A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

April 5, 2022

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 5, 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 Stephanie Cash, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION and pledge

Commr. Parks welcomed everyone to the meeting, and he said that the invocation would be given by Pastor Josh Gussler, with the First Baptist Church of Umatilla.  He mentioned that the Pledge of Allegiance would be led by a veteran who was part of the County staff, and he introduced Ms. Heather Hoskins who was a Probation Officer in the Office of County Probation and had been with the County since December 2019.  He stated that Ms. Hoskins had served in the United States (U.S.) Marine Corps from June 2003 until October 2011 when she finished out her Military enlistment as a Sergeant.  He elaborated that in May 2004, Ms. Hoskins was stationed in Okinawa, Japan as one of the only female Marines selected to serve as a Field Military Police Officer, and she was then deployed to Mongolia to train the Mongolian Military to Support Operation Iraqi Freedom.  He commented that in the same year, she deployed with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit to Kuwait and then to Iraq in November 2004 as part of Operation Phantom Fury, where Ms. Hoskins and her team conducted route recon and provided security to convoys and other teams.  He mentioned that in January 2005, Ms. Hoskins was part of two teams of all female Marines that provided security for the first election in Iraq where Iraqi women were allowed to vote, and that these teams would later be known as the “Lioness Program.”  He remarked that in June 2005, Ms. Hoskins was stationed in Quantico, Virginia where she was selected to be one of four Combat Deployed Marines to speak to high school students, along with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Conway.  He explained that during her distinguished career, Ms. Hoskins was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement, the Combat Action Ribbon, the Navy Unit Commendation, the Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation, two Marine Corps Good Conduct Medals, the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and two Navy Sea Service Deployment Ribbons.  He commented that Ms. Hoskins was one of four siblings that enlisted in the military, her two older sisters were Marines, and her younger brother was currently on active duty in the U.S. Air Force.  He thanked Ms. Hoskins for her service to this country and to Lake County.

Pastor Gussler gave the Invocation and Ms. Hoskins 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, stated that she had no updates.

Montverde Academy Basketball teams

Commr. Parks mentioned that there were some special guests present at the meeting, referring to the Montverde Academy boys’ and girls’ basketball teams, and he introduced Dr. Kasey Kesselring, President of Montverde Academy, Mr. Kevin Boyle, Head Basketball Coach at Montverde Academy, and Ms. Special Jennings, Girls Basketball Head Coach at Montverde Academy.  He mentioned that Montverde Academy had been in operation for 109 years, and he announced that the previous Saturday, they had won both the girls’ and the boys’ National Interscholastic Basketball Conference.  He commented that Mr. Boyle and Ms. Jennings commanded great excellence from their teams, and that they cared about the athletes on the court and in the classroom.  He opined that they were role models in leadership, and that their success had made Lake County proud, noting that they also lived in Lake County.  He thanked the students for their attendance at the meeting, and he commended them for their example of teamwork.  He hoped that as they graduated and left for other opportunities, that they would remember that they would always have a home in Lake County.

Dr. Kesselring expressed appreciation for the invitation to attend the meeting, and said that they were proud to represent the Town of Montverde and Lake County.

Coach Boyle thanked the County for inviting them to come and for honoring the kids for their hard work and achievements, and he expressed appreciation for the culture that Dr. Kesselring had built at the school, opining that excellence came from a good culture in athletics, academics, discipline, and interactions with each other.  He expressed appreciation for the residents of Lake County and their hospitality, opining that it was a good place to live.

Coach Jennings commented that their teams had worked very hard, and that their standard was excellence.  She opined that the students exuded that, and she thanked the Board for the support.

Coach Rae Miller, Associate Head Boys Basketball Coach, mentioned that he had worked with Mr. Boyle for 30 years, and he thanked the County for inviting them there and supporting them.  He expressed appreciation for the students, the school, and the community.

Commr. Parks said that there had not been time to draft the proclamations since they had just won the conference on the previous Saturday, but they would be presented to the teams after they were approved at a future meeting.

citizen question and comment period

Mr. Vance Jochim, a concerned citizen, commented that at the Town of Lady Lake Commission meeting on the previous evening, he had given input about a traffic issue.  He mentioned that the Town attributed the issue to the County discounting the impact fees for roads, and that there was not enough money to fix the roads.  He opined that the County should not enable any kind of waivers for impact fees, and that it was meant to help with growth.  He then opined that planning and zoning packets did not mention the cost for the homes that would be built or the revenue the City or the County would receive, adding that there should be a formal method to calculate the return on investment (ROI).  He remarked that he knew of a development that was receiving financing through community development district (CDD) funding, and he opined that the County could find a way to require a developer to obtain CDD funding to help pay for the infrastructure.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tab 1, as follows:

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Recommend the appointment of Jennifer Hill as the primary representative and Tim Sullivan as the alternate representative to serve on the Lake County Canvassing Board for the 2022 election cycle. There is no fiscal impact.

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 Tab 2 had language added which was red and underlined pertaining to architectural design standards, municipal service taxing units (MSTUs), and municipal service benefit units (MSBUs), adding that there were design renderings included as Exhibit B.  She stated that staff wanted to have the case remain on the consent agenda with the proposed changes.

Commr. Parks said that he had questions and wanted Tabs 1 and 2 pulled from the consent agenda for discussion.

Ms. Barrón stated that Tabs 1 and 2 were previously approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on the consent agenda, and that a motion was made to move Tab 3 forward without a recommendation.  She related that Tab 4 was previously approved on the consent agenda; however, there was a memo provided in the packet regarding a discussion that arose during the public hearing regarding the Wellness Way design standards. 

rezoning regular agenda

Tab 1. Ordinance No. 2022-16

Rezoning Case # FLU-21-06-4

CSD Groves

Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category on approximately 78 +/- acres from Regional Office to Urban Low Density to facilitate the development of a single-family residential subdivision.

 

Tab 2. Ordinance No. 2022-17

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-23-4

CSD Groves

Rezone approximately 78 +/- acres from Agriculture (A) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to facilitate development of a 264-lot single-family residential subdivision.

 

Tab 3. Ordinance No. 2022-18

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-33-4

Peninsula Trucking Facility

Amend Community Commercial District (C-2) Ordinance #3-81 and amend Planned Industrial (MP) Ordinances #39-87 and #44-87, from MP and C-2 to MP to establish a new MP ordinance to allow limited light industrial uses. Including a waiver consideration request to LDR 9.10.03 Mount Plymouth-Sorrento Commercial Design Standards.

 

Tab 4. Ordinance No. 2022-19

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-22-1

Trout Lake Master Planned Unit Development (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 nonresidential development within the Wellness Way Area Plan.

 

csd groves

Ms. Barrón explained that Tab 1, Rezoning Case # FLU-21-06-4, CSD Groves, was located east of Round Lake Road and the Sullivan Ranch Boulevard intersection in the unincorporated area near the City of Mount Dora within Commission District 4, and that it was approximately 78 acres.  She explained that the applicant was proposing to amend the future land use (FLU) map from Regional Office to Urban Low Density to facilitate the development of a residential subdivision, and she showed the zoning and FLU maps, noting that the current land use was Regional Office, that the proposed use was Urban Low, and that the current zoning was Agriculture.  She showed a concept plan submitted by the applicant, and reiterated that they would like to amend the FLU map from Regional Office to Urban Low to accommodate a development of a 264 lot single-family residential subdivision, with a density of approximately 3.38 dwelling units per net acre.  She commented that the applicant had submitted a subsequent application to rezone the property from Agriculture (A) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), which was Tab 2, and that the proposed amendment was consistent with all elements of the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan).  She mentioned that the subject property was located within an area designated as the Wolf Branch Innovation District (WBID), and that the application was consistent with the WBID Implementation Plan recommendations.  She said that the Board recommended approval to transmit the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (FDEO), and the FDEO designated the amendment as 22-01 ESR, adding that the only feedback received on the amendment was advisory in nature.  She presented a map of the WBID recommended FLU plan, and said that staff had found the proposed amendment consistent with the Land Development Regulations (LDR) and Comp Plan, noting that the Planning and Zoning Board approved this on the consent agenda on September 1, 2021.

Commr. Campione mentioned that when it was designated as Regional Office, it was part of the WBID, and that it had been previously designated to be an area that had employment center uses.  She commented that Dr. Richard Levey, with Levey Consulting, had recommended that some of the Regional Office uses and employment center uses be downzoned because there were too many of those uses, and that this was moved to a residential designation; however, there were concerns about the zoning, the access management issues, and the design.  She mentioned that the only access was Round Lake Road, and that it did not make sense that there would not be any connectivity, opining that it was not consistent with the WBID plan.  She asked to see the map, and explained that the land to the east and to the north was part of the WBID, noting that there were no points of connection to those properties.  She elaborated that there was a spine road on the WBID map that was supposed to access those properties, but that there was no right of way dedication, noting that it was just a concept.  She mentioned that residential uses were supposed to be accessory uses to the employment center, and even though there were no employment center uses on this property, the residential uses could not access the accessory uses. 

Commr. Parks commented that access was one of his concerns.

Commr. Campione opined that this property should not be the only way in and out of an innovation district, but that there should be some access up to a certain intensity for uses related to regular vehicles.

Commr. Parks noted that the zoning case for this property would be next, and that they would be separate motions.

Ms. Barrón stated that Tab 2, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-23-4, CSD Groves, was located east of Round Lake Road and the Sullivan Ranch Boulevard intersection in the unincorporated area near the City of Mount Dora within Commission District 4, and that it was approximately 78 acres.  She explained that the applicant wanted to rezone these 78 acres from Agriculture to PUD to allow a 264 lot subdivision, and she showed the zoning and FLU maps and the concept plan provided by the applicant, stating that the applicant was seeking to develop the property with a 264 lot residential subdivision at a density of about 3.38 dwelling units per net acre.  She mentioned that the applicant had submitted applications to amend the FLU category from Regional Office to Urban Low and to rezone the property from Agriculture to PUD.  She displayed a chart showing the existing and proposed entitlements, noting that the current density allowed one dwelling unit per five net acres, and that they were proposing 3.38 dwelling units per acre.  She elaborated that currently they would be allowed to develop the parcel with 15 dwelling units, and that they were proposing 264 dwelling units.  She commented that the maximum impervious surface ratio (ISR) existing was 10 percent, and they were proposing 60 percent.  She relayed that the open space requirement for the proposed development was 25 percent, with a building height entitlement of 40 feet, and that the application was consistent with the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district allowed by LDR Section 4.03.00.  She explained that the LDR specified that PUDs were allowed in all land use categories, and that PUD zoning was intended to allow a diversification of uses, structures, and open space in a manner compatible with both existing and proposed surrounding uses.  She commented that the proposed rezoning was consistent with all elements of the Comp Plan, which allowed residential development at a maximum density of four dwelling units per net acre, and that the applicant was proposing to develop the property with a residential subdivision at a density of 3.38 dwelling units per net acre, which was consistent with the Urban Low density FLU category.  She related that the request was consistent with the Comp Plan for a PUD, which stated that density shall not exceed the underlying FLU category and that a PUD would be accompanied by a conceptual plan.  She mentioned that the subject property was located within the WBID, and that the WBID Implementation Plan from September 20, 2019 concluded that the area had an abundance of Regional Office space and recommended that 73 parcels, including the subject parcel, could change their land use to better accommodate the growth in the area.  She remarked that the subject property was identified for a single family land use of up to four dwelling units per acre, and that the application was consistent with the WBID Implementation Plan recommendations.  She said that the subject property was located within the City of Mount Dora joint planning agreement (JPA) area, and that the application was provided to the City of Mount Dora, which provided the following comments: a pedestrian-type trail connection to the east capable of accommodating golf carts would be required; covenants to annex would be required with the utility connection; and future development applications would be reviewed by the City to ensure consistency with their standards.  She commented that additional language was added to the draft Ordinance pertaining to architectural design standards and the use of an MSTU and an MSBU, and that these changes were shown in red and underlined; additionally, design renderings were included as Exhibit B of the draft ordinance.  She stated that staff had found the rezoning amendment consistent with the LDR and Comp Plan, and that the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously approved it at the March 1, 2022 Planning and Zoning meeting.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, an attorney representing the applicant, recalled that the Comp Plan was delayed three months while the County completed its Property Rights Element amendment, and that their application was originally approved, adding that it was sent to the FDEO and was sent back.  She mentioned that this project had been under review by Lake County for about 10 months, and that in the prior week, some additional criteria was sent to them from Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, to be added for architectural design guidelines.  She commented that they had met with Commissioner Campione, and that the additional architectural design guidelines were in red, adding that they were in agreement with them.  She stated that the elevations were attached as an exhibit, and that there were pictures of actual homes that would be used in this project as well as floor plans; furthermore, they were within the different styles of architecture that were called for and included façade treatments, shutters, porches, and the use of stone in addition to stucco.  She remarked that she had received on that current morning from Ms. Cari Branco, Assistant County Manager, five additional requirements offered by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) Chairman, and that she had only 10 minutes to review them with the applicant before the meeting.  She elaborated that the items listed included some additional proposed language on utilities and landscaping, and she asked if the Board had a copy of the list.

Commr. Parks stated that the Board did not have a copy of it.

Commr. Blake requested a copy of the items.

Ms. Bonifay displayed a copy of the items, and she mentioned that Ms. Tina Lee, a representative from Ashton Woods, and Mr. Tom Daly, a representative from Daly Design Group, were present.  She commented that the item regarding landscaping stated that the perimeter buffer could vary but must average 50 feet, adding that they could not do that on this site, and that there was already a development plan which was included in the packet.  She said that they had met all of the County’s code requirements, and that they could agree with certain other requirements on the list which included utilizing Florida native plant materials from the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) list and removing exotic species, noting that the property had previously been used for grazing cattle.  She related that the second requirement required a homeowners association (HOA) to manage buffer areas in accordance with a management plan that protected native habitats and limited the proliferation of exotic species, and that a management plan was required prior to the completion of the infrastructure.  She explained that the developer would not turn this project over to an HOA until a certain number of units was sold, and that this would be a burden on the developer, adding that she did not know how the County would enforce it and be in privity with the HOA as a non-profit.  She relayed that the HOA would be responsible for the maintenance, and if they did not do it in accordance with Lake County code, then the Office of Code Enforcement would cite them.  She remarked that to her knowledge, there was no guide or anything in the code that could tell the developer or the HOA, pursuant to Florida Statutes, what a management plan was, what the criteria was, and what would be provided in it.  She inquired if it would be included in the HOA declaration, noting that it was a private entity, and that there was no privity between the HOA and the County.  She said that she understood the intent, and that they endorsed the intent; however, she did not know how that could be effectuated.  She mentioned that they were in favor of the lighting standards, and that it was already required in the code and standard with what was practiced in all subdivisions, including the dark sky standard.  She commented that in regards to Commissioner Campione’s question about access, the County had unanimously adopted the WBID Implementation Plan in 2019, and that there were various graphics that went with it including the roadway network, adding that Ms. Barrón had shown that map earlier.  She opined that Richland Communities would not have purchased the abutting property with no access, and that the map showed other roadways that could be the connecting points.  She related that Dr. Levey was adamant about following the roadway network in the WBID, and that was why the City of Mount Dora was adamant in opposing any connectivity by vehicles.  She noted that there was a 50 foot access along the southern boundary that had been used by the prior owner for utilities, and she opined that Richland Communities could improve that access to meet County standards.  She added that there was also access to the north even though it did not meet County standards, and she pointed out that there were access points other than through the middle of the CSD Groves property.  She mentioned that since the property was not contiguous to the City of Mount Dora, they had to obtain development approvals in Lake County, and that in the JPA, they were required to obtain their utilities from the City of Mount Dora.  She relayed that they had a utility agreement that would be heard on the current evening in the City of Mount Dora, and the agreement said that there would be no vehicular access between the Summer Lake-Grace Groves project to the east and the CSD Groves.  She reiterated the City of Mount Dora wanted to implement the WBID plan as adopted, and that they would only allow pedestrian access or golf carts.  She opined that if the Board required the connection, then it could be grounds for the City of Mount Dora to deny the utility agreement for this project.  She commented that this had never been a part of the conditions for the ordinance, and that they had negotiated in good faith with the City and the County on all of the other conditions.  She related that they had worked in good faith with the Sullivan Ranch subdivision, which was directly across the road from this project, and that they would replicate the same type of fencing and buffers; additionally, the residents of Sullivan Ranch were also opposed to any further traffic coming through the CSD Groves project.  She mentioned that even though this was a smaller subdivision than others that had been approved, Ashton Woods had a financial responsibility to put in a roundabout for traffic calming and to address the concerns of the residents of Sullivan Ranch.   

