A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

march 1, 2022

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 9:00 a.m., in the County Commission Chambers, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Sean Parks, Chairman; Kirby Smith, Vice Chairman; Douglas B. Shields; Leslie Campione; and Josh Blake. Others present were: Jennifer Barker, County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION and pledge

Commr. Parks welcomed everyone to the meeting and recognized those in Ukraine who were struggling, noting that Lake County would have an opportunity at 1:00 p.m. on the current day outside the Lake County Historic Courthouse to show support for the people of Ukraine. He said that he also wanted to remember Ms. Emogene Steagall, former Lake County Supervisor of Elections, who had passed away. He commented that she had been the Supervisor of Elections for many years and had done a great job for Lake County. He then said that the Pledge of Allegiance would be led by a veteran who was part of County staff. He explained that Mr. Ryan Midtun, a Code Enforcement Supervisor in the County’s Office of Code Enforcement, served in the United States (U.S.) Air Force from 2002 until he retired in 2016 as a Technical Sergeant. He elaborated that Mr. Midtun trained and worked as a Security Forces Specialist and held the title of Flight Chief, overseeing command and control of over 60 personnel, and directing response to major incidents on base; furthermore, during his time on active duty, he was selected to work for the Naval Criminal Investigative Services to conduct security and protection missions for dignitaries such as the President of the United States, Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of Defense, and other foreign dignitaries around the globe, traveling to more than 30 countries. He mentioned that Mr. Midtun was deployed six times throughout his career in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Horn of Africa operations, and he thanked Mr. Midtun for his service to the country and the county.

Pastor David Averill, with First United Methodist Church of Mount Dora, gave the Invocation and Mr. Midtun led the Pledge of Allegiance.

virtual meeting instructions

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

Agenda update

Ms. Jennifer Barker, County Manager, said that there were no updates to the agenda.

citizen question and comment period

No one wished to address the Board at this time.

public hearings: REZONING

rezoning consent agenda

Ms. Janie Barrón, Chief Planner for the Office of Planning and Zoning, displayed the advertisements for that day’s rezoning cases on the overhead monitor in accordance with the Florida Statutes. She said that there were two cases on the consent agenda and one case on the regular agenda.

Commr. Parks requested that Tab 2 be pulled to the regular agenda.

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. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tab 1, pulling Tab 2 to the regular agenda, as follows:

Tab 1.

Rezoning Case # FLU-21-08-5

Expert Investments Future Land Use Map Amendment (Transmittal)

Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category (FLUC) on approximately 9.63 acres from Rural Transition to Planned Unit Development FLUC and amend associated Comprehensive Plan Policies to incorporate the proposed development program for the development which will include 10 single-family dwelling units.

rezoning regular agenda

Tab 2.

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-22-2

Trout Lake Wellness Way MPUD

Rezone 274.68 acres from Agriculture (A) to Master Planned Unit Development (PUD) to facilitate a mixed-use development consisting of 704 dwelling units and 48 acres of non-residential development within the Wellness Way Area Plan.

Tab 3. Ordinance No. 2022-13

Rezoning Case # RZ-20-39-1

Lake Nellie Crossing

Rezone approximately 117.05 +/- acres from Urban Residential District (R-6) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to accommodate a 102 dwelling single-family residential development.

Trout lake wellness way mpud

Ms. Michele Janiszewski, Chief Planner for the Office of Planning and Zoning, presented Tab 2, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-22-2, Trout Lake Wellness Way MPUD. She said that the case was generally located east of U.S. Highway 27 in the City of Clermont area of unincorporated Lake County, and that it contained approximately 274 acres; furthermore, the request was to rezone the property from Agriculture to a master planned unit development (PUD) to facilitate the development of a mixed use PUD with 704 dwelling units and 48 acres of nonresidential development within the Wellness Way Area Plan (WWAP). She showed the zoning and future land use (FLU) maps, noting that the property was currently part of the Town Center FLU. She showed a concept plan submitted by the applicant, along with two concept plans proposed in the draft ordinance to show the partialization of parcels one and two, noting that they had different entitlements, along with the general concept of green space. She stated that the applicant was seeking to develop the property consistent with the Wellness Way goals, objectives and policies as established in Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) Goal I-8, Wellness Area Plan, and that the application was proposing to develop the property as two parcels with nonresidential uses along U.S. Highway 27 and residential uses to the east. She commented that the project received a waiver to the acreage requirement on May 5, 2020, and that in accordance with Section B of Policy 18.7.3, Master PUD Process, the applicant conducted a community meeting on August 3, 2021. She displayed a chart with the different entitlements that the applicant could currently develop the property with, along with what was proposed. She then relayed the following staff analysis findings: the request was consistent with Comp Plan Goal I-8, Wellness Way Area Plan; the application was consistent with the current development standards contained within the Land Development Regulations (LDR); and the request was consistent with Comp Plan Policy 1-8.2.1.1, Future Land Use Categories Capacity Allocation, which stated that property within the Wellness Way Town Center FLU could be developed with a maximum of 704 dwelling units and a minimum of 48 acres set aside for nonresidential development. She concluded that staff found the proposed amendment consistent with the LDR and Comp Plan.

Commr. Campione said that she had read the minutes from the hearing in 2020 when the waiver for acreage was discussed, relaying her understanding that there had been an idea from the inception of Wellness Way that this property was going to be less than 1,000 acres, and the property owner and County were aware of this; however, when the waiver came forward in 2020, there was a discussion about the Wellness Way design requirements. She noted that the requirements were not finished at that time, though they were finished currently; however, they had not been officially adopted.

Ms. Janiszewski explained that there were the Wellness Way standards for the Comp Plan amendment, along with the LDR. She said that the Comp Plan amendment had been transmitted to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (FDEO) and other State agencies in January 2022, and they anticipated receiving comments from FDEO in April 2022. She thought that the earliest it could be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) was May 2022, but the design guidelines had not been presented to the Board at the current time and were still being worked on by staff.

Commr. Parks asked if the design guidelines were part of the transmittal.

Ms. Janiszewski clarified that the Comp Plan amendment was more for entitlements in regards to the capacity allocations and the associated density. She thought that some standards had been included, but they were not specific.

Commr. Parks commented that the Wellness Way design guidelines and standards had been done over a year prior, and he recalled that the applicant had signed a waiver on May 18, 2020 acknowledging that the guidelines and standards would be adhered to. He stated that he could not support this item at the current time because the proposed ordinance was missing a significant amount of the Wellness Way guidelines and standards. He opined that the design guidelines had to be in the ordinance nearly word for word, noting that waivers were granted under the promise that it would have to adhere to the design guidelines. He also opined that Wellness Way needed to be more than basic concept plans, mentioning that there was a process indicated by the design guidelines that should occur with the applicant and staff. He opined that there were likely more items to be worked through and more communication that needed to occur regarding what would be promised on this project.

Commr. Shields asked why there was a waiver on 1,000 acres.

Commr. Parks replied that the 1,000 acre requirement was put in place because the County did not have design guidelines at that time, and the thought was that multiple properties would have to be combined to do a master plan; however, now that there were design guidelines, they could possibly go site by site, have smaller plans and approve them only by following those standards. He reiterated that the applicant had agreed to follow this.

Commr. Smith noted that he and Commissioner Shields were not on the BCC when the waiver was granted, and he relayed his understanding that the Board had granted the waiver with the anticipation that the applicant would follow the Wellness Way plan.

Commr. Parks confirmed this.

Commr. Campione said it seemed like this could be addressed relatively quickly if the Board had staff work with their consultant and review the proposal, along with incorporating these design guidelines into the proposed ordinance. She did not think the review had occurred to ensure that everything in the design standards were in the ordinance.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, an attorney representing the applicant, said that the applicant had tried to work with Lake County, and she expressed concerns that the Board did not like what was in the ordinance; however, she expressed doubt that anyone had compared the ordinance to the design guidelines to understand what was missing. She said that they had spent months working with staff and that this PUD was filed on June 1, 2020. She thought that they finished the PUD about a week prior after many negotiations, meetings and expenditures, and she provided information about Mr. Rex Clonts, her client who originally owned over 700 acres, as well as the history and entitlements of the subject property. She commented that Mr. Clonts could have done a master PUD which would have allowed four units per acre, commercial, industrial, etc. without any design guidelines, but that he wanted to stay in Wellness Way. She mentioned other projects in the area, opining that the Ridgeview project, which was currently on the ground, did not follow any design guidelines other than those agreed to at the urging of Commissioner Campione and Commissioner Parks. She opined that the County had said that the applicant would have to agree to meet guidelines that the County did not have yet, and she recalled that there were three votes on that day to approve the waiver without those requirements. She also recalled that the Board had insisted that the applicant endorse a County resolution regarding transportation, which they agreed to. She questioned if other PUDs had done this, relaying her understanding that it incorporated a number of items to the extent possible and then came up with some other items. She stated that the applicant was also told that although it was not in the Comp Plan, they must construct a trail along the northern boundary of Trout Lake; furthermore, they had agreed to do this, along with a trail along U.S. Highway 27, indicating an understanding that the County never finalized its recreation master plan. She opined that they had met a number of the County’s design guidelines; however, she opined that the guidelines were designed to be in conformance with the proposed, yet un-adopted Comp Plan. She expressed concerns that the Town Center FLU had been taken from Mr. Clonts, that density had been diverted to other areas in the county, and for the County taking away Wellness Way Areas 1 through 4. She opined that the applicant, in working with staff, tried to adopt as much as what was in the design guidelines as possible, and she expressed concerns for being asked to meet the guidelines without any analysis of the conflicts or inconsistencies; additionally, she opined that the County did not have the same definitions or designations as when the applicant started this. She said that land development code did not go to FDEO and that the only item being reviewed was the Comp Plan. She stated that the design guidelines were developed to be consistent with the County’s proposed Comp Plan, but she opined that they were not consistent with the existing Comp Plan that they were under and had been following. She opined that staff could not hold them to criteria that was not adopted or codified.

Commr. Campione thought that they had worked in good faith with County staff for a number of years, noting that there had been some changes in staff.

Ms. Bonifay expressed that it was frustrating to be at this point, noting that her client was concerned that the goalpost kept changing. She said that if the Board directed staff to work with them to try to incorporate items to the greatest extent feasible, opining that some of these items were legally inconsistent. She said that the County could not adopt an ordinance which was inconsistent with the current Comp Plan, noting that the applicant’s tables and charts would not be consistent with some of these guidelines. She stated that she wanted a commitment that staff would work with them, and that they would try to do this in a reasonable manner.

Commr. Blake asked how much money Mr. Clonts had spent going through this process.

Ms. Bonifay relayed her understanding that it was $100,000 or more, and that she was unsure what the other individuals had spent. She said that for the concept plan, they were addressing the detail that was requested, and that a significant amount of money and time had been spent.

Commr. Blake opined that there were larger issues than imposing the Board’s aesthetic preferences on private land owners.

Commr. Parks commented that when the waiver was signed in May 2020, 50 or 60 individuals including himself and Ms. Bonifay had been meeting for over a year. He recalled that he had discussed that there would be a stringent standard for Wellness Way, and he thought that something could be worked out. He clarified that the master plan for Wellness Way trails had been approved by the BCC over a year prior, and he relayed that he could not support the proposed ordinance at the current time because there were missing items. He stated that the applicant could possibly have 60 to 90 days to work with staff.

Ms. Bonifay expressed interest in it being time certain and for it being a directive of the Board to have staff work with the applicant to see where they were missing items, along with the impact and where it may be in conflict with the current Comp Plan.

Mr. Matt Young, with Richland Communities and representing the applicant, said that their investment in this item so far was one year and in excess of $10 million, noting that they were operating under the current Town Center FLU and that this was what they contracted and closed on the subject property with; additionally, at that time there were design guidelines which were accounted for, as well as Comp Plan policies. He mentioned that they spent time with staff reviewing the draft regulations and to reach a point where they could meet the required capacity allocations. He opined that they met the intent of both the Town Center FLU and U.S. Highway 27 design guidelines for a PUD for items such as open space criteria, trail connectivity, impervious surface area, building setbacks, etc., and he asked about the details that they were missing at this level of entitlement approval.

Commr. Campione said that the County had access to Dr. Richard Levey, a consultant on retainer who worked on these requirements. She felt that to the extent that Dr. Levey could work with staff, a review of the plan, the ordinance and the design requirements could possibly happen in 30 days, and they could come back in no later than 60 days, noting that the Board could have those details to help decide.

Mr. Young felt that the applicant had gone through those motions with staff and a formal review. He expressed concern that it sounded like the Board was prepared to issue a denial for a plan that was done for the current land use plan. He also indicated concerns for having this issue brought up again.

Commr. Blake inquired about the specific objections and what the Board would be asking for.

Commr. Campione replied that they would be asking to review it based on the Wellness Way design guidelines. She recalled that the BCC chose to grant the waiver in 2020, and the meeting minutes discussed that the design requirements would be incorporated in the final PUD.

Mr. Young felt that the applicant did this.

Commr. Parks said that it could likely be cleared up if the applicant came back with an ordinance that was clear regarding following the design guidelines. He noted that this was the area in South Lake that the County was trying to direct growth toward and to do it in the right way. He also opined that it was likely one of the most desirable areas for development for future growth in the state.

Mr. Matt Wanzeck, with Beazer Homes and representing the applicant, said that they had spent eight months working through the PUD, and had been working within the guidelines and with staff for the past three months. He clarified that they had not been ignoring the Wellness Way standards; rather, they had tried to incorporate nearly everything. He noted that the guidelines allowed for an option for alternate standards, and that as they received staff comments, they worked to address everything they could.

Commr. Smith asked if staff had been working with the applicant, and Ms. Janiszewski confirmed this. Commissioner Smith inquired if staff had gone through the design guidelines document with them to ensure that they were following it to the best of their ability under the current Comp Plan.

Ms. Janiszewski said that the document had not been adopted by the Board; therefore, the ordinance was drafted in conformance with the LDR and the current Comp Plan policies, and staff had not gone through the document with them.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that Commissioner Campione had previously indicated that granting the waiver was not an issue because everyone understood the rules ahead of time and there would be no misunderstanding; additionally, it would follow the Wellness Way guidelines. He stated that he would feel comfortable if the Board delayed this item by 30 days to have the applicant work with staff to review the Wellness Way guidelines and at least ensure that the design criteria in the document fit as much as it could with the current Comp Plan.

Commr. Blake inquired if the Board had officially adopted the guidelines.

Ms. Janiszewski clarified that the design guidelines had not been adopted at the current time, and that the County had transmitted the Comp Plan amendment for the new implementation plan; furthermore, the design guidelines correlated with the implementation plan. She indicated that staff was not aware of the agreement when the waiver went forward.

Commr. Campione opined that it was clear that this was part of the discussion at the time of the waiver being granted, and that the intent was there for the Board’s expectations.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Rick Ault, a resident of the City of Clermont, opined that the risk was that the waiver was granted without anything being codified. He expressed appreciation for the Board holding the process to the intent of what it was, but he opined that waivers should not be granted until the rules were defined. He commented that this was the second Wellness Way proposal in six months and that both of them waived the 1,000 acre minimum requirement for PUDs, and he questioned how many more there would be; furthermore, he opined that the community thought there would be large planned tracts where there could be comprehensive development with all of the uses indicated, rather than piecemeal development.

Commr. Campione recalled that the Board had discussed that the 1,000 acre requirement started at the beginning of Wellness Way planning with the idea that one needed 1,000 acres to incorporate all of these concepts. She elaborated that the idea was to have a way of doing this on smaller parcels so that it was not necessarily piecemeal, noting that this did not mean that one could not meet all of these components. She said that this was behind the design requirements, and she opined that the cornerstone of Wellness Way was the master planning, which could be accomplished by having a good document to work with for any PUD that came in.

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

Ms. Bonifay requested a 30 day continuance and to meet with staff as quickly as possible to review this and see what items the applicant did not incorporate. She thought that having Dr. Levey attend the joint sessions with the applicant and staff could be helpful, and she relayed her understanding that after their waiver and in the current Comp Plan, the County had eliminated the requirement for 1,000 acres.

Ms. Barker said that staff could reach out to Dr. Levey and staff to make sure they could have everyone meet.

Commr. Blake expressed concerns for property rights.

Commr. Parks stated that if everything was in the ordinance, then they could move forward and know that it would meet the Wellness Way intent.

Commr. Campione indicated that this property was close to the Lake-Orange County Connector being constructed by the Central Florida Expressway Authority (CFX), and opined that it was likely some of the most desirable property in Central Florida. She agreed with the 30 day tabling, and she requested a copy of the design guidelines for the Board. She hoped to be able to reach a resolution that everyone was happy with.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board tabled Tab 2, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-22-2, Trout Lake Wellness Way MPUD, to the April 5, 2022 BCC meeting, with the direction of staff working with the applicant to ensure that Wellness Way standards were being adopted.

lake nellie crossing

Ms. Barrón presented Tab 3, Rezoning Case # RZ-20-39-1, Lake Nellie Crossing. She explained that the parcel was located east of Lakeshore Drive, north of Suggs Road, in the unincorporated City of Clermont area, within Commission District 1. She said that the tract size was 117.05 gross acres, and that the request was to rezone approximately 117.05 acres from Urban Residential (R-6) to PUD to accommodate a 102 unit residential subdivision. She displayed the current zoning and FLU maps, and she provided the following information about the application: on June 22, 2021, the BCC considered a rezoning application filed by Lake Nellie Crossing, LLC, to rezoning approximately 117 acres of property from R-6 to PUD for the purposes of developing a 102 lot residential subdivision; the final order of denial was rendered on July 6, 2021; on July 15, 2021, Lake Nellie Crossing, LLC, filed a petition for relief under Section 70.51, Florida Statutes, and Section 14.17.00, Lake County LDR; on October 26, 2021, as part of the first step in the statutory process, a proposal for settlement was presented to the BCC during a public hearing, which was denied, noting that the denial of the settlement proposal returned the case back to the administrative process which necessitated an evidentiary hearing; on December 22, 2021, the hearing was held in front of an administrative law judge, provided by the State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), in which both parties participated, noting that members of the public were also permitted to participate in the hearing and that the hearing was held in accordance with Section 70.51, Florida Statutes; on January 18, 2022, the administrative law judge issued a Special Master’s recommendation, Case No. 21-2391, to the BCC; and the revised concept plan and draft ordinance were consistent with the Special Master’s recommendation. She showed the original concept plan, along with the new concept plan revised in accordance with the recommendation. She commented that the requested action was to recommend approval of the following items: a Special Master agreement under Section 70.51, Florida Statutes, with Lake Nellie Crossing, LLC to resolve a land use dispute; adoption of the rezoning ordinance attached to the Special Master Agreement; and payment of 50 percent of the total Special Master fees.  She concluded that the fiscal impact was $658.75 and was within, and would not exceed, the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Budget.

Commr. Campione asked for the original and revised concept plans to be shown.

Ms. Barrón pointed out that Lakeshore Drive was located to the west of the project boundary in both concept plans.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, stated that because this item was different than a typical rezoning, the Board was not considering the same rezoning standards that they normally did. She elaborated that because this was under Section 70.51, Florida Statutes, the Board’s options were to accept the administrative law judge’s recommended order, to modify the recommended order, or to deny the recommended order.

Commr. Campione said that in the settlement proposal, there was discussion about right of way reservation for a potential roundabout, should the County decide to build a roundabout.

Ms. Marsh clarified that the administrative law judge’s recommended order was to include everything they had already agreed to, and if there was a need for a roundabout, then the Lake Nellie property would donate what was needed on their property for a roundabout. She added that part of this also discussed a left turn lane for southbound traffic if deemed necessary, and there were additional requirements for stormwater facilities to be vegetated with native species where possible and for sidewalks to be constructed within the project and along the frontage. She summarized that these were the four items that the administrative law judge recommended in addition to what the applicant had already agreed to.

Commr. Campione inquired how the reservation of right way would work.

Ms. Marsh replied that the Public Works Department would evaluate it when the plan came in.

Commr. Smith asked about transportation item number seven in the proposed ordinance, noting that it said that “if public works determines that a roundabout is necessary to mitigate or address safety concerns, developer shall construct…” He thought that the magistrate said that the developer would just have to donate the land.

Ms. Marsh commented that staff would make this consistent with the Special Master’s recommendation.

Commr. Campione inquired if staff would ensure that whatever needed to be done from a legal standpoint was addressed for the donation of land, and Ms. Marsh confirmed this. Commissioner Campione then said that emails the Board received seemed to suggest that people were receiving information that she did not think was accurate. She commented that the Board received emails saying things like this was a density exemption, that it was the highest allowable density, etc., and she opined that it was unfortunate that many people were working off information that was not the whole story. She stated that the BCC was currently in a position where many things they were asking Cities and others to do with regards to rural transition land uses were being accomplished with the subject case. She commented that this was a Rural Transition FLU, which allowed a few different ways to place lots on the property, noting that one way was to cluster and have 50 percent open space. She opined that this essentially followed the Mr. Randall Arendt design that the County had been discussing with the Cities as a way to transition from urban uses to rural transition before getting to rural areas. She opined that to not approve a plan which incorporated those concepts would be contrary to what the BCC had been trying to promote on a countywide basis. She thought that for many people, this issue was about how the BCC could approve a project on a narrow and constrained road with too much traffic. She opined that the road had too much traffic, but noted that it was more complicated than this and essentially came back to property rights. She said that the BCC did not have the right under State of Florida law, the Constitution or Florida Statutes to deny a project just because the road was congested. She stated that they had rules that when roads were congested and traffic improvements were needed, developers had to make contributions to help alleviate some of these issues, but they did not have to fix the entire issue. She commented that she had voted against this case when it first came up due to concerns raised about safety and congestion on Lakeshore Drive, and based on a general desire to try to mitigate impacts of new construction by limiting additional density on this property. She mentioned that she knew at the time that the County might be in a precarious situation from the standpoint of being challenged in a court of law because this property already had a Rural Transition FLU, and the PUD was asking to design a project within the parameters of the Rural Transition FLU. She said that safety issues were the primary reason that she based her vote of denial on, and she relayed her understanding that the rest of the Board felt the same way about the safety issues; however, under State of Florida law, there was a test for substantial and competent evidence in cases of this nature. She opined that it was a challenging standard to meet, even when roads had multiple accidents on them, unless those accidents occurred at a particular location because of a particular condition. She said that after the previous hearing, she was glad to see that a group of residents got together and tried to work something out with the developer; however, they did not come back with a resolution, and the judge ruled against the County and with the landowner. She remarked that the landowner had a right to sue for damages under a property rights provision in the Florida Statutes, and that this could be a substantial burden on taxpayers. She said that if the landowner won the case, not only would they receive their damages, but they would also be able to proceed with their development. She opined that the BCC was in a difficult position, noting that if they voted in favor of it, then they would be doing something that was unpopular; however, if they voted against it, then they risked costing the County a large amount of funding and violating the rights of the property owners. She opined that this was not an issue of being bullied with a lawsuit, and said that the BCC had to weigh the merits of whether they might win the lawsuit or not and how likely it was, along with other factors regarding property rights. She said that the applicant was essentially proposing one unit per acre and 50 percent open space, with an improved design over what was initially presented. She added that they would also be on a central wastewater system, which was something that had a large positive impact on the environment, relaying her understanding that most homes in the area were on septic tanks. She opined that other than the constrained road network, which the County could continue to work on, the design could serve as a model for other projects in the rural transition area and possibly for Cities who were looking at lands on their perimeters. She felt that the County had no other avenue but to approve the settlement agreement with all of these items taken into consideration.

Commr. Shields asked where the Onsyte wastewater system would be located.

Ms. Bonifay, representing the applicant, said that the position may change, but it was currently near the church. She indicated that they could also show the buffers where they bordered other residences. She asked the Board to adopt this item as staff had recommended, with a modification in transportation item number seven in the proposed ordinance.

Mr. Alex Stringfellow, representing the applicant, said that the central wastewater system was shown in the northwest corner of the property and that it was downhill and adequately spaced, so that a roundabout would be allowable if the right of way taking would be necessary. He reminded the Board that this would come back for a preliminary plat; therefore, the Board could look at this again. He displayed the concept plan and stated that for buffers, they were matching the historic PUDs on the north side that had a 25 foot setback and a 15 foot buffer, which totaled 40 feet from the back of their house to the subject property line. He added that 50 percent of people on these lots had a fence, and nothing in their PUD precluded them from doing so if they wanted more privacy; additionally, their spacing to their side neighbors was 20 to 30 feet, and they would be closer to their current neighbors than what the applicant was proposing with a 15 foot landscape buffer with a double planted hedge and trees in the center. He added that the applicant would meet their 25 foot rear setback, summarizing that there would be 80 feet between the future houses in the subject neighborhood and the existing the homes on the north side. He showed the north side of the property and said that they were only adjacent to two lots, and that it was 80 feet between buildings with a double planted row of hedges; additionally, there would be screening from the stormwater pond, which would be natively landscaped. He said that it would be 40 feet from the south property line to the subject property line, and that the applicant enhanced this with another 15 foot landscape buffer and a 25 foot rear setback; therefore, there would be a 30 foot buffer between any adjacent residential property and their project, in addition to almost 50 acres of preserved land to the east.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Keith Cartwright, a resident on Royal Vista Avenue and representing the Vista Grande Homeowners Association (HOA), quoted a statement from his father regarding the area, Lakeshore Drive, the number of home sites, and traffic, opining that Lakeshore Drive was the only road that went from this residential area to any store, restaurant or place of employment. He opined that the Board could change the zoning from Agriculture to R-6 and go against the will of the people, or leave it zoned Agriculture. He relayed his understanding that the developer and the attorney met all the conditions, and he expressed concerns for traffic when shoulders were being improved on Lakeshore Drive. He opined that it did not make sense to add another subdivision like this.

Mr. Jeff Blazek, a resident on Poinciana Drive, opined that Lake Nellie was pristine, and he relayed his understanding that it was not brought up to the Special Master that the community septic system could be 3,600 gallons per day that they had to remove in the ground. He expressed concerns that the system was on a hill going down into Lake Sawmill and Lake Nellie, and he also indicated concerns for traffic safety. He then expressed concerns for pollution of the lakes and for a smell from septic tanks. He relayed an understanding that the Board had previously denied this item for reasons other than traffic safety, and he asked the Board to consider this.

Mr. John Troyano, a resident on Royal Vista Avenue, believed that the Board had recognized that the issue was safety and the oversaturation of the area. He indicated an understanding that this project would add 1,059 daily vehicular trips per day on Lakeshore Drive, noting that it was a two lane road with no shoulders on the majority of the road; furthermore, Lakeshore Drive was at a level of service (LOS) “D,” and the area with the bridge was at an LOS “F.” He relayed his understanding that Lake County typically did not perform a traffic study further than a mile out from the site of a project, noting that the bridge area was slightly over two miles away, but he opined that this was the only way in or out for residents in that area. He relayed concerns for the applicant not considering the safety impact, the impact on schools, and the impact on emergency services response times, as well as being unwilling to work with the community on a more palatable solution. He asked the Board to deny this recommendation, noting that there was another property down the road where there was a proposal to build more homes.

Commr. Parks reminded everyone that the Board’s three options were to accept, modify or reject the recommended order.

Mr. Ernest Cary, a neighbor of the subject property, opined that existing capacities on Lakeshore Drive mattered, and he expressed concerns for vehicles speeding around a curve near his house, along with traffic.

Mr. Joseph House, a concerned citizen, thought that a proposal for 75 lots would be a good fit for the community. He questioned who would be liable if misinformation was provided, and he relayed his understanding that the average response time from Lake County emergency response time in 2021 was 25 minutes to Vista Grande, and that it was about 22 minutes in 2022. He opined that safety was an issue.

Mr. Ault opined that this was the highest density allowed under the Rural Transition FLU.

Commr. Campione clarified that it was clustering.

Mr. Ault said that the community tried to work for a reduced density and that they tried to accommodate some concerns from the neighbors of Lake Nellie Crossing, noting that there was still a connecting road in the back of the project that remained. He said that he wished that Commissioner Parks would have attended the meeting when they tried to negotiate these changes to reduce the density. He agreed that the Board had an obligation to property rights; however, he also opined that they also had a responsibility to address the issues. He opined that the issue had been building for many years and said that in 2014, Commissioner Parks had asked him to gather the HOAs from around the area, and that they had met and agreed that they needed a plan to address this issue; however, this had not happened. He questioned what it would cost to address the road and if it would be more or less than what the County would face to defend a lawsuit. He also asked about the plan to address the road, noting that this was not the last parcel for sale on Lakeshore Drive. He said that he and Commissioner Shields had met with a developer who was asking for 400 homes one mile away from the subject property, relaying that the judicial order indicated that each of these houses was over 10 cars per day. He added that these 10 cars per day in a 102 home neighborhood was over three percent of the capacity, and he opined that the Board had to do something to address the issue.

Commr. Parks said that there was an attempt to try have the two sides negotiate, and just because he did not attend due to some miscommunication, or if another Commissioner was or was not in attendance, did not necessarily mean that it could have been worked out. He opined that the applicant was essentially where they were at, and that there was not any more negotiation; therefore, he did not think that his attendance would have had any bearing on it.

Ms. Julia Law, with the law firm of Roberts & Law, spoke on behalf of the property owners and relayed a history of the subject property. She recalled that the Suggs family, who owned the subject property, did not object to others exercising their property rights to have developments constructed which were at a higher density than what was proposed for this project. She commented that the Suggs’ property was surrounded by those developments currently; however, residents of those developments were objecting. She said that the zoning application proposed development of 102 units, one unit per net acre, with 50 percent open space, relaying her understanding that some of the surrounding developments did not have any open space. She elaborated that the Onsyte sewer system would be utilized instead of septic tanks, which were used in the surrounding areas, and she believed that it was inequitable and unfair to deny this application since the surrounding landowners were able to develop at higher densities. She also expressed support for the applicant being able to develop something similar in density, and something compatible with the areas and in compliance with the LDR and Comp Plan. She said that Mr. and Mrs. Suggs did not intend to threaten with a lawsuit; however, they may be left with no choice but to preserve their property rights if the application was denied. She believed that they had worked in good faith with the developer to lessen the impact of this development as much as possible, and noted that the Suggs family had purchased a home in one of the surrounding subdivisions and planned to build in the proposed subdivision. She mentioned the conclusions of the Special Master, based on the findings, that the rezoning satisfied the requirements of the Comp Plan and LDR, that there was no reason related to transportation safety to deny this rezoning, and that the denial of the rezoning under the circumstances presented was unreasonable or unfairly burdened the use of the property. She asked for the Board’s consideration of the owners’ property rights.

Mr. Andrew Bailey, a neighbor of the subject property, relayed his understanding that the developer had filed the lawsuit against the County, rather than the landowner, and Commissioner Parks confirmed this. Mr. Bailey then indicated an understanding that the developer would not purchase the property unless the PUD was approved.

Commr. Campione said that this did not mean that they did not have certain rights.

Ms. Marsh clarified that the lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Suggs family, rather than the developer.

Mr. Bailey inquired about the east side of Royal Vista Avenue where it was changed to have no development, noting that he had property along Oswalt Road which abutted that part of the property. He stated that he continually saw the water level of Florence Lake rising with each development that occurred, and he expressed concerns for losing more property due to the water levels. He asked for it to be in writing that the land on the east side of Royal Vista Avenue would not be developed, and that the County would have rights over it for a park or conservation. He added that he did not want to see the sewage treatment plant be moved near the ponds and lakes, and he was unsure why they were going to a PUD when the R-6 zoning granted the applicant rights on how to develop the property. He also expressed concerns for a PUD enabling the applicant to later include commercial property and multifamily dwellings.

Ms. Marsh clarified that the PUD specifically stated that development shall only occur west of Royal Vista Avenue, and that the parcel which was all green space would remain undeveloped as a passive park or placed into a conservation easement where at the County’s request, it would be deeded to the County.

Commr. Campione commented that there were not any commercial or other types of uses permitted, noting that it was a planned unit development which addressed the exact number of units and uses, and that it did not allow for any other type of uses on the property.

An individual identified as Mr. Neil, a resident of Little Nellie Drive speaking over Zoom Webinar, recalled that in a previous BCC meeting, Commissioner Smith had told the builder and developer not to come back to the Board without a new plan. He relayed his understanding that it was still the same plan, and he questioned why they were listening to this proposal. He opined that the traffic and safety concerns on Lakeshore Drive had not changed, and that they had increased since the first meeting. He relayed concerns for how the fire department could reach his home with all of the traffic, and he opined that Lakeshore Drive’s infrastructure would not allow for more roadway space and extra lanes. He commented that in the previous meeting with the Special Master, it was shown that Lakeshore Drive had continually received a grade “F” for traffic and safety; however, the developer provided a traffic study showing a LOS grade “D.” He opined that this should question the integrity and validity of the legal counsel, and if the applicant did not modify their request, he proposed that a nonbiased third party traffic study be conducted during a school week and during peak hours. He opined that if the study showed a grade “F,” then this item must be denied due to traffic and safety. He also opined that the traffic study should include both directions on Lakeshore Drive from the area of development to the two lane bridge, which would represent typical traffic patterns in the area. He encouraged the Board to continue to deny this item.

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

Ms. Bonifay asked the Board to follow the staff recommendation. She opined that a number of issues raised at the current meeting reflected some inconsistent information or a lack of knowledge, noting that the property was not zoned Agriculture. She clarified that it was zoned R-6, though R-6 was no longer consistent with the current Comp Plan. She said that they were doing a clustered subdivision which was intended when adding this area into the Comp Plan with rural conservation. She stated that the Onsyte septic system was designed to eliminate septic tanks when there was not a municipal provider, and that unlike septic tanks, they were licensed and overseen by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). She indicated that the open space in conservation could be dedicated to the County, and she recalled that they had a full hearing and that everyone had an opportunity to present evidence. She said that the administrative law judge had been doing this for the DOAH for 20 years, and she opined that he was careful in his evaluation. She mentioned that based on his determination, there was not competent substantial evidence to support the safety issue. She commented that as part of the order, the County indicated where they were trying to make improvements, possibly on the northern end of Lakeshore Drive near the bridge, and also further to the south; additionally, these could hopefully be done in the next one or two years. She added that there would be shoulders and other items in the proposed ordinance to be provided. She asked the Board to adopt the ordinance and the Special Master’s recommendation.

Commr. Shields recalled that at the previous BCC hearing, he stated that of utmost concern to him was the safety of his constituents. He said that in the judicial recommendation where the 102 homes were approved, it was agreed that the Lakeshore Drive bridge was the only practical way in and out of the area, and it was rated a LOS “F” during evening rush hour. He elaborated that the LOS “F” was at 879 afternoon trips, noting that this project could increase this to 944 trips, which was 12 percent over a failing grade. He added that it was also agreed that there were 58 accidents on Lakeshore Drive over a three year period, and that this was pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); therefore, he thought that this would only become worse. He stated that it was estimated that the travel time during peak times would increase by one minute or more, and asked to consider the time it took for an ambulance arrived. He remarked that while trying to come up with a negotiating position on the previous day, he received an email threatening a lawsuit if the BCC did not provide the maximum allowable number of homes. He elaborated that the lawsuit claimed about $5 million in damages, which they claimed was the difference in the value of the acreage zoned for 102 homes versus 20 homes. He expressed concerns for this lawsuit and for the damages sought, and he relayed his understanding that the existing property rights on the subject property were for 20 houses rather than 102 houses; additionally, any additional houses that the Board decided to confer was a negotiation between both parties. He opined that the applicant may have met the technical terms of the PUD process, but the County also had an obligation to the common good. He indicated that because the landowner threatened a lawsuit, any negotiation was off the table for him, and his vote would be for denial.

Commr. Campione said that the subject property was surrounded by the Green Swamp boundary and was in an area where there was the Urban Low FLU to the north. She elaborated that there was then the FLUs of Rural Transition, Rural, and the Green Swamp. She opined that this was the type of planning that was envisioned in the Florida Statutes and the comprehensive planning process, noting that this was the last piece of property before getting to Rural and that one unit per acre, clustered, could not be requested at that point. She thought that it was important to distinguish between land use applications where it was being requested to change the Comp Plan versus applications for rezonings where they were complying with the Comp Plan. She opined that if the County was going to be serious and reasonable about the discussion of growth in the county, they had to be able to acknowledge this difference. She opined that when they had a proposal that took the planning principles and included items that were in the code into the plan, it defied logic that the Board would treat it in such a way as to not approve what the judge recommended.

Ms. Barrón displayed the FLU map of the area.

Commr. Campione reiterated that the Green Swamp was around the area, and that it had low density FLUs and development was not permitted. She added that the subject property was right before this transition was made, noting that it was designated as Rural Transition with one unit per acre with 50 percent open space. She commented that the request was to make the zoning consistent with the FLU, and that the FLU was adopted law. She opined that the rule of law trumped the common good concept, and said that she had to vote in favor of the request.

Commr. Smith asked that if it was a 50 acre lot and the developer wanted to build 49 homes with 50 percent open space, would it come before the Board.

Ms. Barrón replied that it would not come before the Board.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that this item was only coming before the Board because they had a rule indicating that if it was 50 homes or more, it had to come to the Board even though the applicant was following every rule, and Ms. Barrón confirmed this.

Commr. Parks stated that he would not be in favor of denial and that he would support modifying the request to 75 units; however, he opined that Commissioner Campione had made excellent points for this item and that he could see it both ways.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board approved Tab 3, Rezoning Case # RZ-20-39-1, Lake Nellie Crossing.

Commr. Parks and Commr. Shields voted no.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 11:08 a.m. for five minutes.

discussion regarding city of eustis annexation

Commr. Parks said that Commissioner Campione had added this item to the agenda, and that this was discussion and direction regarding a public hearing related to a City of Eustis annexation for Alternate Keys 1445370 and 1445094; additionally, he relayed his understanding that this was behind the Lowe’s on U.S. Highway 441 between the Cities of Eustis and Mount Dora.

Commr. Campione stated that when the County initially received notice of this, it appeared that it was creating an enclave, and she pointed out a light colored section on a map.

Ms. Marsh explained that for the white section in the center, the County was provided information on the previous day that the applicant adjusted their boundary so that there was a 15 foot gap between the red and green lines, which was the driveway easement for how the properties in the center connected to Waycross Avenue. She indicated that the statute read that it would be an enclave if it was completely surrounded; however, in this case it was not completely surrounded, noting that there was a 15 foot gap. She relayed that there was really no recent case law on the enclave situation, and that it was technically not meeting the “completely enclosed” prohibition in the statute, though only by 15 feet.

Commr. Campione mentioned that this was a location with transportation issues, commenting that Waycross Road came out to State Road (SR) 44, and traffic would be stacked at this intersection during peak hours; additionally, there was traffic traveling north on SR 44 trying to turn left onto Waycross Road. She commented that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) had a plan for a widening project on SR 44 in the future, but it had been delayed indefinitely due to funding being moved to U.S. Highway 441. She believed that the proposed use was for multifamily, and she was unsure how they could accommodate traffic moving in and out. She guessed that their plan was to come out on Waycross Road, and she said that this was a County-maintained road. She said that it was a narrow road and that it was challenge to make left turns to SR 44. She stated that this was an infill type area and that it was close to U.S. Highway 441, and she thought that the overall number of units, the design, and the transportation access would make a difference regarding if this could function without creating an issue. She requested for the Board to at least ask the City of Eustis to consider concerns that County staff, the Board, or unincorporated residents could raise, and to be receptive to those considerations. She relayed that she received an email from Ms. Tammy Pena, a concerned citizen who had analyzed the other requirements of Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, which opined that this property was arguably not substantially contiguous or compact; furthermore, Ms. Pena had stated that she was in opposition to this annexation.

Ms. Marsh said that a map could be displayed.

Commr. Campione stated that now that the 15 foot gap was added, it seemed that the only place where the property was adjacent to the City of Eustis was to the south.

Ms. Marsh mentioned that there was 26 percent of the property contiguous with the City of Eustis on the south boundary, and if the road could be utilized, then they would only be at 10 percent on the western boundary.

Commr. Campione asked if they created a space.

Ms. Marsh replied that it was a 15 foot gap, but it was an easement. She added that even giving them the benefit of the doubt of it being a road that they could utilize under the statute, it was only 10 percent. She commented that there was really no case law on what constituted a substantial portion of a boundary, but they were only looking at one boundary.

Commr. Campione opined that it gave some grounds for the argument that it did not meet the Florida Statutes. She said that the idea would be to work together to try and mitigate the impacts, and she opined that by annexing it, the land use would be changed substantially to a much higher density and intensity.

Ms. Marsh displayed a site plan from the traffic study that was provided to the Public Works Department one or two months prior. She commented that there appeared to be an access on SR 44 and Waycross road.

Mr. Jeff Earhart, Engineering Manager for the Public Works Department, said that this was just a due diligence transportation review. He commented that it would probably be right in/right out on SR 44, which would be governed by FDOT. He added that at Waycross Road, the County would have to consider turn lanes and potential signaling. He said that they were looking at about 200 units and 1,400 trips per day.

Commr. Campione inquired if they were duplexes.

Mr. Earhart responded that he had been told that they were multifamily, and that he had heard about apartments; furthermore, it could possibly be build-to-rent.

Mr. Tom Carrino, Interim Eustis City Manager, did not believe that the site plan was being considered on March 17, 2022; rather, they only had the annexation, the FLU and the design district on the agenda.

Commr. Campione asked what the FLU would be, relaying her understanding that it could be seven or eight units per acre.

Ms. Marsh said that the notice received from the City indicated that it would be mixed commercial/residential with a suburban design district.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that the Board was only discussing a public notice for the City of Eustis annexing a piece of property.

Commr. Campione confirmed this, and said that the initial thought was regarding if the rules of the Florida Statutes being met; additionally, she mentioned transportation impacts on the adjoining county road system, and assuring that the County had given a thorough review. She also mentioned collaboration with the City of Eustis and if they could work together to create a situation that would be the least impactful on the roads. She stated that she just wanted to bring it to everyone’s attention, noting that it was early in the process. She asked the Eustis City Commission to be receptive to concerns, recalling that she had asked the City to consider changing their regulations so that they would receive site plans on the frontend instead of addressing it after an annexation.

Commr. Parks said that this was similar to the Wellness Way process, and relayed concerns from Eustis City Commissioners regarding whether the County would block their annexation. He stated that the Board could ask Mr. Fred Schneider, Assistant County Manager, and Mr. Earhart come up with a mitigation strategy that could be presented to the City of Eustis to see if they would accept it before considering annexing or going into the site planning process.

Ms. Marsh commented that the City’s first reading was March 17, 2022 for the annexation.

Commr. Campione mentioned right of way dedication, traffic signals and creating pedestrian connectivity, opining that these were the types of items that they would want to have discussions about on the frontend.

Commr. Parks said that the Board could ask Mr. Earhart and Mr. Schneider to start working on this.

Commr. Campione added that County transportation staff, City staff and the developer could possibly meet. She also said that she and the Mayor of Eustis could potentially be part of the discussions.

Commr. Smith expressed a concern for ensuring that there was enough land for a future four lane road.

Commr. Parks indicated interest in being a partner with the City because it would use the County’s roads. He noted that this would need to be done in the current week.

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Ms. Carolyn Haslam, representing the applicant for the annexation into the city, clarified that the 15 foot access was for the four parcels identified in the staff report by their alternate key numbers, noting that it had been the access for most of them for decades. She said that they were just leaving the access to those parcels, and that her client was working with those individuals to ensure that they had quiet enjoyment of their property and were able to stay in the county if they chose; additionally, they were meeting the Florida Statutes requirements related to enclaves. She mentioned that the subject property was in the City of Eustis joint planning area (JPA) and that the property currently had an FLU for four dwelling units per acre; therefore, they would be an urban type development regardless if it was the County or the City. She added that they were required to annex into the city to receive water and sewer, and that they were contiguous. She mentioned that her client had been working with the County and FDOT on the transportation issues.

Commr. Campione asked about the builder and what was being proposed for the project.

Ms. Haslam explained that it was build-to-rent, which was essentially multifamily with units that would appear like a detached single family unit. She also stated that her client was Taylor Morrison, noting that they had done this product in other markets and were proposing it in other places in Lake County.

Commr. Campione mentioned that this had come up in the BCC’s affordable housing discussions as a strategy that allowed for people to be able to rent, and that it was considered to be in the workforce housing category.

Ms. Haslam said that it was something they were seeing for a variety of people, and that it could be part of a comprehensive affordable housing strategy. She added that they could try to discuss transportation issues.

Commr. Parks reiterated that the County’s issues were walkability, county roads, and for it not to be a burden for the next generation.

Commr. Campione opined that it was important to have a meeting for transportation, and she expressed concerns for individuals trying to get onto Waycross Road from SR 44, along with getting people in and out of the property safely.

Ms. Haslam said that she could have her client and their consultants work on those issues with the County and FDOT as required.

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

Commr. Campione expressed interest in trying to get on the frontend of transportation issues in the future to address items at the beginning.

commissioners reports

commissioner shields – district 1

tour of lake norris conservation area

Commr. Shields said that he toured the Lake Norris Conservation Area, and he mentioned that if the County were to obtain it, they could possibly come up with a new designation. He opined that they did not necessarily need restrooms, and he mentioned that there were many people there on a Wednesday morning, noting that they were launching kayaks and enjoying the property. He commented that the County might not have to treat it like a normal park.

meeting with new mascotte city manager

Commr. Shields stated that he had a meeting with the new Mascotte City Manager and that it went well.

meeting with hands of hope america

Commr. Shields relayed that he also had a meeting in Four Corners with Hands of Hope America, noting that they were grateful for the new bus route coming in October 2022.

commissioner smith – vice chairman and district 3

meetings in city of tallahassee

Commr. Smith remarked that he visited the City of Tallahassee in the previous week and had some productive meetings with the Florida Departments of Transportation, Economic Opportunity and Environmental Protection, as well as the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD).

the spring games

Commr. Smith mentioned that he had attended THE Spring Games in the City of Leesburg where there were Division I colleges playing. He said that he was surprised at the amount of attendance, noting that it was well attended from people throughout the country. He praised THE Spring Games and the City of Leesburg for having an outstanding facility which was being maintained.

commissioner parks – Chairman and district 2

support for ukraine

Commr. Parks commented that at 1:00 p.m. on the current day, the County would show their support for Ukraine, noting that the Commissioners were invited to speak.

georgefest event

Commr. Parks thought that the City of Eustis did a great job with the current year’s Georgefest event.

Commr. Campione also opined that the City did a great job and that it was a great event.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

_________________________________

SEAN PARKS, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK