was adopted by the County and if impact fees went to the County, then she expressed concerns for what this was doing to the City. She indicated that the City was not ready to provide service with utilities at the current time, though they wanted to be the utility provider and benefit the new growth in the WBID. She felt that the discussions for the WBID had been that everything went to the County and then the County told the City what they were going to receive. She opined that if the discussion was had when the Richland Communities plan was first presented to the County, the County could have provided the City’s information to discuss design standards and roads. She commented that the City would like to be part of the plan going forward.

Councilmember Rolfson complimented the BCC and the Mount Dora City Council for having this meeting. He recalled that communication had been a concern, and said that in May and June 2023 the City had sent two letters of concern to the County but had not heard back. He opined that some communication could be improved from a response standpoint, and he was glad that the current meeting was accomplishing this. He thanked Dr. Levey, and he expressed support for Dr. Levey’s suggestion of having the City and County staffs meet. He also opined that the City Council and the BCC needed more than one meeting, and he indicated that he could share his questions with staff. He relayed that the WBID was intended to be a collaborative effort between the County and the City, and he hoped that they would meet again.

Councilmember Bryant expressed appreciation for Dr. Levey, and he thought that something needed to happen with regards to how the plans and FLU amendments would be approached for this project. He expressed concerns with PUDs with the best of intentions sometimes being drawn out into significant changes from the existing code and plans. He opined that they could either utilize the PUD, or they could potentially go back to the drawing board and make amendments to existing FLU plans. He recalled that Dr. Levey had commented about how times had changed from pre to post-COVID-19, and that it could possibly be the time to make changes to the plans. He said that Dr. Levey had mentioned that the Richland Communities proposal for a retail center and the area designated at the intersection of SR 46 and Round Lake Road both had potential, and he was unsure if Dr. Levey was discussing having two different retail centers or switching to the other area further down SR 46. He said that a key to the integrated plan was connectivity, and relayed his understanding that the Richland Communities proposals met the objectives of the overall WBID plan; however, the idea was to have this be an area where people could possibly bicycle or take their golf cart to work. He added that there could potentially be transit without everyone having to drive down SR 46 to reach the employment area, and he recalled an earlier meeting in which Dr. Levey had pointed out that the WBID was the City’s opportunity for their community, and they basically had one chance to get it right. He opined that they still felt the same way.

Dr. Levey displayed the WBID plan and noted that it always had a roadway from the east, and that it had many challenges because Richland Communities only owned property up to a certain location; therefore, having connectivity would be a challenge and was an item that the City and County could work on together. He mentioned that the gateway was where the plan conventionally thought retail would occur, and that Richland Communities had more of a lifestyle village center which potentially was very different. He thought that they could do both, and that there would be one area for shopping. He opined that the location of a Publix would dictate its character, and he believed that both locations could coexist because if the neighborhood shopping grocer was in a particular location, then he saw the potential for more of a vertically and horizontally mixed use with retail, office and residential in one location which may not necessarily develop in the other location because of parcel configuration and access constraints. He added that the developer had the potential to do a wider variety of commercial with the proposed roadway. He then opined that what they did first was most important, and he thought that Richland Communities was a developer that operated in multiple vertical market segments including residential, commercial and industrial. He said that it was unique to have one developer that could deliver on multiple sectors of the market, and that it was likely a good match. He reiterated that one of the challenges was figuring out the roadway, and that he heard comments when the plan was developed about putting everything out to Round Lake Road initially, but he opined that over time the best solution was to figure out the circulation movement. He mentioned that the County was working on an area between a church and a school, and that there was also a road parallel to SR 46. He thought that the framework for an ideal transportation system was there, but that it needed work.

Councilmember Rolfson said that one of the questions that he thought they had to figure out was how all of this would be marketed nationally and regionally, opining that this would be crucial to getting things started.

Dr. Levey mentioned that City and County staffs were working well together on marketing, and he suspected that any developer would want to collaborate with them.