Commr. Campione asked how much distance it would be from this project’s roundabout to the Summer Lake-Grace Groves’ access onto Round Lake Road south of this property.

Ms. Bonifay said that she did not know since it was not part of their traffic study; however, that was where the prior owner of Summer Lake-Grace Groves chose to access Round Lake Road.  She also inquired how they could only allow residential vehicles without allowing trucks on a public road, adding that they could display a sign but could not enforce it.

Commr. Campione wondered if Dr. Levey could have intended for the CSD Groves property to access the spine road that showed on the WBID Implementation Plan, and if it was possible that the spine road was supposed to provide all of the access to State Road (SR) 46.

Mr. Daly presented a color rendering of the concept plan for the CSD Groves project, and commented that they had submitted their application in June 2021, adding that they had pre-application meetings and discussions with the County staff and the City of Mount Dora staff in April 2021.  He mentioned that in September 2021 the Planning and Zoning Board hearing for the transmittal passed with no objections, and that they had met with the Sullivan Ranch HOA in the prior summer, committing to align the entrance directly across from theirs, match the character of the landscape architecture, and limit the traffic impacting Round Lake Road to the project.  He related that they had no idea that an adjacent land owner wanted access, and that any changes in the character of what they had represented to the Sullivan Ranch HOA would require their input.  He said that there was a 50 foot strip of land owned by Summer Lake-Grace Groves that went to Round Lake Road, and that it was about 500 to 600 feet from the Sullivan Ranch entrance and the proposed roundabout; additionally, to the north of CSD Groves, there was a 20 foot strip of land that was also owned by Summer Lake-Grace Groves.  He mentioned that they had met all of the buffer requirements as listed on the PUD, and that staff had concurred that the buffering was adequate on the north, south, and west boundaries.  He explained that when there were properties that had higher intensity uses than the adjacent land, those uses would typically be responsible for any additional buffering, depending on their use.  He related that there was a 25 foot buffer along the east boundary with Summer Lake-Grace Groves, and that any additional buffering would be the responsibility of the higher use, such as apartments and townhomes.  He reiterated that they had complied with the code, and that they had adequate buffers to the east, adding that there was a 50 foot strip of land to the south and a 25 foot strip of land to the north that they did not control.  He opined that they had a nice neighborhood that would complement the area, and said that they would dedicate right of way for Round Lake Road and build a roundabout, which was expensive; additionally, they were designing two green ponds to accommodate the widening of Round Lake Road. 

Commr. Campione inquired how wide the buffer was behind the homes bordering Round Lake Road.

Commr. Parks replied that it was a 15 foot buffer. 

Mr. Daly said that they wanted to keep the country character, but that they would be willing to supplement that with a berm or harder screening along the back, adding that they already met the code.  He mentioned that the code had a list of different buffers and different intensities of planting, and that even though it was a PUD, there were no special circumstances.  He commented that they had agreed to maintain the character of the area, and how they achieved that was up to that final design.

Commr. Campione mentioned that the buffers for Sullivan Ranch looked significantly greater than the buffers for the proposed project.

Mr. Daly commented that he had done the entitlements on Sullivan Ranch, and that there was horse fencing for what was supposed to be an equestrian center and horse paddocks; however, there was never a buffer requirement.  He mentioned that their property was originally approved for a golf course, and that when Centex Homes came in, they decided not to increase the number of units, which resulted in an abundance of open space.  He said that it was a beautiful community because they had decided not to increase the density, adding that this was in 2003 when there were no plans to widen Round Lake Road, and there was no innovation district. 

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Jochim commented that there was planning for innovation districts for residents to go for employment, and that there was now an application to remove that zoning allocation and put more homes in it, which would generate more traffic.  He opined that the County had compromised the work requirements and the ratio of work facilities to homes in the Wellness Way area, and that they were now doing it in the WBID, questioning where residents were going to receive employment.

Mr. Matt Young, with Richland Communities, remarked that they owned 600 acres of the WBID, and that 300 acres were directly east of the CSD Groves property.  He opined that when PUDs were viewed in an isolated format, it was easy to lose scale of the bigger picture and what they were trying to accomplish.  He did not think that the intention of Dr. Levey was to not provide any cross connectivity or that the spine road shown earlier was meant for sole access, opining that it was meant for local neighborhoods or minor collectors to have access to the greater region.  He remarked that they owned a small strip of land that did not meet County standards on the north side of the CSD Groves property that was closer to 20 feet, which would be best used for a utility corridor, and that the land on the south side of CSD Groves was 50 feet, which gave them legal access.  He explained that in the Comp Plan, within the transportation element, it advocated a reduction in additional connections to a roadway that could be perceived as constrained, and that through greater access controls, one could help the transportation pattern without hindering it.  He related that he was advocating for the Commission to give this additional consideration, and that he appreciated their consideration, opining that this overall topic could better promote the intentions of the WBID.

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

Ms. Bonifay requested that the staff report and backup be moved into the record as well as the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Board meetings in which this case was approved unanimously.  She mentioned that the Regional Office FLU was done many years prior, which was why Dr. Levey was hired to do a JPA with the City of Mount Dora for the WBID, and that there would not be a way to do an office center in that location, adding that this was before the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.  She opined that the office sector was in worse shape than hospitality, and that there were many vacancies in downtown areas and no new office construction, which was why this piece of property was taken out.  She said that Dr. Levey had new acreage requirements and had said that these would be reasonable; furthermore, he had a road network that he made a part of that.  She remarked that one could say that he did not intend to do that, but this was never brought up when the plan was adopted in 2019, noting that this was the plan by which this should be measured.  She reiterated that the City of Mount Dora was adamant about following the plan, and that if the Board mandated this access, they would ask for at least two weeks to discuss it with the City.  She opined that when the agenda, the packet, and the utility agreement were presented to the City of Mount Dora on the current evening, they would not see it as an act of good faith, adding that one of the requirements attached as an exhibit stated that this project had to be limited to pedestrian access.

Commr. Campione opined that the Mount Dora City Council may not know that this was going on, and that the two Boards should discuss the issue, opining that some things could have been lost in the translation between staff conversations.  She said that she would be surprised if the City Council understood that there would not be any type of interconnectivity from this project into the WBID other than a walking path. 

Ms. Bonifay opined that the Board was jeopardizing their Comp Plan, noting that this was never discussed during the Comp Plan discussions or at any time by the County staff in 10 months.  She commented that the City of Mount Dora was cognizant of what came before them, and that they had negotiated for months with the City staff.  She related that she could only negotiate with those appointed as staff with Lake County and the City of Mount Dora, adding that the City’s Planning Director, the Assistant Planning Director, the City Manager, and the City Attorney were all well aware of what was going on and that they had it on their agenda for the current evening.  She opined that the two Boards could have meetings, and she inquired why there had been no direction in 10 months for there to be a joint meeting or for CSD Groves to discuss this, if this was an issue.  She asked what it meant to give access to Summer Lake-Grace Groves, if the Board required access, and what size of road would be required.  She relayed that Richland Communities had mentioned a boulevard, and she inquired about the economic loss for Ashton Woods on the units they would lose to provide free access through their property.  She pointed out that Richland Communities had not discussed this issue with Ashton Woods for an agreement, and that none of the traffic studies done by CSD Groves, which were the basis of the Comp Plan, had extra trip generation.  She elaborated that she did not know how to start to determine the impacts using the existing PUD, adding that the condition of not allowing trucks could not be enforced on a public road.  She said that the other option was for Ashton Woods to construct private roads, and that it would be a burden on the residents.  She opined that requiring these conditions on the day of the hearing was putting the applicant at a disadvantage, and she wondered what this would economically do to this project.  She commented that Ashton Woods was trying to meet all of the architectural design guidelines, and that the only thing required by Commissioner Parks that they could not do was the 50 foot buffer going all the way around the perimeter, which was not required in the code.  She relayed that they would buffer, and that they wanted the people living there to be happy, adding that if the property abutted Round Lake Road, they could add additional buffering.

Commr. Campione remarked that it was not uncommon for PUDs to have stub roads that came out from their boundaries to provide cross access, and that they would not have to do an economic analysis about the impact.  She commented that the Comp Plan that had come before the Board was for the concept of going from Regional Office to a residential area, and that nobody was looking at the details because those details were not presented; furthermore, now that the Board had the details, the applicant wanted to be approved simply because they had been working on this for many months.  She opined that the applicant could wait a little longer to discuss these issues and to make sure that the City of Mount Dora was made aware of the issues, adding that it could result in a better layout that tied into the WBID.  She suggested that the Board should wait a couple of weeks to see if the County could meet with the City of Mount Dora.

Ms. Bonifay pointed out that since her clients were under contract, there were timeframes based on what the normal process would take to move through entitlements, and that there were penalties that would have to be paid if they did not get to that point, noting that they could lose their contract.  She mentioned that if the majority of the Board wanted to further investigate, then they would ask for an additional two weeks, and that there would be direction given to both sides; however, she did not see how this would benefit CSD Groves.  She commented that they did not know what changes could be made in the PUD, and that there were 300 acres wanting connectivity.  She opined that this could result in much more traffic, which was never contemplated for this development, and that Round Lake Road was not made to handle it.  She added that the Sullivan Ranch residents would not be anticipating this, but that if the vote of the Board was to require something, then they would ask for two weeks.  She said that she did not know how to go forward with a utility agreement which could not be met because of the requirements the City included in order to approve it, and that their utilities would now be jeopardized.

Mr. Daly mentioned that they had been talking in generalities about cross access, and that when there were neighborhoods next to neighborhoods, there was a provision of having a stub road.  He pointed out that this was not a neighborhood abutting a subdivision or a future subdivision, and that all the entitlement work he had seen on Summer Lake-Grace Groves was much more, being part of the WBID.  He commented that the impact was more than just an interconnection, opining that it would include trucks, warehouses, and a college.  He opined that this would be much more impactful than just a stub road, adding that they had no direction on what was being discussed.  He said that if there were provisions to limit the number of cars, there would not be a way to enforce that, and he asked if they intended to have the HOA call the County every time there was truck traffic or construction traffic, noting that there was no way to regulate those things.  He related that they would have to go back to Sullivan Ranch to discuss the issue, but that they did not know what discussion the Board wanted them to consider.  He questioned what the Board perceived as cross connectivity, and said that it could not be a stub road.  He recalled that County staff and the City of Mount Dora were in favor of the PUD.  He mentioned that the owner of Summer Lake-Grace Groves wanted more but had never reached out to them to talk about cost sharing and impact fee credits, and that he had gone to the Board instead.  He commented that he did not mind taking a two week continuance, but that he and the residents of Sullivan Ranch needed to know what the Board was thinking about imposing on this property instead of talking in generalities; however, he requested that the Board would approve the application as it was presented.

Commr. Smith asked if Mr. Daly had a copy of the ordinance with the red line changes, and Mr. Daly said that had received it on the previous Thursday.  Commissioner Smith asked if he was agreeable to it, and Mr. Daly said that he was.

Commr. Campione commented that she could meet with the applicant and the City of Mount Dora in order to create some conditions that could address some access connectivity and address some of the issues raised by Commissioner Parks regarding buffering.

Commr. Campione made a motion for a two week continuance, but the motion failed due to the lack of a second.

Commr. Blake commented that this PUD had come before the Board without opposition from Sullivan Ranch, and he asked if the main issue was that Richland Communities wanted access to this property.

Commr. Campione remarked that the issue was the WBID design, and that the reason Sullivan Ranch was not opposing it was because the property was going from Regional Office to a residential area.

Commr. Blake said that the other part of this was that the economy had changed, which was one issue with assigning long term development plans to a planner that based it on a certain moment in time, and that regional office space was no longer a high value commodity.  He said that some of the comments indicated that Round Lake Road should not be overburdened, but then Richland Communities wanted access to Round Lake Road, which could increase traffic on Round Lake Road.

Commr. Campione explained that the County wanted to minimize access points on Round Lake Road.

Commr. Blake asked if it was true that Richland Communities had not reached out to discuss this, and if this was a last minute issue.

Commr. Parks mentioned that the current hearing had produced suggestions to an ordinance, and that this happened at many zoning hearings.  He also noted that the suggestions that he had proffered had been pulled from other ordinances that had been passed within the last two years.

Commr. Blake clarified that he was not referring to Commissioner Parks’ suggestions.

Commr. Parks opined that it was good that nobody was there to oppose the applicant, and that the Board was trying to be consistent with all the questions coming up.  He added that regardless of the number of people in attendance, it was a good thing that the Board was asking questions.

Commr, Blake opined that if the Board allowed the road to go through and connect to this major development area, then Sullivan Ranch residents would oppose it.

Commr. Smith commented that the developer had been going through this for 10 months, and that it met the Comp Plan and LDR requirements, noting that it was pulled off the consent agenda for reasons that had not been brought up before.  He expressed concerns for why the County would demand something of the applicant at the current time, opining that it should have been addressed six months prior giving the applicant time to plan for it or adjust to it.

Commissioner Smith made a motion to approve Tabs 1 and 2, and Commissioner Blake seconded the motion.

Commr. Parks stated that he would vote no on the motion, and that utilizing the standards of review 14.03.04, he did not believe that it was consistent with sections E, F, G, and H.  He also said that there was an addition of evidence about the possibility of some cross access or accessibility that would be consistent with the overall planning for this Comp Plan, which was an issue that could be addressed at the zoning level and could actually reduce traffic overall through this area plan.

Commr. Campione said that she would not support the motion, and that she concurred with the statements that were made by Commissioner Parks.  She pointed out that the Comp Plan amendment only stated the designation and not the details, and that if the Board had been working on the details for 10 months, she would be agreeable; however, when the details were viewed from the standpoint of this being a cornerstone or a major building block of the WBID, doing it correctly was more important in the big picture.

Commr. Parks added that what he had suggested should not have been a surprise, and that it was about being fair in how the Board addressed these serious growth management issues in Lake County.

Commr. Campione opined that it was sometimes difficult to get the two parties to talk to each other until they thought there was a reason they needed to talk to each other, and that it was part of the issue.

Commr. Smith suggested that the Board could help staff understand what was wanted in the WBID, but reiterated that this had been going on a long time, opining that the applicant could have planned for it if he had known about it.

Ms. Marsh inquired if the motion was just for the red line ordinance, or if the motion included any of the additional comments from Commissioner Parks.

Commr. Smith clarified that it was just for the red line ordinance.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board approved the red line version of Tabs 1 and 2, Rezoning Cases #RZ-17-21-4 and #RZ-21-23-4, CSD Groves.

Commr. Campione and Commr. Parks voted no.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:35 a.m. for 10 minutes.

Peninsula Trucking Facility

Ms. Barrón presented Tab 3, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-33-4, Peninsula Trucking Facility, indicating that it was located on County Road (CR) 437 in the Sorrento area in Commission District 4, and that the parcel was about 11.51 acres.  She stated that the applicant’s request was to amend the Community Commercial District (C-2) Ordinance 3-81 and amend the Planned Industrial (MP) Ordinances 39-87 and 44-87, from MP and C-2 to MP to establish a new MP ordinance to allow light industrial uses, and that this would include a waiver consideration request to LDR Section 9.10.03, Mount Plymouth-Sorrento commercial design standards.  She pointed out on the current zoning map and the current future land use map that the highlighted properties included one parcel that was C-2 and that the rest were MP, adding that the FLU was the Mount Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street.  She displayed the concept plan, and explained that the subject parcel was located within the Mount Plymouth-Sorrento Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) and the Wekiva Study Area (WSA).  She elaborated that the owner wished to expand the Peninsula Trucking facilities to an adjacent parcel located on the west to add a building to repair the vehicles associated with their business, and that pursuant to Comp Plan policy I-3.2.6, light industrial use activities were limited to those without off-site impacts and took place primarily within an enclosed building.  She related that the subject parcel was developed prior to the 2030 Comp Plan, and that the trucking facility use was conditionally allowed within the Mount Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street FLU category; however, it was considered existing nonconforming.  She commented that the proposed request was consistent with LDR Sections 3.01.02 and 3.01.03, which allowed automotive repair and trucking facilities within the MP zoning district, and that the proposed request was inconsistent with LDR Section 1.08.02 Continuation of Nonconforming Development, which stated that minor expansions to uses or structures nonconforming to the Comp Plan may be made to meet regulatory requirements so long as the expansion did not exceed 10 percent of the nonconforming use or structure.  She mentioned that in this instance the 10 percent would be based on the use or structure as it existed prior to September 22, 2011 when the 2030 Comp Plan was adopted, and that the total proposed use expansion would equal approximately 33 percent.  She remarked that the application was inconsistent with LDR Section 1.08.03, nonconforming uses, which stated that uses previously existing, prior to the effective date of the 2030 Comp Plan were allowed, unless there was an expansion, change, enlargement, or alteration of a use, which increased its nonconformity in any way.  She relayed that the concept plan was inconsistent with LDR Section 9.10.03 because the proposed expansion exceeded 35 percent of the square footage of the existing structures, and that the project must adhere to the Mount Plymouth-Sorrento commercial design standards.  She mentioned that a waiver request was submitted for the Board’s consideration so that the development authorized herein would not be required to adhere to the Mount Plymouth-Sorrento commercial design standards, adding that the proposed building would have an approximate expansion of 46.9 percent.  She commented that on December 7, 2021, the proposed rezoning request and concept plan was presented to the CRA Advisory Committee for review, which stated that the access to the proposed MP parcel could be located on CR 437, and that the proposed buildings could be in the rear of the lot; however, the architectural design for the proposed building must be in accordance with LDR Section 9.10.03, Mount Plymouth-Sorrento CRA commercial design standards.  She remarked that the application included a request to the BCC to consider a waiver to LDR Section 9.10.03, Mount Plymouth-Sorrento CRA commercial design standards, and that on January 25, 2022, a vacation petition was submitted by the applicant to the Public Works Department, noting that the vacation petition must be approved prior to the site plan approval.  She noted that the rezoning was inconsistent with Comp Plan Policy I-3.2.6, Mount Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street FLU category, and that even though the rezoning to the MP district satisfied the requirement for a land use regulatory instrument in lieu of a conditional use permit, the overall truck yard use of the property should comply with the enclosed building requirement.  She stated that the proposed amendment was inconsistent with Comp Plan Policy I-2.1.4, design standards for the Mount Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street FLU category, which required that structures presented a traditional storefront face and entrance to SR 46.  She mentioned that Policy I-2.1.4 also stated that alternative design deviations from the standards stated above could be considered with approval from the BCC if the applicant demonstrated the purpose of this policy would be or has been achieved by other means, or if strict application of these requirements would create a substantial hardship, noting that a substantial hardship included a demonstrated economic, technological, legal or other type of hardship affecting the development of the property.  She said that the rezoning request was consistent with Policy I-2.1.9, preservation of tree canopy, which stated that where mature native trees existed, land use and design requirements should minimize the impact to the existing trees and tree canopy; additionally, Policy I-2.1.9 promoted the use of trees along roadways and within all new development.  She then summarized that the proposed request was consistent with LDR Sections 3.01.02 and 3.01.03, which allowed automotive repair and trucking facilities within the MP zoning district, and that the concept plan was inconsistent with LDR Section 9.10.03, Mount Plymouth-Sorrento CRA commercial design standards, which stated that expansions that exceeded 35 percent of the square footage of the existing structures must adhere to the Mount Plymouth-Sorrento commercial design standards.  She relayed that the proposed request was inconsistent with LDR Section 1.08.02, continuation of nonconforming development, which stated that minor expansions to uses or structures nonconforming to the Comp Plan could be made to meet regulatory requirements so long as the expansion did not exceed 10 percent of the nonconforming use or structure, adding that the 10 percent should be based on the use or structure as it existed on September 22, 2011.  She said that the application was inconsistent with LDR Section 1.08.03, nonconforming uses, which stated that uses previously existing prior to the effective date of the 2030 Comp Plan, were allowed unless there was an expansion, change, enlargement, or alteration of a use, which increased its nonconformity in any way, and that staff had determined that the amendment was inconsistent with the LDR and Comp Plan.  She noted that the Planning and Zoning Board voted to move the case forward to the BCC without a recommendation from them on March 2, 2022.

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

Commr. Shields stated that he had met with the applicant.

Commr. Campione stated that she had engaged in discussions with the applicant and the applicant’s attorney.

Commr. Smith stated that he had met with the applicant.

Commr. Blake stated that he had met with the applicant’s attorney.

Commr. Parks stated that he had also met with the applicant’s attorney.

Commr. Campione mentioned that she was the liaison to the CRA Board, and that this item was discussed at the CRA meetings that she was present at.

Mr. Tim Hoban, an attorney representing the applicant, displayed an aerial map of the property and pointed out that the main property was developed in 1978 with building permits, and that since the early 1980s, this property had been used as a trucking facility.  He mentioned that in 2019, the applicant bought the abutting property, and that currently, the applicant employed about 160 employees.  He explained that the applicant’s trucks transported indoor plants from local nurseries to many destinations, and that the applicant repaired only his own trucks on the site, adding that he currently wanted to modernize, upgrade, and build a new garage.  He related that the existing buildings on site built in 1978 had over 44,000 square feet of space, and that it was economically infeasible to retrofit 44,000 square feet of existing buildings to adhere to the commercial design standards of LDR Section 9.10.03.   He requested that the Board grant a waiver for this policy, and added that the CRA committee recommended that a waiver should be granted.  He opined that if the applicant had not bought the new property, it would have been sold to Firestone Tire Kingdom, resulting in a car repair facility, which was a permitted use under the FLU, under C-2, and under MP, pursuant to the Comp Plan, and that they would have built the garage along SR 46 and removed 15 oak trees.  He remarked that the Comp Plan and the LDR allowed the Board to consider an alternative design.  He noted that there was a chain-link fence 25 feet inside the applicant’s property, and he showed pictures of the dense foliage surrounding it.  He also showed several pictures of barns, and said that according to Mr. Ryan Fitzgerald, a licensed contractor who owned Ryan Fitzgerald Construction, it would cost $320,000 to make the garage look like a barn; therefore, the applicant proposed a 200 foot landscape buffer from SR 46 so that no one driving on SR 46 would see the new garage.  He relayed that according to Mr. Tim Green, a landscape consultant, it would cost $355,000 to do landscape buffering around the entire property, noting that Tire Kingdom would not have incurred that cost if they had built a garage.  He proposed that there would be a 200 foot landscape buffer from SR 46 and a an eight foot faux stone wall going from the southern boundary to the entryway and into the property to prevent anyone from seeing their trucks.  He commented that with the proper FLU, a planned industrial zoning with a Lake County approved site plan, they could have a trucking facility, but they could not park trucks outside at the facility, adding that it was economically infeasible to build an enclosed parking garage for 200 trucks.  He elaborated that according to the Lake County staff, they were a legally existing nonconforming use, and that the consequence was that they could not modernize, improve, or expand.  He related that the language specified that the activities were limited to those without offsite impacts and took place primarily within an enclosed building, and he noted that an activity was doing something, such as loading and unloading plants and repairing trucks, which was all done inside, opining that a parked truck was not an activity.  He remarked that this kind of language was common in other Counties and Cities in order to limit noise and smells, and that the Counties of Orange, Seminole, Volusia, Marion, Sumter, and Polk allowed trucking facilities under the same conditions to park their trucks outside.  He requested for the County not to clear-cut the property when they built the trail project to the north, and said that the existing foliage and fence created a landscape screen with no irrigation or fertilizer.  He asked that the Board would approve their concept plan as an alternative design, that they be exempted from LDR Section 9.10.03, and that the project be approved with the requirement to build a faux stone wall blocking sight from CR 437, and a 200 foot landscape buffer along their SR 46 boundary.  He mentioned that because the applicant was considered a legally existing nonconforming use, they would not be able to modernize in the future, and he requested that the Board do something to enable this business to expand and upgrade in the future.

Commr. Smith inquired if the new building would be enclosed with garage doors, and if they would bring the trucks inside to repair them.

Mr. Hoban said that was correct.

Commr. Parks asked if there was a width for the buffering.

Mr. Hoban replied that there was a chain link fence 25 feet inside the property line where the buffering was three stories high, and that one could not see inside the facility from the north.  He commented that there would be a 200 foot buffer from CR 437, and that there was a 60 foot un-vacated platted road on the west.  He mentioned that a standard Lake County Type C buffer, consisted of certain plants, and that even though the existing buffer was natural, some of the plants were not listed as a Type C landscape buffer; therefore, he requested that the Board accept the natural existing plants in the landscape buffer.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Duane Gossett, the father of the applicant, commented that he loved Lake County and had enjoyed being there, and that he had no intention of increasing the number of trucks that they had.  He mentioned that they were a family business, that they were comfortable with where they were at, and that they had 135 semi-trucks, which was the maximum allowable number.  He opined that the number of employees would increase by 30 to 50 by improving this property and constructing this building, which would also be good for Lake County.  He related that 30 of the 50 employees would be dock workers, and that they would have to hire more mechanics, adding that if the concern was about traffic, there would be no new trucks.

Ms. Joyce Gossett, the mother of the applicant, said that she was supportive of this improvement, and opined that if one could make more space and make the employees happier, then they would be more productive.  She commented that they were not going to increase trucks or trailers, and that they just wanted to do a more efficient job.  She remarked that they kept their facility looking nice, noting that they had won a Chamber of Commerce award.  She asked that the Board would approve the application so that they could improve the working conditions and have more space for the trucks.

Mr. Chris Berens, a concerned citizen, relayed that he supported Peninsula Trucking and the Gossett family, noting that he had known the family for about 25 years, and that they were good community neighbors.  He commented that they should be allowed to modernize, make their business more efficient, and continue to be a good community-minded neighbor.

Mr. Jochim commented that the documentation in the agenda said that the previous meeting with the Planning and Zoning Board had a 2-2 vote, which was usually a denial, but that it said that they did not make a recommendation.  He wondered if that was a policy for this Board, relaying his understanding that if there was an even distribution of votes at a Planning and Zoning meeting, it was denied.  He mentioned that it would be helpful if staff could explain why there was such a difficult compliance criteria versus professional judgement, opining that everything he heard had been very rational for the business.

Commr. Campione replied that the code said that a waiver had to be granted by the BCC.

Ms. Marsh clarified that the Planning and Zoning Board made a third motion to move it forward with no recommendation, and that was why it was presented with no recommendation.

Commr. Parks commented that if the BCC had only four Board members present and there was a tied vote, it would be a denial.

Mr. Fitzgerald mentioned that he had a personal investment in this company not just from a financial standpoint but also as a construction company who had hired six new employees with more coming in, and that they needed the revenue that could result from this project.  He opined that it was important to incorporate some good ideals to help Peninsula Trucking grow their business, and that he did not want them to consider moving out of Lake County to a more receptive area.  He commented that changes were often made in order to accommodate different situations, and that this was an important one to consider.

Mr. Wade Gossett, President of Peninsula Trucking, commented that they were trying to modernize their facility and make it a better place for their employees to work, and that they could increase the number of their mechanics if they could get better facilities for them to work in.  He clarified that they had 15 trucks on order, 150 tractor trailers, seven local trucks, and 180 trailers, and reiterated that they wanted to modernize to be more efficient and to be a better work place for their employees.

Mr. Tim Bailey, Chairman of the Mount Plymouth-Sorrento CRA, mentioned that Peninsula Trucking had been good neighbors, and that they appreciated what they brought to the community.  He related that the CRA had worked hard to create their LDR, and that as Board members, they opined that they were important.  He noted that the CRA had voted unanimously in opposition to this project, but since that time, he had been provided information that would have caused him to change his vote.  He opined that the community and the BCC could do something to allow Peninsula Trucking to expand their operation that would not impugn the LDR that they had approved, adding that it would include being creative and working with them.  He requested that the Board would consider accepting some modifications to this application, and said that as Peninsula Trucking had been good neighbors, the CRA could be good neighbors to them.  He commented that Mr. Hoban had mentioned that he wanted to be able to expand in the future, and that he would be opposed to that.  He relayed that the Rails-to-Trails project was not going to go through that area; however, if the Mount Plymouth-Sorrento area was going to be a hub of three major bike trails, it would require planning.  He said that he was not a land planner and did not understand engineering and design, but he knew that there were ways to buffer the impact of this expansion, adding that he would support that. 

Commr. Campione commented that at the last CRA meeting, the discussion indicated that there was appreciation for this business, and that they did not want the business to feel unwanted or to consider leaving Lake County.  She mentioned that they had wanted to honor the integrity of their LDR, and she wondered how they could accommodate a business such as theirs to be able to expand.

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

Mr. Hoban opined that there should be a way to keep Peninsula Trucking from being designated as a nonconforming use, and that they should be allowed to improve their property and obtain a building permit.  He asked if there was a way for the Board to help this situation which limited all future growth.

Commr. Campione remarked that if the Board established a number of tractors and trailers as the existing use, then they could obtain a permit to improve the facility, which was considered to be the nonconforming issue, and as long as they did not exceed that number, then it would not be an issue.  She suggested that the Board cap the number of trailers to 180 and the number of trucks to 160, and that it could be added to the ordinance.  She added that she approved of the faux stone wall to block the view of the outdoor storage from CR 437, which honored what the CRA Board wanted.  She commented that the new building would be far enough away from SR 46 that the design standards would not be an issue, and that it would address the issue with the CRA Board.  She mentioned that the 25 foot buffer along the west boundary, the 200 foot buffer off of SR 46, and the faux stone wall along CR 437 accomplished the intent of what the CRA Board had tried to achieve with their LDRs.

Commissioner Campione made a motion for approval with those conditions, and Commissioner Shields seconded the motion.

Mr. Hoban asked if the motion could also state that they would not have to landscape the entire perimeter, which was another issue that they were noncompliant on.  He stated that they were leaving the 200 foot buffer and building an eight foot faux stone wall along the entrance up to their gated entrance.

Commr. Campione related that it could be included along with the existing foliage, adding that it was in the community’s interest that it stayed intact.

Commr. Smith remarked that Peninsula Trucking was conforming before the government changed their use, and that he did not like the designation of nonconforming.  He stated that he did not support the cap on the number of trucks, and that he did not support stifling a business’s ability to grow.  He said that he supported the project, and opined that the company should be allowed to build a modern building and have safe places for their employees to work, adding that they should not be prohibited from growing to their fullest potential.

Commr. Shields inquired if the trucks would be visible from the road.

Commr. Campione commented that the reason for having a cap was because the land use designation was the main street designation, and that they had purchased more land, making it challenging to comply with the rules.  She asked the owner how many trucks they could fit on the site and safely move them around, opining that they were comfortable with the number she had mentioned.  She mentioned that when the Board was discussing Planned Commercial, Planned Industrial, and PUDs, specifics could be discussed because of the intensity of a use in relation to the surrounding land uses, and that was why the applicant should have a cap.  

Commr. Blake opined that the number of trucks would be naturally limited by the size of the property, and that if they were to expand the property, it would come before the Board.

Commr. Smith questioned the owner about the current cap of 160 trucks and 180 trailers.

Mr. Gossett replied that they would like to grow, but that they were comfortable with the number they were at.  He mentioned that they traded their trucks and trailers after a certain timespan, and that 180 trailers should be fine.

Commr. Smith asked if Commissioner Campione would mind if the Board gave the applicant a 10 percent buffer.

Commr. Campione commented that the Board was trying to work around an existing land use, an existing use on part of the property, and an expansion being requested without calling it an expansion, which was why she suggested limiting the number of trucks and trailers.  She said that she did not know if 10 percent would be appropriate.

Ms. Marsh related that a number would be easier to enforce than 10 percent, and that those numbers could be included in the ordinance.

Commr. Blake suggested that it could be 200.

Ms. Marsh inquired if the motion included the waiver for architectural design standards.

Commr. Campione replied that it was included because it was being buffered from the road by vegetation, and that the intent was there, adding that if they could make it look good, the CRA Board would appreciate it.

Commr. Blake opined that this was a good zoning case, and he appreciated that a trucking facility, which had been operating since before he was born, was continuing to thrive, employ residents, and pay taxes in Lake County, noting that the business also provided transportation logistics for the agriculture industry, which the County was trying to preserve and encourage.  He said that it was good to see American industry succeeding in Lake County, and that he disliked having to shield American commuters from seeing American industry.

Commr. Parks expressed appreciation to the applicant for being a good Lake County business.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0 the Board approved Tab 3, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-33-4, Peninsula Trucking Facility, with the following modifications: a 200 foot landscape buffer along Sorrento Avenue; a 25 foot landscape buffer between the western property line and the existing chain link fence; an eight foot tall faux stone wall along the boundary of the property facing CR 437; existing native vegetation around the perimeter; and no more than 200 trucks and 200 trailers parked or stored on the property at any given time.

Trout Lake Master Planned Unit Development

Ms. Michele Janiszewski, Chief Planner for the Office of Planning and Zoning, stated that she would be presenting Tab 4, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-22-1, Trout Lake Master Planned Unit Development (MPUD).  She explained that the Trout Lake PUD was a 275 acre PUD located east of U.S. Highway 27, within the Wellness Way Area Plan (WWAP), and that staff had determined that the application was consistent with the Comp Plan and the LDR, adding that the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval.  She elaborated that at the March 1, 2022 BCC meeting, the Board directed staff to work with the applicant and Dr. Levey to incorporate as much of the proposed design standards as possible into the Trout Lake ordinance, and that staff had worked with Dr. Levey and the applicant to incorporate the design standards, which included nine pages of nonresidential design standards, five pages of park requirements, six pages of roadway cross-sections, and additional requirements added throughout the ordinance.  She relayed that there were three components of the current ordinance that the applicant was seeking to eliminate or modify.  She said that the first one was requiring them to have a minimum lot width of 50 feet in order for them to have frontloaded garages on detached, single-family dwelling units, and the applicant wanted to remove that because of topography constraints of the site.  She commented that the second condition was for the multiuse trail around Trout Lake to be reduced from 14 feet wide to eight feet, and that the third issue was regarding the calculation of the nonresidential acreage.  She mentioned that the property was currently zoned Agriculture and was part of the Town Center FLU category, and she displayed the concept plan, showing that it was proposed to be developed as two parcels.  She elaborated that the nonresidential development was to the west of the property along U.S. Highway 27, and that the residential development was on the eastern side.  She related that the applicant was seeking to develop the property consistent with the current rules and regulations pertaining to the Wellness Way plan, and that the project had received a waiver to the 1,000 acre acreage requirement on May 5, 2020; additionally, in accordance with the current Wellness Way policies, the applicant had conducted a community meeting on August 3, 2021.  She reiterated that staff found the request consistent with the Comp Plan and with the LDR, and that it was consistent with the current capacity allocations that would allow it to be developed to its 704 dwelling units with a minimum of 48 acres of nonresidential development, noting that the Planning and Zoning Board had approved this project on the consent agenda on January 5, 2022.

Commr. Parks commented that this project had been tabled for a month, and that the applicants had agreed to the Wellness Way design criteria.  He elaborated that the ordinance currently included everything within the Wellness Way criteria, and Ms. Janiszewski indicated that was correct.

Ms. Bonifay mentioned that there were two applicants, and that she represented Mr. Rex Clonts, Jr. who was the owner of parcel one, which was where Beazer Homes intended to develop.  She relayed that Mr. Clonts had also owned the adjoining parcel, which was part of a 750 acre parcel abutting U.S. Highway 27, and that it had been sold to Richland Communities.  She commented that she would address the Board’s concerns in what had been done since the last meeting, and she introduced Ms. Allison McGillis of Poulos & Bennett, planning consultants for both clients, who would make part of the presentation, as well as Mr. Young.  She relayed that there was an issue with the terms of acknowledgement requested by Commissioner Parks and signed by Mr. Clonts in 2020 when the waiver was granted, which stated in the fourth acknowledgement item that the Wellness Way regulations may be incorporated into any future PUD application prior to the adoption by the County.  She commented that the language, prior to adoption, was struck from the acknowledgement, because Mr. Clonts said that he could not agree to something that he did not know about which could be adopted two years later, and that the final acknowledgement that was presented to the Board and signed by Mr. Clonts did not contain that phrase, noting that they would not agree verbatim to everything.  She related that Mr. Clonts did acknowledge that certain design guidelines could be included, and that they had included them to the greatest extent feasible.  She explained that they had taken to heart the Chairman’s directive to consult with staff and Dr. Levey, and that they were able to work out everything but the three items listed earlier.  She elaborated that the first two addressed design guidelines that they requested some relief from due to the topography and the way it was situated, which included alleys, access, and reducing the size of the trail, noting that Beazer Homes had originally designed to have lakefront lots on Trout Lake.  She relayed her understanding that the Chairman was adamant about wanting a trail around the entire northern part of Trout Lake, and that they would do that; however, the topography did not always allow for a 14 foot wide trail.  She mentioned that there was a 14 foot trail on the east/west connector going through the entire site and 12 feet to the north which connected to the trail along the lake on the south, adding that the trail along the connector was parallel to the trail around the lake which would meet the intent and provide a place for the public to gather. 

Commr. Parks opined that according to his research, Ms. Bonifay had been attending these meetings for several years, and that there had never been an objection to the design criteria that he was aware of.

Ms. Bonifay said that this was not correct, and that she had many conversations with Dr. Levey concerning the density for Mr. Clonts’ sites as well as several of the design criteria.

Commr. Parks clarified that she had conversations with Dr. Levey, but not with him.

Ms. McGillis displayed a graphic showing a cross-section of the Trout Lake PUD, which demonstrated the extreme topographical conditions present along the lakefront.  She commented that not having an alley would allow them room to transition from the house to the north of the street to the east, and that constructing an alley in the middle of that buffer area between the two lots would not give them enough room, noting that it would require much cutting, filling, and grading throughout the site.  She related that there was also a severe drop at the lakefront, and that they would like to have an eight foot trail there instead of a 14 foot trail, which would require less grading, reiterating that there would be another 14 foot trail going from east to west.  She mentioned that eliminating the 42 foot wide lots would eliminate a different product type, noting that the intent of the Wellness Way area was to provide opportunities for different housing types, and that the different options of the 42, 50, and 60 foot wide lots gave a wide cross-section to the types of homes that could be built in this neighborhood.

Ms. Bonifay commented that the third issue involved being able to use a flexible floor area ratio (FAR) for the amount of acreage that was designated nonresidential while keeping the same amount of square footage.

Mr. Young relayed that they were meeting the intent of the current Comp Plan policy and design guidelines by having the 48 acres required to support the 633,000 square feet of nonresidential land.  He opined that the requirement was under transition under the current Comp Plan, and that those uses could be better market-driven elsewhere within the Wellness Way area, especially with an expressway coming through.  He requested that they could meet the intent of that language by designating 633,000 square feet, and that as long as the nonresidential component was met, the job hub category or the Town Center FLU category could be scaled appropriately.  He opined that market conditions could change over time, and that residential and nonresidential components could also change, adding that inflexibility hindered the ability of market economics to work within the provided FAR on their site.

Commr. Campione inquired if they were requesting a minimum on the acreage.

Mr. Young replied that the current plan had 48 acres dictated by the current policy, and that it was calculated based on the minimum FAR.  He commented that the development of 633,000 square feet could take shape over a diverse order of ways, such as a five story office building or a large scale industrial park, and he opined that it would benefit the County and the Wellness Way area to be able to scale that according to the changing market conditions.  He explained that the current policy allocated a minimum FAR of 0.3 and went to a maximum of 2.0, and he opined that 0.5 would be more realistic, adding that the overall design category of the job hub was scaled to that. 

Commr. Parks mentioned that he had discussed this concern with Mr. Young in the previous week, and commented that the County wanted to prevent those 48 acres, which had been set aside for business, commerce, and industry as core tenets of Wellness Way, from being developed as houses.

Mr. Young opined that the County and the residents would be protected by virtue of the capacity calculation on the dwelling units, and even though the property could ultimately be used in a job hub or Town Center category, it should not be precluded from any other use that may come as it related to the guidelines. 

Ms. Bonifay asked that the Board would consider the three requests mentioned, and noted that Richland Communities was going to do all of the nonresidential development, adding that they were limited to how many residential units could be built in the area.  She commented that Richland Communities was asking that that the acreage could be adjusted while continuing to have the 633,000 square feet of nonresidential property, and that the other two requests mostly related to design, such as not having the requirement to access garages from an alley for lots under 50 feet and reducing the size of the trail around Trout Lake.  She said that one of the Commissioners had asked questions about the smaller lots and how they would look when built out, and that they had provided additional information.

Commr. Campione clarified that the applicants did not want any alley-loading garages due to the topography, and that it would be too difficult.

Ms. Bonifay indicated that was correct, and pointed out that the alley-loading garages only affected the lots under 50 feet.  She related that there were a number of approximately 40 foot lots, and that the developer wanted to mix the 40 foot lots with the 50 foot lots.  She elaborated that they also wanted to move some of the recreational areas into the northern part of the design, opining that it would be more functional. 

Commr. Campione inquired if the 40 foot lots would have two story houses.

Ms. Bonifay commented that Beazer Homes had provided pictures of what an existing development looked like that had been built in Orange County in the current year, noting that the houses shown were built on 40 foot lots, and that they were proposing 42 foot lots.  She noted that the houses had architectural variations, and Ms. McGillis pointed out the different sized lots on the site plan.

Commr. Campione asked if the design criteria required alley-loaded garages if the lot was below 50 feet.

Commr. Parks replied that an alley could be done, but it was not a requirement.  He pointed out that Dr. Levey, who had been a consultant on the Wellness Way area, worked with staff to draft the ordinance that was being presented.  He said that the ordinance incorporated all of the Wellness Way design criteria, and that he did not want to sacrifice a basic tenet of the Wellness Way plan.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

Commr. Parks said that he recommended approval of the ordinance.

Commr. Shields made a motion to approve this item, and Commissioner Blake seconded the motion.

Commr. Smith asked if the motion included the exceptions.

Commissioner Shields indicated that it did, and Commissioner Blake reflected that in his second.

Commr. Parks reiterated that the ordinance did not include the exceptions, and that it was drafted by the County staff and Dr. Levey.  He noted that everyone else would have to adhere to the same criteria in Wellness Way.

Commr. Smith clarified that the motion on the floor was to approve the ordinance and to remove those three issues that the applicant requested, adding that he could agree with that.

Commr. Campione commented that she would support the motion because the modifications still adhered to the intent of what was drafted, and that as long as they were designating 633,000 square feet, it did not make sense to require acreage.  She mentioned that there would be the square footage and the job creation centers, and that the trail along the lake being eight feet made sense, especially since there was another trail that was 14 feet, meeting the requirement.  She opined that they could work with the land and not have to comply with the rule to create alleys.

Commr. Parks said that he would not support it because staff asked for 14 foot trails throughout the project, and that it would help create a walkable community. 

Commr. Smith commented that they currently had a 14 foot trail planned, and that the second trail around the lake would be 8 feet, which seemed reasonable to him.

Commr. Shields opined that if they expanded the trail to be 14 feet wide, they would have to cut into the topography, which could be limited.

Commr. Parks inquired if there was some flexibility to move the trail in certain areas.

Ms. Marsh replied that the County could adhere to the ordinance with some flexibility, but that the trail could not be moved to a different side of the project.

Commr. Parks wondered if it could be narrower in some areas to go around trees or make a topographical change.

Ms. Marsh commented that if the ordinance said 14 feet wide, it would have to be 14 feet wide, but that if there was language in the ordinance that said it could be between eight to 14 feet when constrained by geography in some locations, those types of changes could be made.

Commr. Parks said that he would be fine with that.

Ms. Marsh clarified that the motion was to approve the ordinance as staff presented with the exception of removing the frontloaded garages, modifying the trail to be between eight to 14 feet depending on geographic restrictions, and taking out the 48 acres in favor of the 633,000 square feet minimum FAR.

Commr. Campione suggested that when staff revised the ordinance, the calculation should be done, and that the square footage should be in the ordinance, removing any confusion. 

Ms. Marsh indicated that they could use square footage instead of acreage.

Commr. Campione clarified that the modification for the trail was only for that part around Trout Lake.

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Rezoning Case # RZ-21-22-1, Trout Lake Master PUD, with the exceptions of removing the frontloaded garage restriction on lots less than 50 feet, modifying the trail to be between eight to 14 feet depending on geographic restrictions around Trout Lake, and taking out the 48 acres in favor of 633,000 square feet minimum FAR.

Commr. Parks voted no.

commissioners reports

commissioner smith – vice chairman and district 3

Historical fact

Commr. Smith commented that on April 5, 1792, President George Washington vetoed a bill for the first time in the U.S.

National caramel day

Commr. Smith mentioned that the current day was National Caramel Day.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:24 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

_________________________________

SEAN PARKS, chairman

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK