A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
May 3, 2022
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 10:00 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. He said that the Invocation would be led by Pastor Bobby Rowe, with the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in North Lake County, and he mentioned that a veteran with County staff would be leading the Pledge of Allegiance. He explained that Mr. Dave Burgess, Facilities Manager over contracts in the Office of Facilities Management, had worked for Lake County since November 2015. He elaborated that Mr. Burgess served in the United States (U.S.) Air Force from August 1975 to September 1998, and that he was assigned to civil engineering squadrons in Oklahoma, Washington State, Florida, Utah, Germany, Italy, South Korea, Thailand, The Philippines, Japan, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). He commented that during his time in the Air Force, Mr. Burgess was deployed for Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and that he had the opportunity to build a base from scratch and maintain it with great people from around the world. He stated that Mr. Burgess also mentioned that through his many tours away from his family during his 23 years in the service, he was very blessed to have always come home to a loving family. He thanked Mr. Burgess for his service.
Pastor Rowe gave the Invocation and Mr. Burgess 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, requested to remove Tab 4 from the agenda, noting that it was a duplicate tab and would be addressed during the rezoning agenda.
Commr. Parks asked to move Tab 3, regarding the approval of a waiver for a mandatory sewer connection requirements for Hannah Grace Gardens, to the front of the agenda.
citizen question and comment period
Mr. Vance Jochim, a concerned citizen, expressed concerns about traffic in the county; furthermore, he opined that the County kept encountering barriers to getting Cities to stop approving high density developments which would affect the roads. He showed the staff report from Tab 1 on the current meeting’s rezoning agenda, and he mentioned that the section regarding transportation listed statistics; however, there were no citations or explanations of the formula used. He opined that some of the traffic analysis reports and data could be biased in favor of the developers, and he recommended for the County to add citations to these sections and others, such as school concurrency.
public hearing: WAIVER TO SEWER CONNECTION
Ms. Emily Johnson, Senior Planner for the Office of Planning and Zoning, presented the Hannah Grace Gardens Utility Waiver, Project #2019080007, Application Request #4251. She explained that the property was located west of Pruitt Street and south of Greenvalley Road in the City of Leesburg area of unincorporated Lake County, within Commission District 5, and that the property was approximately 1.97 acres; furthermore, the applicant had requested approval of a waiver to the mandatory sewer connection requirements for the Hannah Grace Gardens major site plan project. She showed the site location map and noted that the property was designated with an Urban Medium Future Land Use (FLU) category, and that it was zoned Residential Professional (RP). She stated that the site plan was proposing 14 multifamily units and that it currently showed individualized septic tanks. She provided the following staff analysis findings: on November 10, 2020, the Office of Planning and Zoning received a development application for a major site plan approval for a proposed 14 unit residential duplex facility; on December 11, 2020, staff provided the owner with a staff comment letter which identified the subject property with an Urban Medium FLU designation; pursuant to Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) Policy IX-3.1.2, and Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 6.12.01.B, where a public sanitary sewer system is not available, new development within the Urban FLU Series which exceeded a density of one dwelling unit per net acre shall provide a regional/sub-regional sanitary sewer system, unless exempted by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) at a public hearing; the City of Leesburg had indicated that central sewer services were not available at this location; and the applicant had indicated that, in lieu of central sewer, the subject property would be serviced by an advanced wastewater treatment system, noting that it would use an effluent drip system for wastewater disposal. She said that staff recommended that the Board approve the applicant’s request to utilize an advanced wastewater treatment system in lieu of connecting to a central sewer system, commenting that the waiver shall remain valid until: the Board determined that the existing method of providing wastewater was endangering the environment, public health, safety, or welfare; or the private system fails, and a replacement is required, the property is in the Urban FLU series, and was within the distance established by the LDR to be considered available; or the private system was relocated, and the property is within the Urban FLU series.
Commr. Parks opined that a waiver was required and that sewer would not reach there. He also opined that a distributed wastewater treatment system (DWTS) was much better than a septic system for protection of water resources.
Commr. Campione clarified that the request was for an advanced wastewater treatment system rather than a DWTS.
Commr. Parks opined that an advanced wastewater treatment system was still better than septic tanks.
Commr. Campione recalled that when the Board last heard this item, their request was for the applicant to consider whether the DWTS would be about the same price and if it could be done.
Mr. Rob Burgess, the general contractor for the project, said that he contacted several people with the OnSyte DWTS and that they had indicated that the pilot program was mostly for existing septic systems on waterways. He also mentioned that he had spoken with Mr. Sean O’Keefe, Town of Howey-in-the-Hills Administrator and the person who would be directing the pilot program for Lake County, and that Mr. O’Keefe was going to see if there was a way that the applicant could receive funding from the grant for the project. He noted that the pilot program was supposed to be for replacement and not installation, and he relayed his understanding that the cost of a DWTS was almost double the cost of a standard septic system.
Commr. Parks asked him to still consider a DWTS because the numbers he saw were cheaper than an advanced wastewater treatment system.
Commr. Campione stated that since the County was doing this as an affordable housing project under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), there could possibly be an opportunity to help offset some of those costs as part of the ARPA funding to use the OnSyte DWTS. She commented that a DWTS was the preferred technology and that the County was trying to launch it throughout Lake County in locations where they had individuals already on sewer or septic, or where sewer could not affordably be provided. She expressed support for being able to put one of these systems in place for a multifamily-type project. She said that the Board could grant the waiver with the understanding that their preference was the DWTS, reiterating that they could consider ARPA funds to help offset the installation cost.
Commr. Shields thought that a DWTS was cheaper because only one system was needed, and Commissioner Parks added that it also had higher performance.
Ms. Barker remarked that Ms. Mary Hamilton, Operations Director for the Public Works Department, could meet with the applicant.
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 thanked Pastor Brian Broadway, the applicant, for everything he was doing for workforce and attainable housing in the community.
Commr. Campione noted that this was not typical multifamily project; rather, it was part of an outreach program to help people transition from a situation where they did not have housing to become self-sufficient and be able to address their needs. She expressed appreciation for what Pastor Broadway was doing, and she hoped that this could possibly be an example and that these types of projects could potentially be located in various places around the county.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved a waiver to the mandatory sewer connection requirements for Hannah Grace Gardens (Project No. 2019080007, Application Request No. 4251), with the caveat that the Board’s preference was to use a DWTS, and that if the applicant could work with staff, then they could possibly bring back to the Board some assistance for using a DWTS as part of the affordable housing component of this project.
public hearings: REZONING
rezoning consent agenda
Commr. Parks said that he had a comment about Tab 3.
Commr. Campione commented that she visited the site for Tab 1 and that there were not any zoning notice signs posted there.
Mr. Bobby Howell, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, commented that it looked like the wind knocked the sign down and that it was laying on the ground; however, he did not see a sign on the property on the current morning. He added that staff had received notification from the applicant that the signs were posted.
Commr. Smith inquired if it was up to the applicant to ensure that the sign stayed posted properly, and Mr. Howell confirmed this.
Commr. Campione opined that this was an issue and that the item needed to be pulled to the regular agenda.
Commr. Parks noted that he had a comment card for Tabs 2 and 3, and that they would also be pulled to the regular agenda.
rezoning regular agenda
Tab 1.
Rezoning Case # RZ-21-30-4
New Missions Inc.
Rezoning approximately 10.8 +/- acres from Agriculture (A) to Community Facility District (CFD) to accommodate a place of worship, office, and community assembly.
Tab 2. Ordinance No.
2022-22
Rezoning Case # FLU-21-09-2
Wellness Way Implementation Plan
Amend Goal I-8 entitled ‘Wellness Way Area Plan,’ and subsequent objectives and policies.
Tab 3. Ordinance 2022-23
Wellness Way Design Criteria
Ordinance creating Chapter XVI, Lake County Code, Appendix E, Land Development Regulations, entitled Wellness Way Area Plan Development Standards, which establishes design criteria for new development within the Wellness Way Area Plan. The fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time
Tab 4. Ordinance No. 2022-24
Rezoning Case # CUP-21-10-5
Ares Training Facility
Amend Ordinance #2019-23
to remove conditions that restrict the training facility operation.
Tab 5. Ordinance No.
2022-25
Rezoning Case # RZ-21-40-4
White Rose Subdivision
Rezone 207.03 +/- acres from Agriculture (A) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for a 198-lot residential subdivision in conjunction with Agriculture uses.
new missions inc.
Ms. Janie Barrón, Chief Planner for the Office of Planning and Zoning, presented Tab 1, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-30-4, New Missions Inc., explaining that the parcel was located north of State Road (SR) 44 and west of Forest Green Road in the City of Eustis area. She mentioned that the parcel was located in Commission District 4 and that it was about 10.8 acres in size; furthermore, the requested action was to rezone approximately 10.8 acres from Agriculture to Community Facility District (CFD) to accommodate a place of worship, office, and community assembly. She showed the FLU map which indicated that the parcel was in the Rural FLU category, and she displayed the concept plan which showed the layout of the proposed multipurpose building and fields, water retention area, open space and the parking area. She showed a table with the existing and proposed development standards, noting that the proposed impervious surface ratio (ISR) was 18 percent, and that the applicant was proposing 71 percent open space. She added that the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) was not dictated in the Comp Plan; however, the applicant was proposing 0.03 percent. She commented that the maximum building height would be 75 feet, though the applicant was only proposing 50 feet. She then relayed the following staff analysis findings: the request was consistent with LDR Section 3.01.03, Schedule of Permitted and Conditional Uses, which allowed community facility uses within the CFD zoning district; the request was consistent with LDR Section 3.00.02, Purpose and Intent of Districts, which established lands that benefit the public and general welfare; the request was consistent with Comp Plan Policy I-1.4.4, Rural Future Land Use Category, which allowed religious organizations; the application sought to rezone the subject parcel from Agriculture to CFD to accommodate a place of worship, and religious education uses; and the concept plan demonstrated consistency with Comp Plan Policy I-1.4.4, which showed the CFD uses to be developed with a 20 percent maximum ISR and 35 percent minimum open space. She concluded that staff found the rezoning amendment consistent with the LDR and Comp Plan.
Commr. Parks asked the Board to disclose ex parte communications, and he mentioned that he did not have any disclosures for this case.
Commr. Smith said that he had met with a homeowner within the subdivision about the posting.
Commr. Campione stated that she did as well. She then commented that in looking at the FLU map, it looked like this property was part of the area that had been delineated by the County as a rural protection area (RPA). She questioned whether it had a rural protection designation, and she asked if the CFD that the Board previously approved on the east side was for the same property owner. She also inquired why the Board would not have heard both of these cases together.
Ms. Barrón explained that the parcel was located in the overlay district of the Wekiva Study Area and the Wekiva-Ocala RPA.
Mr. Tim Green, the applicant, clarified that both parcels were owned by New Missions Inc., and that the parcel to the east had been rezoned, though nothing had been built. He added that currently, the property owner would like to build on the other side of the entrance, and that the previous rezoning was for the same building and use but on a different property. He commented that the owner planned to build one or the other, and that he currently planned to build it on the west side.
Commr. Campione asked why they would not rezone the CFD property on the right side back to Agriculture.
Mr. Green replied that this was not requested by staff and that this was not brought up in the application process. He then said that his staff posted the signs on March 25, 2022, and had given photo evidence of this to staff; however, he was informed on the previous Wednesday that the signs were down. He said that he went to check them on April 28, 2022 and that there were no signs at either location. He mentioned that he had contacted Ms. Barrón but had not heard back. He relayed his understanding that the code did not say that the signs had to be there continually, and he was unsure how to enforce this.
Commr. Campione thought that the issue was whether people understood what was being proposed, noting that there were homes that backed up to the subject property.
Mr. Green stated that they were all noticed by mailings.
Commr. Smith said that he did not have an issue with the project, but he had a concern that it was not duly noticed. He thought that the County should properly notice it and postpone it to the following month.
Commr. Campione expressed support for this, and she asked for Mr. Green to go back to his client to see if they would consider removing the CFD zoning from the parcel that they were not intending to use. She mentioned that she would also want to ensure that any requirements of the RPA were incorporated into the review.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Katherine de Jongh, a resident of Cross Tie Ranch, relayed her understanding that the property owner lived in the subdivision behind the subject property, and she expressed a concern for them not noticing that the signs were down. She also indicated a concern that the applicant may have other plans for the eastern portion, and she opined that reverting that property to Agriculture zoning was likely a better use of that land. She indicated an understanding that with CFD zoning, the owner could lease the land for different types of facilities that were not identified for this use. She asked if wireless antennas and towers could be allowed on the property, and she questioned if water use would be through the City of Eustis and if this could open the area for annexation.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Green clarified that the ordinance limited the types of uses that they could ask for; therefore, the other site could not have those uses without rezoning it. He added that the ordinance was specific for a place of worship, place of assembly, etc.
Commr. Campione made a motion to postpone this item for 30 days to make sure that the residents in the neighborhood had a chance to review it. She also mentioned that there were mature pine trees on the property, and that it seemed like a good condition to require some of them to remain within the perimeters to create a buffer between uses. She expressed that she had an issue with both of the properties having the same zoning, and said that she would like to know about this.
Commr. Smith seconded the motion.
Commr. Blake inquired if the mail notices were received by the neighbors.
Ms. Barrón remarked that staff had questioned the property across the street at the beginning, and that they had noticed the property owners with the adjacent property owner (APO) notices; furthermore, staff had the buffer on file for this. She added that she had reached out to Mr. Green after she had discussions with Commissioners regarding posting signs.
Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, clarified that staff was tentatively looking to cancel the June 7, 2022 zoning meeting because there were no cases for the Planning and Zoning Board in May 2022; therefore, this case would come back on June 14, 2022.
Commr. Blake expressed concerns about setting a precedent where a bad actor removed signs to interfere with an applicant.
Commr. Parks said that the County needed to make sure that their policies were clear on this.
Commr. Campione mentioned that the proposed ordinance did not specifically mention dark sky lighting, and she wanted to make sure that this was incorporated. She also asked everyone to consider whether the ballfields could be lit, noting that the ordinance seemed to be silent to this and that it was adjacent to a residential area.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board postponed Tab 1, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-30-4 New Missions Inc., to the June 14, 2022 BCC meeting.
wellness way implementation plan
Ms. Johnson presented Tab 2, Rezoning Case # FLU-21-09-2, Wellness Way Implementation Plan. She explained that Wellness Way was located within Commission District 2, and the requested action was to amend Goal I-8 entitled ‘Wellness Way Area Plan,’ and subsequent objectives and policies. She also mentioned that the Board received an errata sheet on the current morning with additional proposed language and corrections. She displayed the Wellness Way Development District Framework Map, and she provided the following information: the Wellness Way Area Plan (WWAP) was adopted by the BCC on January 5, 2016, via adoption of Ordinance 2016-01 which became effective on December 26, 2017; in 2018, in an effort to revisit the original intent of the WWAP, and to ensure its ongoing validity, Lake County and the City of Clermont commissioned an implementation plan with the help of Levey Consulting, LLC and GAI Consultants, Inc.; between December of 2019 and throughout 2020, staff coordinated with stakeholders including landowners, elected officials, City and County staff, the Lake County School Board, the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and other interested parties in development of the implementation plan; Levey Consulting, LLC and GAI Consultants, Inc. provided staff with the finalized implementation plan dated November 20, 2020; staff prepared a Comp Plan amendment in conjunction with the implementation plan, Rezoning Case #FLU-21-09-2, which was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board on September 1, 2021; the BCC approved transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (FDEO) and other state agencies on January 4, 2022; FDEO designated the amendment as 22-02SP; on March 18, 2022, FDEO provided an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report; to address the ORC report comments, updated models for the County Road (CR) 455 Extension Project Development & Environment Study had been generated, a scrivener’s error was corrected, and additional policies regarding coordination with FDOT, black bear protections, and smoke shed corridor awareness had been included; and in conjunction with the adoption phase of the Comp Plan process, the County intended to simultaneously adopt the proposed WWAP design guidelines into the LDR. She concluded that staff found the proposed amendment consistent with the goals, intents, and policies of the Comp Plan and proposed Wellness Way Implementation Plan.
Commr. Parks reiterated that this was the FLU map amendment which went to the State, and that the transmittal had been done in January 2022; additionally, they were now addressing the actual adoption. He added that the errata sheet included some corrections to ensure that the language submitted in January 2022 was the same as what was proposed to be adopted on the current day.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Brent Spain, an attorney representing Center Lake Properties, indicated that his client owned the Titan America site on Hartwood Marsh Road. He requested that the Board remove Center Lake’s property from the rewritten Wellness Way North district, and he opined that his client’s property did not make sense to be in Wellness Way, noting that it was not connected, adjacent or abutting to any portion of Wellness Way. He said that Wellness Way had a buildout date of 2040, and that his client’s property was under an existing mining lease until 2067. He commented that applying the jobs to housing ratio to his client’s property would require 1,300 new jobs and approximately 700,000 square feet of nonresidential use on the interior portion of Hartwood Marsh Road where they were surrounded by existing low density residential development. He opined that residents would not want this level of intensity in nonresidential development and commercial traffic, and he said that to the extent that the proposed plan amendment and the related LDR amendments transformed his client’s existing use into a nonconformity, they would raise concerns and objections regarding this. He directed the Board to existing FLU Policy I-8.2.1.C which provided that “mining and natural resource based operations in Wellness Way 2,” noting that the rewritten Policy I-8.2.1.E in Wellness Way North had no mention of mining or natural resource based use. He mentioned that this was the same in the use table in Section 2.2.2 of the design guidelines and that it did not specify that this use was allowed; additionally, the use table did not allow manufacturing or processing, which was a concern for his client if they were not removed from Wellness Way.
Ms. Marsh displayed the errata sheet and pointed out language indicating that “all land uses that have previously received a conditional use permit (CUP) or subject of a development agreement pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, are deemed consistent with the FLU element and are permitted uses within any of the six FLU categories.” She assumed that the mine likely had a CUP, and said that this language would address Mr. Spain’s issue. She added that it would not be a nonconforming use; rather, it would be an existing permitted use and would be consistent with these policies and procedures. She said that this was in the transmittal and was inadvertently deleted when the County did a clean repeal and replace version for adoption, noting that it would be included if the Board approved the errata sheet.
Commr. Campione asked about manufacturing and processing from the standpoint of job creation in Wellness Way.
Dr. Richard Levey, with Levey Consulting, LLC, believed that the language in the errata sheet addressed the nonconformity, and he opined that the comment about not allowing manufacturing and processing in the north district was irrelevant, given that the existing uses were protected under the errata sheet language. He said that if the Board received new applications for manufacturing and processing in Wellness Way North, it would be deemed an inconsistent use; however, under the errata sheet language, any existing uses would be allowed to continue.
Commr. Campione inquired if it was not anticipated that there would be manufacturing and processing.
Dr. Levey replied that it was not anticipated for this area and that at the outset of the process, they chose to not change any of the existing entitlements, approvals or allowable uses in the north area because there was no ability at the time to fund transportation improvements. He mentioned that there was still a jobs to housing requirement and a number of different employment uses that would be required which could possibly include research, technology and medical.
Commr. Campione expressed a concern for manufacturing where everything was indoors, but large trucks transported goods. She asked if this would be allowed in Wellness Way.
Dr. Levey thought that because of the nature of the surrounding residential land uses, it was viewed more as an office and service employment area, noting that it was more of a compatibility issue.
Commr. Parks said that if something like this was proposed, they would have to come to the Board with a site plan approval.
Dr. Levey added that just because the lease on the Titan America sand mine existed did not mean that there would not be a change in economic activity on that property in the next 18 years. He explained that every development proposal had to be a PUD, and that the Board had an explicit PUD process.
Ms. Lavon Silvernell, a concerned citizen, asked about the scrivener’s error mentioned in FDEO’s report.
Ms. Johnson said that the only two comments in the ORC report regarded revised transportation analysis and the conservation subdivision land use category. She added that the scrivener’s error was in regards to Policy I-8.2.1.1, in which it was showing 65 percent when it was supposed to say 50 percent. She mentioned that the only additional comments received were from FDOT and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), which were advisory in nature.
Commr. Parks said that this was to make it consistent with what the County transmitted, and Ms. Johnson confirmed this.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Blake commented that Mr. Spain’s client wanted to be removed from Wellness Way to preserve their property rights, and he opined that this should be honored.
Commr. Campione asked how this could affect the overall Wellness Way plan and why the County would not agree to it.
Commr. Parks said that this would be in the City of Clermont, and that the City had adopted this plan already and kept the property within their Wellness Way land use category.
Ms. Marsh explained that they would have a Wellness Way FLU if they were in Wellness Way and that the Board could not remove them on the current day because they would have to assign an appropriate land use to them. She added that the property owner could apply to be removed and for their land use to be changed to something else.
Commr. Campione asked if approving the current item would not preclude them from applying to propose a different land use.
Commr. Parks confirmed this and said that this was in the heart of the City of Clermont, noting that the City was adamant about having the higher standards and providing predictability.
On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Tab 2, Rezoning Case # FLU-21-09-2, Wellness Way Implementation Plan.
Commr. Blake voted no.
wellness way design criteria
Ms. Johnson presented Tab 3, noting that the purpose of this ordinance was to create Chapter XVI, Lake County Code, Appendix E, Land Development Regulations, to be entitled Wellness Way Area Plan Development Standards, which establishes design criteria for new development within the Wellness Way Area Plan. She showed the Wellness Way Development District Framework Map, and she relayed the following staff analysis findings: the WWAP was adopted by the BCC on January 5, 2016, via adoption of Ordinance 2016-01 which became effective on December 26, 2017; in a 2018 effort to revisit the original intent of the WWAP and to ensure its ongoing validity, Lake County and the City of Clermont commissioned an implementation plan with the help of Levey Consulting, LLC and GAI Consultants, Inc.; between December of 2019 and throughout 2020, staff coordinated with stakeholders including landowners, elected officials, City and County staff, the Lake County School Board, the SJRWMD, FDOT and other interested parties in development of the implementation plan; Levey Consulting, LLC and GAI Consultants, Inc. provided staff with the finalized implementation plan dated November 20, 2020; Levey Consulting, LLC and GAI Consultants, Inc. provided staff with the finalized design standards dated September 21, 2020; staff prepared a Comp Plan amendment in conjunction with the implementation plan, Rezoning Case # FLU-21-09-2, which was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board on September 1, 2021; the BCC approved transmittal to FDEO and other State agencies on January 4, 2022; and the BCC was tentatively scheduled to adopt the Comp Plan amendment and design guidelines on May 3, 2022. She concluded that staff found the proposed LDR amendment consistent with the goals, intents and policies of the Comp Plan and proposed Wellness Way Implementation Plan.
Commr. Parks said that there was mention of Florida Wildlife Corridors Foundation mapping, and that it was unclear whether it applied only to one part or all of it, noting that it was only mapped in the corner of Wellness Way on the south side. He stated that they could have a general statement that it applied to Wellness Way.
Dr. Levey believed that this item was on page eight and that it fell into the conservation subdivision district standards. He described the wildlife corridor and mentioned that a landowner working on conceptual planning had pointed out that the wildlife corridor requirements should apply to all districts inside Wellness Way. He indicated that this could be done by refining the language in Policy 2.1.4(a), number six, to assure that it could say “all districts.”
Commr. Parks expressed appreciation for the years of hard work on Wellness Way.
Ms. Marsh placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading by title only as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; CREATING CHAPTER XVI, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, TO BE ENTITLED WELLNESS WAY AREA PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; PROVIDING FOR INTENT AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES, DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, PERMITTED USES, DENSITIES AND INTENSITIES, SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS, MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY REQUIREMENTS, REGIONAL ROAD NETWORK STANDARDS, NEIGHBORHOOD STREET STANDARDS, OPEN SPACE STANDARDS, PARKS, LANDSCAPING AND NATURAL RESOURCE STANDARDS, AND PUBLIC FACILITY AND UTILITY REQUIREMENTS; ESTABLISHING APPROVAL PROCESSES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Spain, representing Center Lake Properties, said that Section 2.1.5 of the proposed ordinance governed the Wellness Way North District where his client resided. He commented that his client did not petition to be in Wellness Way and that mining and mineral/natural resource development was not allowed. He added that this was not identified in the use table, and reiterated that manufacturing and processing were not permitted in Wellness Way North. He said that he did not see any language about allowing existing uses to continue, and he expressed concerns for requested alterations to their CUP being expansion of a nonconforming use. He then mentioned that in Section 1.5.1(c), regarding the final PUD process, there was a point about a matrix indicating compliance with the requirements of Section 163, Chapter 3245, Florida Statutes. He relayed his understanding that this was a carryover from when Wellness Way was intended to be a sector plan, and he asked the Board to remove this. He stated that his client’s concern was to know that mining and natural resource use could continue in Wellness Way North.
Ms. Marsh said that if the Board wanted to take the same errata sheet language that they adopted as part of the Comp Plan, then they could add it to this item to allow the same thing for individuals with existing CUPs or development agreements, noting that they could continue to operate under those design standards. She added that she could verify the reference to Section 163, Chapter 3245, Florida Statutes and that if it applied to sector plans, then the Board could include in their motion that staff would delete this upon verification.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Parks requested approval of this item with the amendments to what they discussed
Ms. Marsh clarified that the amendments would include the following: the change to the Florida Wildlife Corridor; adding the language regarding existing CUPs and development orders; and the clarification to remove the sentence if it referenced sector plans.
Commr. Campione asked that for the existing mining use, if they wanted to make a modification and do something less intense, but it included a manufacturing use, could the Board still consider it.
Ms. Marsh thought that the intent of the language was that they would operate under their existing CUP, and if they wanted to apply for a different use, then they would either come into compliance with the current guidelines or come back to the Board and ask for something different.
Commr. Campione inquired that if they needed to make a change to their mining site plan, would this be considered to be an allowable use.
Ms. Marsh confirmed this.
Commr. Blake said that he would be voting against this item, and he expressed concerns for design standards and for the government imposing their aesthetic preferences on private land owners.
On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Ordinance 2022-23 creating Chapter XVI, Lake County Code, Appendix E, Land Development Regulations, entitled Wellness Way Area Plan Development Standards, which establishes design criteria for new development within the Wellness Way Area Plan, with the following modifications: the change to the Florida Wildlife Corridor; adding the language regarding existing CUPs and development orders; and the clarification to remove the sentence if it referenced sector plans.
Commr. Blake voted no.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a recess at 11:25 a.m. for five minutes.
ares training facility
Ms. Barrón presented Tab 4, Rezoning Case # CUP-21-10-5, Ares Training Facility. She explained that the property was located at 36515 North Treasure Island Avenue in the City of Leesburg area, within Commission District 5, and that the size of the property was about 99.39 acres; furthermore, the requested action was to amend Ordinance 2019-23 to remove the conditions that restrict the training facility operations. She showed maps of the property and indicated that the property was located within the Rural FLU category, and that it was also located in the Agriculture zoning district. She displayed the site plan which was recently approved in March 2022, and she relayed the following background history: on March 26, 2019, the BCC approved CUP Ordinance 2019-23 to allow a firearms training range facility to include night training with specific conditions to minimize adverse effects to nearby properties, noting that the minutes were included with the staff report as attachment G; on December 13, 2019, the Treasure Island Range major site plan, attachment E, was approved for the firearms training range facility in accordance with Ordinance 2019-23, the Comp Plan and the LDR, as amended; on March 10, 2022, the Ares Training Facility f/k/a Treasure Island Range site plan amendment, attachment F, was approved to add two 5,455 square foot administrative buildings to the existing firearms training facility; and on April 13, 2022, the owner modified the requested ordinance changes and provided a copy of the proposed ordinance modifications to staff. She then relayed the following staff analysis findings: the current use was established in 2019 upon adoption of Ordinance 2019-23, which imposed conditions including but not limited to hours of operation, landscape buffers, prohibitions on explosives, alcohol sales, flamethrowers and other similar type items, and imposed other conditions in an effort to minimize any potential adverse effects to nearby residential properties; Ordinance 2019-23 was consistent with the Comp Plan and LDR; the subject properties were located within the City of Leesburg Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA); the application was sent to the City of Leesburg for a determination of consistency with their regulations, and the City of Leesburg did not provide comments or oppose the request; the property owner was requesting that specific conditions and restrictions contained in Ordinance 2019-23 be removed or modified; and since the BCC determined that such conditions and restrictions were necessary to mitigate the undue adverse impacts upon nearby property, it was presumed that the removal of those conditions could result in the firearms training facility adversely impacting the neighbors because the character of the neighborhood has not changed since 2019. She said that the application was brought to the Planning and Zoning Board on April 6, 2022, and that they recommended denial of the CUP amendment request on the regular agenda; additionally, discussion arose regarding the comparison of the Eustis Gun Club and the Ares Training Facility. She stated that due to the comparison, staff had provided the following data: on June 20, 1989, the Board approved Ordinance 40-89, which allowed the Eustis Gun Club to be developed as a firing range; on January 22, 2013, the Board approved Ordinance 2013-2 to allow an amendment to Ordinance 40-89 to allow new uses associated with the existing shooting range uses including gun and archery ranges, skeet and trap shooting range, cowboy shooting range, covered shooting range, meeting hall, administrative hall, and accessory uses directly associated with these uses, though new structures were not permitted; and staff had included an aerial map that depicted the Ares Training Facility and the distance to the existing single family residences within a radius of 4,500 feet, as well as an aerial map that depicted the Eustis Gun Club and its distance to the existing single family residences within a radius of 5,200 feet. She displayed these maps, and she said that the subject parcel was located within the Emeralda Marsh RPA as indicated in the public hearing documents.
Mr. Spain, representing the applicant, stated that a request for a continuance had been submitted to Ms. Barrón in light of recent discussions with neighbors, and to provide an opportunity for further discussion.
Ms. Barrón confirmed that on the previous day, the applicant requested a continuance for one month so that he could meet with the neighboring property owners to reach some type of resolution for their concerns.
Mr. Spain said that he would be unavailable on June 14, 2022, and that it would have to be a different date.
Ms. Marsh mentioned that if the Board postponed this item, then they would keep the first BCC meeting in June 2022. She recommended for the Board to open a public hearing for discussion of the postponement only; furthermore, the applicant could present their case if the Board chose not to postpone it.
Commr. Parks asked the Board to disclose any ex parte communications.
Commr. Shields said that he spoke with a neighbor group.
Commr. Smith related that he spoke with the owners of the facility, and a neighbor group both for and against this ordinance.
Commr. Parks relayed that he had spoken with Ms. Louise Chen, Mr. Michael Chen, Mr. Walter Fralick, Ms. Allison Fralick, Mr. Larry Mott and Mr. Rick Serra.
Commr. Campione stated that she spoke with a group in opposition but had not spoken to the applicant.
Commr. Blake commented that he had a Zoom Webinar meeting with everyone that Commissioner Parks had listed. He added that he would have an out of state conflict on June 7, 2022 and that he could not attend that BCC meeting if the case was moved to that time.
Ms. Mary Solik, an attorney representing Ms. Chen and Mr. Alan Chen, who had filed a notice of appearance, stated that her clients had no objection to a continuance as long as it was to a meeting that the district Commissioner could attend.
Commr. Smith suggested possibly continuing it to the first BCC meeting in July 2022, and Ms. Marsh said that this would be July 5, 2022.
Commr. Parks expressed concerns for this due to the Fourth of July holiday.
The Chairman opened the public hearing for the continuance request only.
Mr. Kyle Harrison, a resident on Treasure Island Road, opposed the continuance, opining that they already had a compromise and that it was working great.
Ms. Amanda Harrison, a resident on Treasure Island Road, said that she did not wish for a continuance, opining that nothing would change in a month.
Ms. Cheri Vogel, a resident on East Treasure Island Avenue, opined that there was no reason to postpone this item.
Ms. Allison Fralick, a resident on North Treasure Island Avenue, stated that she did not want to continue this item, noting that some people had jobs and had taken time off to attend. She also opined that the CUP was fine the way it was.
Mr. John Bridenstine, a resident on Treasure Island Road, said that he was not under the impression that the CUP could not change drastically. He added that he would not be available to attend throughout the summer, and that he would like to see the item addressed on the current day.
Ms. Shelly Gerig, a resident on Treasure Island Road, opined that they liked the CUP as it was and that the gun range sounds were minimal currently. She opposed the continuance.
Ms. Haley Carlisle, a resident on Treasure Island Road, opposed the continuance.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Blake asked the applicant what they planned to do during the time of the continuance.
Mr. Colin Johnson, the applicant, said that he had met with a group of neighbors on the previous Sunday, and that they had asked to continue the case for 30 days so that they could continue to speak.
Commr. Blake mentioned that no one had spoken in support of the continuance. He stated that if it was a neighbor group’s request and they were not in attendance to follow through on it, then the Board could deny the continuance request.
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board denied the continuance request.
Mr. Spain recalled that as part of a settlement agreement, this item came before the Board about two years prior. He added that the CUP had been approved and that the business had been operating since that time, including site plan approval and a noise study. He opined that it had complied with the CUP, and he relayed that the proposal which went to the Planning and Zoning Board was substantially broader than the current request. He commented that the Eustis Gun Club had a CUP and that it had a residential subdivision within a certain proximity; however, it did not have the same conditions that the subject property had been imposed with. He opined that the subject facility had proved that they had been operating well, and he said that the initial request was to make them exactly like the Eustis Gun Club. He commented that the Planning and Zoning Board’s view was that the conditions were BCC imposed; therefore, the BCC was the entity with the authority to remove any of the conditions, and the Planning and Zoning Board moved to recommend denial because they had not imposed the conditions originally. He stated that there was a substantially scaled back request in light of the comments heard at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, and that the reappearance of concerns seen on social media a few years prior was not the intent. He explained that the requested modifications included to broaden the hours, noting that his client was not currently allowed to operate on Monday or Tuesday, nor on one Sunday each month. He added that the request was to allow them to operate Tuesday through Sunday with set hours of 8:00 a.m. to dusk, rather than 7:00 a.m. to dusk. He added that they would be willing to stay closed on Thanksgiving and Christmas, and that they were currently limited to four special events per calendar year, noting that there was a request to increase it to six events. He elaborated that since the CUP had been approved, they had not held a special event as defined under the LDR. He remarked that there was a condition in the CUP which prohibited flamethrowers, and his client requested that this be removed, noting that they had received requests for this; additionally, he opined that flamethrowers did not cause any noise. He said that camping was currently prohibited except during a special event, and he asked for this to be revised to say that camping associated with this permit was allowed, but there could not be permanent residents. He explained that sometimes when people came to skeet shoot, they may be in a recreational vehicle (RV) and may want to stay at a range for one day or more. He reiterated that the request was trying to put them on more competitive footing with the Eustis Gun Range, relaying his understanding that the Eustis Gun Range had no hours of operation limitations. He thought that they had tried to address the neighbors’ concerns, and that some residents had opined that it was working with the current conditions. He clarified that the noise ordinance still applied and that they were meeting those requirements; furthermore, he was not aware of any code enforcement notices filed against the project in over two years.
Commr. Campione asked if they would still have one Sunday off per month.
Mr. Spain replied that they were asking for this restriction to be removed and for the hours on Sunday to be the same as other days.
Commr. Campione pointed out that there were not any limitations listed for camping.
Mr. Spain said that they were open to some limitations or clarity, but noted that there could not be any permanent residents.
Mr. Johnson opined that they had done everything that they needed to do, and he opined that much of the noise was lower than what the neighbors wanted to express. He commented that their noise study indicated that 54 decibels was being heard off of their range, and he mentioned that he had spoken to neighbors about sound mitigation, such as installing a wood fence with tires to keep sound on the range as much as possible.
Ms. Solik said that her clients, Ms. Louise Chen and Mr. Alan Chen, were approximately 4,000 feet from the Ares Training Facility and had purchased their property in 2017. She recalled that the Chens were heavily involved in the CUP process in 2018, and she relayed her understanding that there was some significant work at that time which resulted in the conditions of approval. She said that the applicant did not object to those conditions at that time, and that the Chens were opposed to any changes to those conditions. She commented that the subject property had an FLU of Rural with Agriculture zoning, and was surrounded by other Rural FLU properties, some conservation lands, and some residential zoning; however, most of the surrounding zoning was Agriculture. She displayed the Agriculture zoning district description from the County code and relayed that the purpose of the district was to provide a method whereby parcels of land which are most suited to agricultural usage may be classified and preserved for this purpose. She elaborated that agriculture was a major industry of the County; therefore, it was the intent of this district to prevent encroachment upon agricultural enterprises, including encroachment from commercial and industrial construction. She said that the range was allowed to seek a CUP in 2018 as it was considered to fall under the category of a hunting and fishing club, which was an allowable conditional uses under the Agriculture zoning district. She opined that their use was really not a hunting and fishing club, but was commercial recreation, which she opined was not a permitted or conditional use under Agriculture zoning. She relayed that under the County code, a conditional use was defined as a use which is more intense or different than permitted uses, and under specific circumstances it may be permissible with appropriate conditions, noting that they had to be conditioned to ensure that there were no adverse impacts to other properties within that zoning district. She said that single family residents were a permitted use in the Agriculture zoning district and that they did not have any offsite impact. She mentioned that the Ares Training Facility came to this neighborhood, while the Eustis Gun Club was there first, noting that the residential community came after the Eustis Gun Club was developed; therefore, the residents there had the opportunity to decide whether they wanted to live near a gun club. She opined that the subject facility did not serve the agricultural community and that its offsite impacts were significant. She relayed that neighbors dealt with the noise, traffic and the fear of stray ammunition. She added that they had lost their ability to enjoy recreation in the Emeralda Marsh, as that facility had been closed since the CUP approval due to safety concerns. She then recalled that the BCC had reviewed the original request and determined that the CUP could be approved with appropriate conditions. She stated that the applicant was now asking the Board to change these findings of fact and that they had the burden of proof, opining that they needed to establish to the Board that what they propose to do would not adversely impact the neighbors. She noted that the applicant wanted to expand the hours and the days of the week, and that they had argued competitive reasons for amending the conditions; however, she opined that the Board did not regulate competition, but rather regulated land use. She opined that the applicant had not established that the proposed expansion of their operation would lack an adverse impact on the neighbors, and that the neighbors should be able to enjoy their homesteads and one Sunday per month. She added that the Eustis Gun Club was a not-for-profit corporation and was members only, commenting that a rezoning to CFD had been approved for the Eustis Gun Club; therefore, she opined that it was a different situation.
Mr. Alan Chen recalled that the 2019 CUP was a significant compromise and that the neighbors were given the first Sunday of the month, opining that this was a respite from the noise. He also recalled that at the April 2022 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, that board also recognized the significant effort of the BCC and the importance of having one Sunday off to allow residents to hold events without gunfire in the background. He opined that the idea that the range was currently a minimal impact was probably due to the high cost of ammunition, along with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); additionally, he said that they expected the noise to increase, especially when the skeet range began operation. He opined that the discussed sound mitigation could help in the stalls, but would not help in the skeet range or instructor’s range. He stated that nothing was being offered to the neighbors and that they would like to maintain the existing CUP as it was. He relayed that this was not about the Second Amendment, noting that it did not give the applicant the ability to make noise and infringe upon the neighbors’ rights, as well as closing the adjacent park. He referenced a video that he had shown in 2019 which showed tannerite, flamethrowers, civilians shooting out of helicopters, shooting a propane tank, and other activities. He opined that there were a number of events after the CUP approval that residents reported to the Lake County Office of Code Enforcement, and that the office acknowledged that these complaints existed. He showed a timeline from March 24, 2019 to when the facility opened on December 19, 2019, and he questioned the number of events when the range was supposed to be closed. He expressed concerns for the “Evolution of Tactical Training” event, and he displayed an image showing individuals shooting out of a vehicle; furthermore, he questioned how many rounds were escaping the property, and he relayed his understanding that a firearm had been pointed in the direction of residents. He indicated concerns for the facility allowing irresponsible behavior, and relayed his understanding that it had occurred on a number of occasions. He said that two weeks after the CUP was approved, on April 5, 2019, the facility hosted the “Real World Sniper Challenge” despite being closed. He indicated an understanding that snipers were shooting at the facility, as well as moving around the Emeralda Marsh Conservation Area and placing targets on the SJRWMD property. He stated that the Daily Commercial had written two articles on the event, and he quoted an article as “a lawyer for Ares told the Daily Commercial that there was no event on Ares property, but it was pretty clear that the event did go on as planned,” noting that there were links and images in the article. He showed the advertisement for the event, mentioning that the location was at the Ares Training Facility; additionally, the agenda for the event indicated that a night stage concluded at 11:00 p.m., and camping was allowed, noting that this was in violation of the CUP approved two weeks prior to the event. He displayed an image which showed individuals shooting off the observation building at the facility, and he also showed an image of targets placed on North Treasure Island Avenue. He showed a map of a target placed on SJRWMD property which was going out to Lake Griffin, commenting that the area was frequented by fishermen and was accessible by Haynes Creek. He opined that an expert witness for the applicant at the original meeting had a vested financial interest because this was his event, and he then stated that on September 3, 2019, the fourth Annual NFA Review event was being advertised online. He elaborated that on October 15, 2019, it was indicated that the venue was green-lighted, and the organizer had said that the event would occur on November 9, 2019. He said that the Office of Code Enforcement had indicated that there were not any special permits submitted, and that the range was not open per the County. He remarked that on Monday of the week prior to November 9, 2019, the Office of Code Enforcement had told the facility that they could not have the event onsite; however, they continued to bring in additional vehicles, tents and equipment, and the Office of Code Enforcement had visited the site, noting that the event was moved to Dade City. He showed a video of an individual climbing the berm and shooting off of it, opining that this was not a specific purpose of the berm. He also displayed a video of the use of a tire berm when the facility should have been closed, and said that SJRWMD property was beyond the berm and trees. He indicated an understanding that per discussion with the Office of Code Enforcement, there was no permit for the Ares sign, and that the current fines totaled over $77,000. He opined that the facility had shown a consistent disregard for authority, and said that residents would like the BCC to strongly consider denial of this revised CUP. He expressed concerns that it would increase adverse effects to their neighborhood and that nothing had changed since the original CUP was approved.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Vogel opined that Mr. Alan Chen had pointed out that many items in the CUP were currently being violated, and said that residents recorded gunfire on Christmas Day in 2019. She asked the Board to not make any changes.
Mr. Bridenstine expressed concerns for reduced property values due to gun ranges, and for safety and possible stray bullets going into Haynes Creek.
Ms. Sarah Hales, a resident of the City of Clermont, said that she frequently visited friends on Treasure Island Road, and she expressed concerns for gunfire and stray bullets. She also indicated concerns that if the ordinance changed, it would give the facility access to the one Sunday per month where people could go outside and enjoy peace and quiet.
Ms. Sally Robinson, a resident of Hickory Hollow Estates, said that her community was a 55+ mobile home park approximately three-quarters of a mile from the range. She expressed concerns for nearby veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and for the range causing them stress. She also indicated concerns for the proposed use of flamethrowers, and for the use of .50 caliber weapons being used by members of the public. She relayed her understanding that residents of her community had experienced bullets flying through trees on their edge of their park from the direction of the range, and that a .50 caliber long range rifle had a maximum range of 7,450 yards, or 4.23 miles. She then relayed concerns expanded Sunday hours, noting that there were four churches within close vicinity of the range. She objected to any changes to what was passed in 2019.
Mr. Clive Robinson, a resident of Hickory Hollow Estates, thought that the Board likely had the best result possible out of the conditions presented to them regarding the original CUP, and that their decision reduced the amount of noise that residents were used to. He said that the range was a commercial operation in a predominantly agricultural area, and he expressed concerns for new residential buildings in the area. He opined that the removal of restrictions imposed by the Board in 2019 would effectively make the Board’s statement an error, and he believed that the Board had been correct on that occasion. He objected to any change to the current CUP conditions.
Mr. Gary Custer, a resident on East Treasure Island Avenue, showed a map of the residents near the gun range. He opined that this item was excessive, and noted that there were 127 residents in Hickory Hollow Estates with another 70 homes to the south within one mile of the noise. He added that most of these homes existed before the gun range, and he displayed an image of the Eustis Gun Club. He relayed his understanding that nearby homes came after the Eustis Gun Club and that everything else around it was industrial. He expressed concerns for the residents’ property rights and values.
Ms. Peggy Custer, a resident on East Treasure Island Avenue, asked who would regulate camping and if Mr. Johnson would be charging for it.
Ms. Chen expressed concerns for the firearms range coming to the area, for noise and for the skeet range. She asked to keep the first Sunday off, to keep the shorter hours on Sunday, and to keep Monday and Tuesday off. She opined that commercial ventures belonged in commercial zones rather than conservation residential areas, and she expressed interest in reopening Emeralda Marsh.
Mr. Lavelle Rixie, a resident on Lake Victoria, said that his friend Mr. Larry Mott lived close to the subject gun range, and he indicated concerns for the noise, noting that he had witnessed it.
Ms. Diane Mott, a resident on East Treasure Island Avenue, opined that the noise at her house was sometimes significant. She expressed concerns for the noise of gunfire when the range was open, and said that access to Emeralda Marsh was closed due to safety issues related to the range; furthermore, she submitted a letter from a former SJRWMD attorney which stated this. She proposed to let the range be opened each Saturday, but be closed each Sunday. She indicated concerns for a private business open to the public could operate in a mostly agricultural and residential neighborhood, and for the facility wanting its restrictions lifted. She asked the Board not to lift any restrictions, and she expressed concerns for noise when the new skeet shooting ranges opened.
Ms. Fralick relayed her understanding that when the CUP was first passed, residents were promised items such as “slow” signs on the street, which she opined did not occur. She commented that she had been threatened by one of the range officers after the CUP was approved, and she indicated concerns for property values, along with camping and alcohol at the subject property. She asked the BCC to leave the CUP alone.
Ms. Harrison relayed her understanding that there were studies showing that when a gun range was close by, it directly affected the value of single family residential homes, and she cited statistics from Realtor.com. She expressed concerns for effects on property values due to gun ranges, and she also mentioned safety, traffic, and health. She opined that Treasure Island Road offered peace and quiet until the gun range opened, and she indicated concerns for noise. She also submitted items into the record regarding property values.
Mr. Harrison indicated concerns for the applicant’s noise and traffic studies, and for lead poisoning the water. He said that in January 2019, House Bill 1159 was passed to protect homeowners. He opined that residents could not enjoy their properties, and said that he heard bullets. He opined that there was video evidence of the range not keeping with the rules, and he relayed concerns for safety and for the Emeralda Marsh Conservation Area being closed. He also indicated concerns for property values, and he praised the Board for what they did in 2019.
Mr. Serra opined that the community was no longer peaceful, and he expressed concerns for high caliber weapons and automatic machine guns. He expressed support for giving the residents every Sunday or every other Sunday of the month, rather than only the first Sunday of the month. He displayed pictures of a projectile being fired at the range, and questioned where it was landing and if it had been fired over the berms. He asked the Board to not remove any conditions.
Ms. Louise Crews, a resident on Treasure Island Road and a property owner on North Treasure Island Avenue, opined that North Treasure Island Avenue was a narrow road. She expressed concerns for noise and for traffic on the road when the range had special events; furthermore, she relayed support for the CUP remaining at four special events per year instead of six. She also relayed concerns for litter after the events.
Ms. Carlisle opined that it was an agriculture atmosphere, and said that she was not aware of a commercial development trying to expand when she purchased her property. She opposed the request.
Ms. Gerig agreed with what everyone had said, and she expressed support for the residents having more Sundays off.
Mr. Jochim indicated concerns for issues for rural landowners, and he opined that it sounded like the residents had a neighbor that did not care about their lifestyle. He opined that a charm of the county was its rural nature and the historic nature of the towns, and that the residents should counter-propose additional restrictions. He also opined that new property owners should consider suing realtors who did not disclose the gunfire, and he mentioned considering the level of service on the roads. He asked if the Board or their family members had used or were proponents of the gun range.
Mr. Michael Chen, a resident on Treasure Island Road, showed a comparison of outdoor gun ranges in Central Florida, noting that the private ranges operated seven days per week. He added that open gun clubs usually operated four to five days per week with various start and end times; however, none of them were open six to seven days per week, and alcohol was strictly forbidden, except for one facility which had not been confirmed or verified. He opined that the rules of the Eustis Gun Club were enforced to guarantee the safety of the shooters and those outside, and the displayed the penalties for the violation of the rules. He opined that if the Ares Training Facility was concerned about unfair competition, then they should have located their range somewhere else. He expressed concerns for the CUP, but opined that residents had learned to live with it; however, the residents had to plead their case again three years later. He opined that the range should have known what they were coming into when they opened a business surrounded by well-established homes, and that they should have tailored the business accordingly. He expressed concerns that this was merely a first step and that they would be back before the Board if anything should pass. He then opined that there was no comparison to the Eustis Gun Club, and he did not believe that residents should have to learn to live with the range. He did not believe that any restrictions should be lifted.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Spain recalled that the gun range had been approved in 2019 and that it was the result of a settlement agreement with the County; therefore, they were not re-litigating whether or not the CUP should be approved. He stated that some of the comments and videos about shooting predated the CUP, and that they had worked with the SJRWMD. He elaborated that the SJRWMD attorney was present at the original hearing and had stated that with the enhanced berms and safety provisions, the SJRWMD did not have any objection to the proposed CUP and the range. He opined that by operating for two years, they had shown that they were not having the adverse impact which was feared. He relayed his understanding that they would have heard from the Lake County Office of Code Enforcement if they were violating any of the CUP terms or the County’s noise ordinance, but this had not occurred in the past two years. He commented that Mr. Alan Chen had not introduced any statistical data which showed that the range was having an adverse impact within their operating parameters, nor did he conduct an acoustical study. He clarified that the range had not been operating on Christmas or Thanksgiving, and he addressed a concern about Haynes Creek, mentioning that it was over 4,500 feet from the center of range. He added that Hickory Hollow Estates was approximately one mile away and to the east of the subject facility, which was the opposite direction of any of the range’s firing directions. He opined that references to explosives were prior to the CUP site plan approval, noting that explosives had not been operating at the range since the approval. He clarified that they were not asking for any conditions to be removed which related to noise, and he said that there was a statute regarding gun ranges and that as long as they were complying with the applicable local noise ordinance, then they were not subject to a nuisance action. He stated that the March 25, 2019 site plan attached to the CUP included a skeet range and that it was part of the original approval; additionally, a few buildings and restroom facilities recently went through a staff approval, noting that this was administratively approved. He referenced a comment about housing prices, and he opined that it was just speculation, commenting that a number of items could affect the sale of vacant land. He also referenced a comment regarding House Bill 1159, which was a bill containing language recognizing certain rights; however, these were rights encompassed in existing law and did not grant any civil cause of action. He said that the applicant was amicable with keeping the ordinance at four special events per year, noting that they had not conducted a special event as defined under the CUP and the County code since the CUP was approved. He relayed his understanding that other ranges referenced by Mr. Michael Chen, which were also clubs, were open seven days per week; additionally, four of the five public ranges were open on Saturdays and Sundays. He relayed that fear and speculation were not competent substantial evidence to base a decision on, and he commented that their request had been substantially scaled back from the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. He indicated that they had removed the item about having a special event on Thanksgiving or Christmas, that they would stay at four special events per year, and that they were essentially down to three proposed requests. He thought that their operations over the previous two years had demonstrated that this would not create any additional adverse impact, and he asked to be open Wednesday through Sunday with regular hours. He reiterated that a violation from the Office of Code Enforcement had not been brought before any board, and he opined that no one had shown any data indicating that they were creating an unreasonable noise impact or were violating any regulations. He said that the applicant would leave the use of flamethrowers to the Board’s discretion, opining that they did not cause any noise, along with camping. He requested some additional flexibility on hours to operate Wednesday through Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to dusk, which was similar to what the CUP currently provided. He opined that the applicant’s record of operating warranted some minor modifications for the hours.
Commr. Shields asked what was being done to keep the bullets from leaving the property, noting that the SJRWMD had sent a picture from approximately one year prior showing a bullet mark in a tree.
Mr. Johnson replied that the property adjacent to the subject facility used to be owned by his family and that a large portion was taken by the SJRWMD. He added that his family had hunted on that property, and he relayed his understanding that the bullet mark was not from the facility. He commented that they had 24 foot berms when the requirement was only for eight feet.
Commr. Shields inquired why the SJRWMD closed that area for public use, relaying his understanding that it was a safety concern.
Mr. Johnson stated that the original SJRWMD gate was in a different location closer to the Emeralda Marsh area, and that the gate had been moved close to the subject facility’s entrance because the applicant and one of the other property owners requested this due to inappropriate behavior in the area. He added that this was around the time that the SJRWMD closed the area, and he indicated an understanding that the SJRWMD went through cycles of opening and closing different areas in Emeralda Marsh. He believed that projectiles were trapped within their property, noting that they had range officers present each day to watch people shooting. He also indicated that they penalized people if anything unsafe was occurring.
Commr. Smith said that the SJRWMD had called him on the previous day and said that the issues they had with the facility were resolved and that this was why the district was not currently in attendance. He then inquired if the applicant was willing to install the additional sound buffers.
Mr. Johnson confirmed this.
Commr. Campione asked if the discussion about skeet shooting was new or if this was always allowed.
Mr. Johnson clarified that it was always allowed under the original CUP.
Commr. Campione then inquired if the additional sound buffers would be the fencing with tires.
Mr. Johnson said that this was correct and that it had been proposed to the neighbors on the previous Sunday. He relayed that the concern was for higher caliber weapons, which were normally shot on the main range; therefore, they would place a buffer to help mitigate the loud pops. He added that their engineer had indicated that this would reduce the majority of noise that the neighbors would hear.
Commr. Campione asked if the use of suppression devices could be a possibility for the extra hour that the applicant wanted to add for their start time.
Mr. Johnson said that this could be stated for anything larger than a .308 caliber weapon.
Commr. Parks inquired if everything on the approved site plan had been built.
Ms. Barrón relayed that during staff’s site visit, she did not see where construction had started on the two buildings which were recently permitted.
Mr. Johnson clarified that it was with the Office of Building Services.
Commr. Parks inquired about the stalls, and Mr. Johnson said that they were all built. Commissioner Parks then asked that if additional conditions could procedurally be done at this time.
Ms. Marsh indicated that this could be done.
Ms. Solik opined that just because one did not violate a noise ordinance did not mean that they were not adversely impacting the neighbors. She expressed concerns for someone stating that they would add additional hours but would not add to the noise. She opined that the Board had heard competent substantial evidence from the neighbors about how their quality of life was impacted on days when the range operated, and stated that the Board could include whichever conditions they thought needed to be put in place to ensure that the uses were compatible to the extent that they could be. She hoped that the Board would not make any changes, but if they did, then she hoped that they would bring it back to the Board evaluate it on a yearly basis.
Commr. Blake recalled that when this item first came before the Board, he had toured the property to make sure that he understood everything. He said that he had been reluctant in the past to modify CUPs because he believed that it was a County credibility issue, and that it sounded like the applicant had done a good job following the rules that the Board had put in place. He opined that there had to be specific extenuating circumstances for him to adjust something that he believed, at that moment in time, was the compromise that everyone reached. He expressed a concern for setting a precedent for people bringing back CUPs and for there not being any predictability. He commented that he would be open to allowing flamethrowers, opining that it was not a significant noise issue; however, other than this, he wanted to respect the compromise that was reached.
Commr. Smith relayed that Mr. Johnson had said that he was willing to operate from Wednesday to Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to dusk, using a silencing device from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on any weapon of a higher caliber than .308. He asked if Mr. Johnson would be willing to not operate on the first Sunday of the month.
Mr. Johnson commented that he could do this if needed.
Commr. Smith added that flamethrowers did not bother him because he opined that they did not make noise.
Commr. Campione mentioned the possibility of camping if it was minimal and if there were restrictions; however, she opined that including camping in the restrictions without language could be an issue. She said that if it was included, there could be a limit on the number of individuals and nights. She added that this could be brought back in one year and that if it caused an issue, then it could be removed.
Commr. Smith noted that he and Commissioner Shields were not on the BCC when this item first came before the Board. He mentioned that he had toured the range and had met with residents, and he asked if Commissioner Blake was amicable with some of the suggested changes.
Commr. Blake felt that the compromise for the hours on Sundays was fair, and he thought that many people in Lake County were at home or at church on Sunday; additionally, he thought that the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. tried to make it fair for everyone. He added that he did not have an issue with the way it currently was.
Commr. Shields concurred, noting that the Board had already gone through this process and that the neighbors had to attend again. He stated that he did not see a reason to make a change.
Commr. Parks agreed with Commissioner Blake and Commissioner Shields. He did not think that there was a competitive disadvantage because each site would be different; additionally, the Eustis Gun Club was there for many years before most of that residential area was developed. He recalled that there had been two lengthy hearings on this item previously, and he thought that the compromise was in place. He supported leaving it as it was, and if they added the use of flamethrowers, an addition could be to bring it back in one year and make sure that it was not an issue.
Commr. Smith inquired about camping, noting that the applicant was starting their skeet shooting. He said that camping could possibly be allowed, with conditions, and brought back in of year to see if it had an adverse effect.
Commr. Blake opined that it was unenforceable, and commented that there were campgrounds that individuals could visit. He reiterated that they had come to this agreement, and he expressed concerns for modifying it beyond allowing the use of flamethrowers.
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Tab 4, Rezoning Case # CUP-21-10-3, Ares Training Facility, with the modification to only allow the use of flamethrowers.
Commr. Smith voted no.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a recess at 1:58 p.m. until 2:30 p.m.
white rose subdivision
Mr. Bobby Howell, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, presented Tab 5, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-40-4, White Rose Subdivision. He explained that the applicant was requesting to rezone the project located at 34135 Cardinal Lane in the City of Eustis area from Agriculture to PUD for a 198 unit subdivision; additionally, the project was located in Commission District 4 and was 207.03 acres. He indicated that the property was located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Cardinal Lane and SR 44, and that it had an FLU classification of Rural Transition. He stated that the property was developed with a building for the White Rose agricultural operations, and he showed maps indicating the FLU and the zoning of the property. He commented that the proposed rezoning was consistent with LDR Section 4.03.01 allowed PUDs in all land use categories within the Rural Transition FLU, provided a maximum density of one dwelling unit per buildable acre is provided with a minimum of 50 percent open space, and that the proposed subdivision was required to be developed as a clustered rural conservation subdivision zoned PUD per the FLU element of the Comp Plan. He said that the minimum lot widths on the concept plan were 90 feet, and minimum lot sizes were 12,500 square feet. He stated that the proposed amount of open space was 51.5 percent, and the rezoning was consistent with Comp Plan Policy I-3.4.5, which stated that central water and sewer facilities can be connected to a regional system when available, noting that utilities could be provided by the City of Eustis. He relayed that the rezoning was inconsistent with Comp Plan Policy I-3.4.2, which required development to be clustered away from contiguous residential rural property in excess of five acres, noting that surrounding properties to the south and west ranged from five to 55 acres in size. He mentioned that a 200 foot buffer had been noted on the concept plan provided in the ordinance, and that several changes made by the applicant were reflected in the ordinance before the Board. He said that proposed density and lot sizes were consistent with the adjacent residential subdivision to the east, known as Sorrento Springs, and that this item had been approved by the Planning and Zoning Board by a motion of 4-2 on April 6, 2022. He concluded that staff found the rezoning consistent with the LDR and the Comp Plan, with the exception of Comp Plan Policy I-3.4.2, Open Space Requirements within the Wekiva Study Area (WSA), which stated that development shall be clustered away from contiguous rural residential property of five acres or greater.
Commr. Parks asked the Board to disclose ex parte communications, mentioning that he had spoken to the applicant’s attorney.
Commr. Shields indicated that he did not have any.
Commr. Smith said that he had spoken to a consultant for the applicant.
Commr. Campione remarked that she had talked to the applicant’s representatives and attorney at the meeting that they held for the community. She added that she had also spoken with members of the community that attended the meeting, and that she had received many emails. She then relayed her understanding that the only way to accomplish clustering away from rural residential properties would be to place all of the lots internally and have much smaller lots than what was proposed.
Mr. Howell confirmed this.
Commr. Shields asked where the exception was, and Mr. Howell replied that it was to the south and west of the property.
Commr. Campione inquired about concurrency and proportionate share, indicating concerns for transportation safety, and the number of lots and density in relation to what the City of Eustis would approve when they became contiguous. She asked if staff considered whether they could move the entrance to SR 44 and line it up with Valley Hill Lane and that subdivision, and if this could create a safer situation.
Mr. Jeff Earhart, Engineering Manager for the Public Works Department, explained that staff had considered if they could line the entrance up with the road, but both of them had similar line of sight issues, noting that there was a hill in both directions; therefore, one was not really better than the other from a safety standpoint. He also mentioned that there had been three crashes in the past few months.
Commr. Campione expressed interest in having a traffic signal there to make it safer.
Mr. Earhart relayed that staff had reached out to FDOT because it was a State road, and that it would have to meet a warrant. He elaborated that a warrant that it could possibly meet was that if there were five crashes within one year, then this was something that FDOT strongly considered. He relayed that staff did not believe that the traffic itself would meet the warrant, and that they had considered potentially adding an element to the agreement indicating that if a traffic warrant was met and a signal was allowed, then the developer would participate with the County to construct that signal. He added that if a traffic signal could not be done, then staff would discuss traffic calming with the applicant on SR 44 to slow down the traffic as it entered that area. He mentioned that the level of service on the road was allowed to go to “D” based on the County working with the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and this development would increase the traffic but would not move it to a level of service “F.”
Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that even if the traffic moved the road to a level of service “F,” under Florida law they could not prevent connection to a road with this level of service.
Mr. Earhart said that the County could consider developments and discuss proportionate share, but they could not deny a development based on how much traffic they were going to generate; however, the County could say that needed to pay a certain proportionate share depending on how much traffic was being generated. He added that the developer could also apply for impact fee credits to do in-kind services through proportionate fees.
Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the County could not request a proportionate share if the level of service was “F.”
Mr. Earhart explained that if the road was already at a level of service “F,” the County could ask them to contribute, but they were not required to do this by State statute.
Commr. Campione opined that stopping development could put the County in a worse position to make improvements, since they would no longer be allowed to use proportionate share to obtain funding from a developer to be put toward correcting deficiencies. She mentioned that denying a development could possibly lead to the County being sued, and that if the level of service was too low by how they categorized it, then they could end up not being able to receive any contributions to help address items.
Mr. Earhart thought that the subject developer was willing to participate at some level.
Commr. Campione asked if staff had been able to speak to FDOT about whether they could consider traffic calming if a signal was not warranted.
Mr. Earhart denied this because the crashes that staff had been looking at were not in the system yet. He explained that the University of Florida (UF) compiled all of the crashes, and that the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) or the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) likely had not yet given it to them to be entered.
Commr. Campione asked about if residents indicated to the Board that there had been five accidents in the previous year.
Mr. Earhart mentioned that once staff found out the number of accidents, then they could use that information.
Mr. Bret Jones, an attorney representing the applicant, said that they had met with residents on the current day and had come up with changes to the ordinance. He asked if the Board had copies of the most recent version of the ordinance.
Ms. Marsh confirmed this, and said that it could be displayed.
Mr. Jones explained that on page one, number three, it said that the developer would record a deed restriction in favor of the adjacent landowners so that there would not be a medical marijuana facility. He stated for page two, item three, the applicant agreed to install a split rail wooden fence which could be utilized to delineate property lines, and that they had agreed that no vinyl fencing would be allowed; additionally, at the time that a house was built, a split rail fence must be installed on the property and must be contiguous. He mentioned that the houses facing SR 44 must be front facing only, noting that there would be no houses on the SR 44 side. He relayed that houses constructed along Shalimar Lane, as well as the western border of the property, would be single story only, and that they agreed to some pedestrian easements so that there could be access to green space. He said that they agreed to place a fence in between the subject property and Ms. Connelly’s property, and that they changed the lot width from 100 feet to 90 feet because they added to the buffer. He commented that they agreed to a 25 foot setback for garages from the front of the property line, and note two on page three was that they agreed to a five foot setback from the side and a 50 foot setback from the rear for any pools, screened enclosures, etc. He mentioned that for landscaping on page four, section G, they agreed to a 200 foot wide landscape buffer along SR 44, and a 100 foot wide landscape buffer along the perimeter of the property, except for the southern portion, noting that the southern property owner did not object to this. He added that they had agreed to a 140 foot wide landscape buffer along the western edge of the property, adjacent to parcels 3788800 and 3514645; additionally, they did the same thing along Shalimar Lane. He indicated that the berm, fence and landscaping similar to that located on the Sorrento Springs property to the east of Cardinal Lane shall be installed and maintained along Cardinal Lane, and along SR 44 for uniformity. He commented that pine trees would be planted on half of the buffer, and that oak trees, palm trees and other Florida native trees shall be added along the northern and western boundaries every 100 feet. He said that the existing trees along the perimeter of the property could be used to accomplish some of the buffer, and on part of the property there was a large oak hammock, noting that a landscaping buffer would not be placed there. He stated that trees located in the buffer could only be removed for roadways, etc., and that item six on page five was a reference to the applicant using plants and trees from the UF Institute of Food and Agricultural Services (UF/IFAS) Florida native plant materials. He said that they also agreed to remove exotic and invasive species, and that a homeowners association (HOA) shall manage buffer areas in accordance with a management plan that protects native habitats and limits the proliferation of nuisance/exotic vegetative species. He elaborated that the HOA must include nontoxic neighborhoods protocols to regulate pesticide usage, and he indicated that after the word “usage,” he wanted to add the language “and incorporate a best practices management plan to minimize nutrient load from fertilizer.” He mentioned that the proposed ordinance indicated that the development shall be required to design, permit and construct a traffic signal on SR 44 at Cardinal Lane if warranted by FDOT, along with coordinating on the design and operation with both FDOT and the County. He added that the subsequent item said that if a traffic signal was not warranted there, then the applicant would do something else for a traffic calming measure. He remarked that Cardinal Lane would be required to be widened and reconstructed to meet a County feeder/distributer road standard from SR 44 to the southern boundary of the development, and that they were also agreeing for the development to be required to add a left turn lane from Cardinal Lane onto SR 44, noting that there would be left and right turn lanes. He commented that they would have traffic calming inside the neighborhood, along with sidewalks, etc., and that they agreed for all homes to be constructed according to the Florida Water Star program. He added that they had also agreed not to enter into any voluntary annexation with the City of Eustis, and that they were in favor of dark sky lighting language. He also pointed out that a municipal service taxing unit or municipal service benefit unit (MSTU/MSBU) would be utilized for the internal roads. He said that a neighbor had an easement to her property, which was to the benefit of the applicant’s property, and that the applicant would privately work with her to vacate the easement.
Commr. Campione mentioned that the open space would be dedicated in perpetuity using a conservation easement, and she asked who had the right to enforce this.
Ms. Marsh replied that it would run in favor of the County, and that they would need to adjust the language to be a conservation or open space easement.
Commr. Campione thought that the type of fence that they were contemplating, which was seen in Sorrento and Sorrento Springs, was described as an equestrian style fence.
Mr. Jones relayed that he was told that it was called a four board fence, and that he had written down a “four board no climb fence.”
Commr. Campione said that she had asked for the requirement for it to be behind the lots so that the open space would be clearly marked and would not become part of someone’s lot.
Ms. Marsh inquired if they were changing “split rail” and if they needed to add “three or four board fence.”
Commr. Campione said that a four board equestrian style fence would be consistent with the farm and properties that people already had, and Mr. Jones indicated that he was amicable with this. Commissioner Campione then added that any reference to “split rail” would be changed to “four board equestrian.” She asked how they could ensure that the pine trees in the open space were planted at a density consistent with when one would receive an agriculture exemption for having pine trees.
Commr. Parks said that it could be the County’s buffer standard and that a certain number of pine trees could be required.
Mr. Jones mentioned that with the mix of other vegetation such as the Florida native emergent-type forest area, they could have oak trees, palm trees, and other Florida native trees.
Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the other trees were one every 100 feet, whereas this was more of a real planting.
Mr. Jones asked if the code had this language.
Commr. Campione clarified that this was new, and that the idea was with this being a rural conservation subdivision, to use the pine tree buffer around the perimeter could create a feel of separation between this property and the next, along with giving it a rural feeling. She inquired if there was a requirement for a pine tree every 10 feet, with 10 feet of separation between rows, to receive an agriculture exemption.
Commr. Parks confirmed this and said that it could be about 100 trees per acre.
Commr. Campione mentioned that the UF/IFAS office could possibly help.
Mr. Jones stated that the applicant could agree to the agriculture exemption number, and then it could be modified to what UF/IFAS or the Florida Forestry Service told them.
Ms. Marsh said that she did not want to do a significant amount of wordsmithing after the Board approved something, and that they would have to develop better language for the ordinance.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. John Wright, a neighbor of the subject property, expressed concerns for whether FDOT would see the necessity for a traffic light, and for the existing building on the property, relaying his understanding that it was designed for commercial truck traffic. He opined that residents did not see a viable agricultural purpose in the future for that building, and that they were concerned that a trucking company would come there.
Mr. Barry Larsen, a resident on Cardinal Lane, relayed that Cardinal Lane was his only access to surrounding areas, and that Sorrento Springs also used that road. He expressed concerns for traffic on Cardinal Lane and SR 44, and he also indicated concerns for water. He mentioned that everyone in the area, aside from Sorrento Springs, had individual wells, and he thought that this needed to be considered.
Mr. Keith Johnson, a resident on Cardinal Lane, expressed concerns for wells on the subject property, questioning if they would be used for irrigation. He also indicated concerns for traffic.
Commr. Parks said that the Florida Water Star program could significantly reduce per household consumption of water.
Commr. Campione mentioned that the wells were old irrigation wells and were significant, noting a concern for whether they could be used by the neighborhood for watering or other purposes. She commented that with the City of Eustis providing central water, they were required by the SJRWMD to provide reclaimed water for irrigation. She remarked that in previous years, some subdivisions would have residents install their own wells, and the SJRWMD could not stop them from doing this; additionally, the BCC could include in the ordinance that residents could not have their own individual wells on lots.
Ms. Cindy Newton, a resident of Commission District 4, asked if the development could they be annexed mandatorily since it was receiving water from the City of Eustis.
Commr. Campione clarified that it had to be contiguous to be annexed; however, the applicant had an agreement with the City of Eustis to provide water, with the requirement for annexation when the property was contiguous. She added that notices had to be provided to any future lot owners informing them that they would be subject to this requirement.
Ms. Newton inquired if the internal roads would be developed according to City or County standards, and if the City of Eustis had received approval from the SJRWMD to modify their eastern consumptive use permit, relaying her understanding that the City thought that they would have to put a well down to the lower aquifer to supply water. She also asked if there were lines for reclaimed water, and she indicated an understanding that some residents in the area had been installing shallow wells; therefore, she opined that this could add to the issue of wells drying up if homeowners in the subject development did this as well.
Ms. Ranae Carden, a resident of Lake County, opined that there was not enough information, and stated that she would like to see this item tabled to the following BCC meeting.
Ms. de Jongh opined that the ideal residential use for this parcel would be a zoning designation that protected surrounding agricultural properties to the south and the west from further urban encroachment, and prevent undue taxing of public facilities such as schools, roads and public safety services. She displayed a list of zoning districts, and she thought that other residential zoning options would be better suited for the area. She expressed concerns for setting a precedent, and she mentioned that there were other density options for Rural Residential. She also relayed concerns that there was not a wildlife corridor in the application, and for the concurrency report for school funding. She showed a map of developments in the area, along with a document indicating that they were averaging 21.6 traffic accidents per year on that stretch of road.
Mr. Brad Paddock, the owner of Paradise Honey, provided contact information for individuals at the Lake County Office of Extension Services, opining that they could help with native plants which would not be toxic to his bees. He mentioned that anything sprayed on the subject property could be brought back to the hive and could affect his honey, and he asked about the runoff for the roadways.
Mr. Jim Miller, a resident on Grand Champion Lane, wondered if there was anything that Lake County could do regarding traffic, and he expressed interest in having a light or some sort of traffic control.
Mr. Jon Suarez, a resident of Lake County, expressed concerns for traffic and the number of additional cars in the subject development coming onto Cardinal Lane and SR 44. He indicated concerns for the condition of roads, and he opined that the development did not conform to the area. He relayed his understanding that the applicant had previously wanted to keep the existing warehouse as an agriculture option, but that they currently wanted to sell the property; therefore, he questioned what this would be for. He also expressed concerns for issues with law enforcement, fire services and emergency medical services (EMS) in the area, and opined that these items needed to be considered before they continued to grow.
Ms. Jan Paddock, a concerned citizen, urged the County to reach out to UF/IFAS, and she expressed concerns for traffic on SR 44. She relayed her understanding that there was a pit on a neighbor’s property which had been dumped with reclaimed oil and other materials; additionally, she asked if Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) testing had been done. She also asked if the dark sky lighting would only be for the street lights, or if it would include the houses, play areas, etc.
Ms. Shane Connelly, a resident of Lake County, opined that the four board fence should be no climb, noting that this would keep the children and animals in. She opined that pine trees could be planted as needed, and she asked about the plan for annexation.
Ms. Phyllis Boston, a resident on Cardinal Lane, said that she had a private easement and that she had met with the applicant, noting that they would deed it back to her. She expressed support for the applicant.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Jones said that the applicant would agree that there would not be individual wells for irrigation purposes on the subject property, and that they would abandon the wells on the property. He mentioned that they could work with UF/IFAS to ensure that they had a good mix of native species, including pollinators, and he stated that they had conducted a phase two environmental assessment and did not find anything. He explained that they had dry ponds, or 100 year flood ponds, and that they were an enclosed basin; therefore, they had to contain their own water.
Commr. Parks asked about lighting and the annexation, and Mr. Jones confirmed that dark sky lighting was for the entire neighborhood.
Commr. Campione inquired if the ordinance language would give the Lake County Office of Code Enforcement authority to address a resident shining a floodlight.
Ms. Marsh stated that they could modify the language to say that it applied to individual lot owners as well.
Commr. Campione relayed that the ordinance indicated that the owner agreed not to enter into a covenant with a municipality to annex which altered the prerequisites of a voluntary annexation under Section 171.044, Florida Statutes. She relayed her understanding that the applicant could not agree to annex with the City of Eustis unless they addressed the individual notice on a per-lot basis.
Ms. Marsh confirmed this.
Commr. Campione added that the annexation agreement or covenant to annex with the City of Eustis when they received utilities had to acknowledge that the developer would ensure that all lot owners had been given sufficient notice, or had done was what required under Florida law to voluntarily annex. She summarized that people could not be forced to annex in that neighborhood unless they had signed the appropriate documents to do so. She added that this would not affect surrounding property owners, and that they would also have to agree to annex.
Mr. Suarez inquired about the sewer from the City of Eustis, relaying his understanding that the development would connect to a sewer plant near residents and that the solids would be trucked to a facility in the City of Eustis.
Mr. Jones clarified that the development would have central water and sewer.
Commr. Campione explained that the City of Eustis took the solids from their plant and transported them to another processing plant closer to the city limits; however, it was still considered by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to be central sewer. She agreed that three or five acre lots would be an ideal scenario; however, she opined that the City of Eustis was working its way out, and once the City reached the edge of the subject property, then the City would be making the decision about the number of units. She opined that it would not be one unit per acre because the approved City of Eustis subdivisions were three to five units per acre, and she mentioned that the County had tried to do joint planning with the City to try to develop transition areas to protect the rural areas east of the city, though they had not been successful in coming up with a density and subdivision plan that the City would be agreeable to. She expressed concerns that if the BCC did not approve one unit per acre, then they could be opening the door for the City to move in this direction. She remarked that this development could be a template to demonstrate to the City that a rural transition subdivision could work at one unit per acre with 50 percent open space and large buffers, rather than 40 foot wide lot projects with four or five units per acres from the City of Eustis to Sorrento. She relayed that she did not want to vote to approve this item, but by saying no, she opined that they would be losing an opportunity to do something better than what could potentially happen. She then asked Ms. Marsh to read the language about the plantings.
Ms. Marsh indicated that Commissioner Campione’s suggested language was that in the perimeter buffer, at least 50 percent of the area in the buffer shall be designated for pine tree plantings in a manner which resembles a pine tree farm with trees planted in rows, with a maximum 10 foot separation between trees and a maximum 10 foot separation between rows. She elaborated that the tree density target in the area designated for pine tree plantings should be a survival rate of 400 trees per acre, and that the County Manager may adjust this requirement if the owner provides an alternative plan prepared by a certified arborist.
Mr. Randy June, the applicant, said that this wording was amicable, and mentioned that they still had some details to work on for the next phase with the subdivision plan and final construction plans. He assured the residents that they could meet some more, and he thanked them for working with him.
Commr. Campione mentioned the following concessions brought up by Mr. Jones after the redline ordinance: the left turn lane on Cardinal Lane; dark sky lighting would apply to individual homes, as well as street lighting; the open space or common space areas would be dedicated in a conservation easement for the benefit of the County; if FDOT did not warrant a traffic signal at the current time but would agree to traffic calming measures, then the applicant would participate with these improvements; the applicant would abandon the large agriculture wells, there would be no individual wells permitted; the language with regards to the nontoxic neighborhoods protocols; and the split rail wooden fence was changed to the four board equestrian no climb fence.
Commr. Campione made a motion to approve this item with the discussed concessions, along with all of the other conditions listed in the ordinance.
Commr. Blake seconded the motion.
Commr. Parks opined that these development situations were never easy, and that there were many places in South Lake where saying no resulted in a worse situation instead of doing cooperative planning.
Commr. Campione mentioned that the ordinance also indicated that they had to have bear resistant garbage carts in the subdivision; additionally, if they were not available, then the regular carts would have to be modified or kept in a secure location.
Commr. Shields said that the Board was not dismissing the traffic issues, and that the County was trying to address some of these items.
Commr. Campione opined that the County would arguably have a better chance of working with FDOT to get a signal there when compared to the City of Eustis, if the City annexed the project before the current item was approved. She explained that when Cities approved projects, the County could ask them to require certain traffic improvements, but the Cities did not have to include them in the ordinance. She noted that with the current item, the County was able to incorporate this into the ordinance. She thought that in the long run, they would be better off with this; furthermore, as the District Commissioner, she would work to persuade FDOT to move forward with a signal warrant.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 5, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-40-4, White Rose Subdivision, with the discussed concessions, along with all of the other conditions listed in the ordinance.
comment about iso rating
Commr. Campione said that at the community meeting for the previous item, a resident had mentioned an issue regarding the Insurance Services Office (ISO) insurance rating for fire protection. She relayed that in many locations throughout Lake County, the ISO ratings had improved significantly as a result of improvements that the BCC had put in place, such as first responder agreements and the number of personnel responding to events. She asked staff if they could consider an interactive map or a way for residents to look up their ISO rating, noting that some people were finding out that their homeowner’s insurance was increasing; however, their rating might have improved, and they might be able to reduce their insurance rates.
Ms. Barker indicated that staff could provide a press release about the ISO and how residents could obtain this for themselves, noting that it recently lowered again.
Commr. Shields suggested to possibly contact the insurance providers or brokers and let them know.
Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that it could be a significant savings.
public hearing: ORDINANCE 2022-26 REVOKE conditional use permits
Ms. Barrón presented Tab 2. She said that the following CUPs had been approved by the Board and were reviewed by the Lake County Office of Code Enforcement by a physical site inspection pursuant to the annual inspection review of the conditions as set forth in the CUPs: CUP #668-3, for the SJRWMD, noting that it was for a radio tower facility located at 16400 County Road 48, in the City of Mount Dora, and that the Applicant had requested CUP revocation; CUP #18-09-5, Ricky’s Tree Service, commenting that the CUP was for a mill operation, generally located west of Babb Road in the City of Umatilla area of unincorporated Lake County, and that the applicant had requested CUP revocation; CUP #13/9/1-4, for Ms. Cheryl Sitton, remarking that the CUP was for a pet grooming facility located at 32913 Appaloosa Trail, Sorrento, FL 32776, and that the applicant had requested CUP revocation; CUP #89/2/1-5, for Mr. James and Ms. Leilani Harper, stating that the CUP was for a floral arrangement facility as a home occupation located at 55336 Claire Street in Astor, FL, and the applicant requested CUP revocation; CUP #94/5/1-2 for Mr. Melvin Moore and Mr. Louis Moore, indicating that the CUP was for the placement of a mobile home for the care of the infirm located at 15311 Johns Lake Road, Clermont, FL 34711, and the applicant requested CUP revocation; CUP #96/11/1-5, for Mr. Julian Malkiewicz, noting that the CUP was for the placement of a mobile home for the care of the infirm, located at 37321 Oswalds Alley, Fruitland Park, FL 34731, and the applicant requested CUP revocation; and CUP #01/7/2-2, for Ms. Patricia M. Land, commenting that the CUP was for the placement of a mobile home for the care of the infirm, located at 20327 Land Street, Clermont, FL 34715, and the applicant requested CUP revocation. She said that from these inspections and letters sent from the owners, it had been noted that these CUPs were no longer required, had ceased operation, or were no longer wanted by the original applicant or current land owner; additionally, based on these inspections, staff recommended approval of the revocation of the CUPs.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2022-26 to honor the voluntary requests to revoke conditional use permits.
commissioner shields – district 1
lake-sumter mpo meeting
Commr. Shields mentioned that there had been a Lake-Sumter MPO meeting that most of the Board had attended.
commissioner campione –district 4
INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE
Commr. Campione said that she had already discussed the Insurance Services Office (ISO) in the current meeting, and that she looked forward to seeing how the County could provide that information to residents.
Ms. Barker stated that the County had a request form that someone could use to submit to receive insurance information, and she added that staff would put this location on the website in the press release.
commissioner parks – Chairman and district 2
grant application for green mountain scenic overlook tower
Commr. Parks stated that he would add to the agenda for the following BCC meeting a grant application to build the tower taller at the Green Mountain Scenic Overlook. He said that it could potentially be funded through Tourist Development Taxes (TDT), although the item on the agenda would be to decide whether to apply for the grant from FDEP.
Ms. Barker added that the item was also to request up to a 50 percent match so that it would be possibly considered more favorably. She recalled that there was about a $1.2 million total construction cost.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:14 p.m.
_________________________________
SEAN PARKS, chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
GARY J COONEY, CLERK