Commr. Smith thanked the City for allowing them to have this meeting, opining that it was good when they could come together; furthermore, he noted that they were all present for the betterment of the Lake County and City of Mount Dora citizens. He indicated that he liked the idea of the two staffs meeting, and that he would ask staff questions. He also thought that the City and the County were present at the current meeting to make sure that they did this in the most positive way to move the county forward.

Commr. Campione expressed excitement for meeting with the City and she said that this item went back before 2014. She commented that the economy had significant issues when she and Commissioner Parks had first begun serving on the BCC, and that everyone was trying to figure out ways to create jobs and bring industry to Lake County to help address unemployment issues. She recalled that she and Mr. Bob Thielhelm, former Mayor of Mount Dora, had spent time together trying to determine how they could make this particular area a hub for job creation and use it as a way to attract companies to come to Lake County; additionally, there had been a joint resolution at the time between the City and the County. She mentioned that at that time, they had been looking at many pieces of property owned by different individuals, and that it seemed insurmountable that they could assemble the property or convince the property owners to do this in a way in which they could attract anyone to use the area for this purpose. She also questioned how they would build the infrastructure, and that they had said to try to make this happen knowing that most of it laid at the hands of the property owners. She said that the County had their Comp Plan in place already which called this Regional Office, noting that the City called it Employment Center. She stated that as time passed, the City and the County started working on a joint plan and when the plan came back to the County to adopt, they all liked the concept and the design standards; however, the County had their underlying land uses and property owners who owned their property with Regional Office FLU. She commented that if the County adopted the plan unilaterally, then they might be taking away property rights, noting that it was complicated; furthermore, she opined that it was like a clean slate when the City annexed property. She recalled her and Mr. Thielhelm’s wish that they could have one landowner own all of this and do all of the infrastructure and marketing, and she opined that this had happened to a large degree when Richland Communities started purchasing available parcels. She thought that they were as close as they were going to get from this standpoint, and that other property owners would follow; additionally, the County and City may have to work together to figure out a way to get the road off SR 46 into the Richland Communities property on the south. She then commented that the City collected impact fees when they provided water and sewer, and she questioned if the City had a law enforcement impact fee. She remarked that as the City would collect impact fees as they annexed property and as building permits were pulled, and that their property base would grow exponentially when property was annexed. She noted that the library was a County/City endeavor and that the impact fees all went to the same place, and that fire was also a collaboration. She pointed out that even though the City annexed into these areas that made up the WBID, all of the surrounding area had property owners who were established and wanted to continue to live in the area; therefore, they would remain unincorporated residents. She indicated that the City and County would be meshing their services and working together, and that they would be collaborating into the future on services whether residents were in the city or the unincorporated area. She then commented that $1 million of the grant obtained for job creation went to a City lift station, noting that the expectation was always that the City would be providing the utilities in this area. She assumed that the funding was spent and that the infrastructure was installed, and she thought that Mayor Stile mentioning that the City was not going to be ready to provide utilities was something new in the equation. She relayed that the County would possibly have to pay the grant back, and she opined that they could meet the grant target and would not have to pay the State $2.5 million back if they could stay on track and have a developer like Richland Communities doing this project. She said that for the gateway issues, she had her own opinion regarding whether it should have two retail centers, though from a planning perspective she liked the idea of a high quality retail area that was planned for the purpose of having multiple uses and allowing for people to live and walk to shopping and different mixed uses. She expressed concerns for the Round Lake Road situation, and opined that placing a significant amount of retail there could be an issue. She opined that they could possibly forget that the commercial had to occur at an intersection, and that if they could do something different that was better and more internalized to the Richland Communities property, then she thought that it could be a good solution. She noted that the property owners at the intersection of Round Lake Road and SR 46 had a right to use the property and that they had land uses, though she would encourage the town center to be elsewhere and for the gateway to be rethought. She added that the gateway could potentially be more monumental as opposed to a land use. She thought that the north/south connection would eventually happen, and that they had to let the market and the property owners work this out because they would not want to place millions of square footage of uses that could not be accessed otherwise. She mentioned the County’s economic departments and LEAD for marketing, along with the developer, and she relayed that the developer was going to build their infrastructure and square footage. She opined that the developer would want to market it, and that the developer and the County would be looking for those end users. She clarified that the County did not fully adopt the WBID plan because they had underlying land uses and would have to modify the plan once they tried to include it in their Comp Plan. She hoped that by talking and working together, along with working with Richland Communities, they could mesh what had been laid out before and the items being discussed at the current meeting; additionally, the County could blend its land uses and regulations with the City’s regulations. She thought that the County had proven to be in line with the City regarding design and architectural standards, noting that the County wanted quality and the look that the City had achieved in their requirements. She said that for her it was about the quality of the development and the job creation, commenting that the quality went together with the impact it would have on surrounding property owners. She also expressed interest in working together to address transportation networks and connectivity to help preserve the surrounding area and mitigate the impacts of future development. She stated that the land uses had been there for 25 or 30 years, and that something new was not being proposed at the current time; rather, they were trying to work within the parameter of those rights.

Commr. Parks expressed appreciation for the role of the City and for the City being different than the County. He opined that the Wellness Way area and the WBID were something that the County should market with a City nationwide as a place to be for business. He noted that in Wellness Way a developer could build residential first but had to have land set aside for commercial/industrial, noting that the land would remain until commercial was brought there. He was unsure if this was in the WBID as a requirement, and he commented that school impact fees went to the Lake County School District General Fund. He mentioned that the County had more influence over the roads, and that if many impact fees were collected in the WBID, then he imagined that this funding would be steered toward county roads in the WBID and around the City of Mount Dora. He relayed that in Wellness Way they came up with a funding mechanism with the developers to make up the gap because the funding collected in the district would not fund all the roads that needed to be built. He expressed support for having the staffs work together, and he indicated that he was a supporter of joint planning agreements (JPAs). He opined that forcing City and County staff to have communication was the antidote to bureaucracy and developers taking advantage of a situation without communication being there, and he hoped that a JPA could be established with the City and the County.

summary and next steps

Commr. Smith said that he was excited about the Boards meeting with their staffs regarding questions and concerns, and he mentioned that the Mount Dora City Council could contact the BCC members at any time.

Mayor Stile noted that the City Council was also available to get this going, and she thought that the solution was for their staffs to work this out. She indicated that she was looking forward to open communication and the best project that they could see for the city.

Vice Mayor Crail inquired if they could set a next meeting for February 2024 to give their respective staffs a chance to do their work and ensure that the City and County were meeting on a regular basis.

Commr. Smith indicated that they could do whatever was desired.

Mayor Stile questioned if this was pushing a timeline for the developer.

Dr. Levey opined that they should have the staffs meet quickly out of respect for the developer and the process and see what they could resolve. He expressed concerns for setting a future meeting and saying that nothing would occur on the process of the developer’s plan until then.

Commr. Smith thought that it would be wise to let their staffs meet and then send an email to the BCC and City Council.

Ms. Jennifer Barker, County Manager, indicated that staff could meet quickly and that they could likely schedule something within about the next week.

Commr. Campione mentioned that there were other projects and applications, along with other issues including a trail issue and road standards. She opined that they would have many items they could continue to work on, and she hoped that they could look at this entire area as a Lake County/City of Mount Dora collaboration. She added that even if all of it were annexed into the City, the County still had the unincorporated and city residents that they were representing, noting that they wanted to try to look out for everyone’s interests to the greatest extent possible and attempt to address some of the outstanding issues they already had. She also indicated support for a future meeting.

Ms. Tedrow commented that Richland Communities originally submitted their application in January 2023, and that they had received feedback letters from staff. She added that they had a meeting with staff, and that the County and City could reach out with questions and comments.

Mayor Stile mentioned that Lake County Schools had announced the Assistant Principal and Principal of the Year, noting that the Assistant Principal of the Year was Ms. Noris Aguayo from Triangle Elementary School in City of Mount Dora, and that their Principal of the Year was Ms. Marlene Straughan from Mount Dora High School.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:31 p.m.

_________________________________

kirby smith, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK