A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

January 3, 2023

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:00 a.m., in the County Commission Chambers, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Kirby Smith, Chairman; Douglas B. Shields, Vice Chairman; Sean Parks; and Leslie Campione. Commissioners not present at the meeting were: 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.

welcome

Commr. Smith welcomed everyone to the meeting. He hoped that everyone had a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year, and he noted that they were live and broadcasting via Zoom Webinar for members of the public who wished to attend but did not have the ability to be there in person.

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.

INVOCATION and pledge

Commr. Smith noted that the Invocation would be given by Pastor David Averill, with First United Methodist Church of Mount Dora. He added that the Pledge of Allegiance would be led by Mr. George Cochran, commenting that he was a Fire Lieutenant/emergency medical technician (EMT) for the Office of Fire Rescue, and had been with the County since September 1999. He elaborated that Mr. Cochran’s career highlights included the following: being a member of the Lake County Special Operations Team from 1999 to 2017; serving as Lieutenant from 2007 to 2017; being a member of Lake County Fire Rescue (LCFR) PEER Support Team from April 2021 to the present time; being awarded campaign bars for the 2000 Chain Link Fire after saving a resident’s house from the approaching fire, and for the 2007 Groundhog Day tornadoes. He relayed that in Mr. Cochran’s free time, he enjoyed spending it with his ten-month old daughter, flats fishing for redfish in the spring and summer, and hunting in the fall. He thanked Mr. Cochran for his service.

Pastor Averill gave the Invocation and Mr. Cochran led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Commr. Smith welcomed Mayor Crissy Stile, with the City of Mount Dora.

Agenda update

Ms. Jennifer Barker, County Manager, said that additional supporting documents had been added to Tab 5 of the rezoning agenda.

public hearings: REZONING

rezoning consent agenda

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding any cases on the Rezoning Consent Agenda, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commr. Smith indicated that he had a conflict and would have to abstain from voting on Tabs 1 and 2.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, noted that Commissioner Blake was not present.

Commr. Campione expressed support for Tabs 1 and 2, relaying her understanding that it appeared that the request was consistent with the density permissible under the existing land use and zoning, but was using a planned unit development (PUD) to reconfigure dwelling units.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tab 3, pulling Tabs 1 and 2 for a separate vote as follows below.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried by a vote of 3-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 and 2, as follows:

Commr. Smith abstained from voting.

Tab 1. Ordinance No. 2023-1

Rezoning Case # FLU-22-01-3

Atlantic Housing

Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category (FLUC) on approximately 18.22 acres from Urban High Density to Planned Unit Development FLUC and amend associated Comprehensive Plan Policies to incorporate the proposed development program for the Atlantic Housing development which will include 175 residential units consisting of 165 apartment units and 10 single-family rental units with 10 attached accessory dwelling units.

Tab 2. Ordinance No. 2023-2

Rezoning Case # RZ-22-01-3

Atlantic Housing

Rezone 18.22 +/- acres from Mobile Home Residential Park (RMRP) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 175-unit residential development consisting of 165 apartment units and 10 single-family rental units with 10 attached accessory dwelling units.

Tab 3. Ordinance No. 2023-3

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-41-1

Savanna Reserve

Rezone approximately 179.29 +/- acres from Planned Unit Development by Ordinance #2018-19 to Agriculture (A).

citizen question and comment period

Mr. David Williamson, Chairman for the Central Florida Freethought Community, commented that his organization had offered 10 Invocations in the past seven years, and that Lake County was one of the first Counties to allow them to participate. He recalled that after the Invocation given by Mr. Joseph Richardson, Director for the Central Florida Freethought Community, at the December 6, 2022 Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting, one of the County’s employees was asked to pray in the Christian tradition. He requested more information about why this happened, and to have assurances that it would not happen again.

Commr. Parks indicated that he had made a public response to this.

comment on rezoning consent agenda tabs 1 and 2

Ms. Marsh clarified that the Board had previously approved Tabs 1 through 3 on the rezoning consent agenda; therefore, the Board had not yet voted on the regular consent agenda.

Commr. Smith indicated that he had a comment card for Tabs 1 and 2 on the rezoning consent agenda, and that when he had asked if anyone had any objections to the consent agenda, he had meant the rezoning consent agenda.

Ms. Marsh recommended to have the individual speak, and then Commissioner Smith could ask one of the Commissioners to rescind and have the case heard if needed.

Ms. Jane Bumar, a resident on Baywood Boulevard adjacent to the subject property, opined that they had a diverse and healthy environmental area with a significant amount of wildlife, including a pair of bald eagles that were nesting in the area proposed for development. She asked what environmental impact studies had been done with this area with regard to items such as federally protected species.

Mr. Bobby Howell, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, explained that the environmental process was handled through the development plan stage, noting that the applicant had submitted an environmental assessment with the rezoning; additionally, it indicated that there was no presence of any protected species on the site. He added that a more in-depth analysis would be requested when the applicant came to the development plan stage, and that staff would request a new study at that point to look for bald eagles and other protected species.

Commr. Campione asked that if any protected species were located, would the applicant then apply through the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC).

Mr. Howell confirmed this.

Commr. Parks indicated that bald eagles were addressed by the United States (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that if the applicant had to redo their study, a professional would have to certify that they had been on the site; furthermore, if they located or saw any evidence of those species, then they had to include it in the report. She added that the County would not have jurisdiction at that point; rather, the State agency and the Federal Government would have jurisdiction. She commented that Ms. Bumar could see this report when it was submitted to the County.

Ms. Marsh explained that one could make a public records request for this information, and the County could provide it.

Commr. Campione inquired if there was a way to see when the development plan request was received.

Commr. Smith relayed that the “Development Near Me” website allowed one to track all of the developments.

Commr. Campione added that that when the applicant made this request and it showed up on that website, then one could make a records request for environmental reports.

Ms. Marsh clarified that regardless of how the report came back, the County was prohibited by Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, and could not condition any of their permits based on whether the applicant met Federal or State permits.

Commr. Campione requested to see the environmental report for this development application when it was received.

Ms. Marsh commented that no other vote was required unless a Commissioner wanted to reopen the item.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 through 3, as follows:

PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Public Works

Recommend adoption of Resolution 2023-1 to advertise a public hearing to vacate a portion of Georgia Avenue, lying north of Marvins Place (#1616) and east of Bible Camp Road. The closest municipality is Groveland.

The fiscal impact is $2,295 (revenue-vacation application fee) and is within the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. Commission District 1.

Recommend approval and execution of the renewal of the Agreement between the St. Johns River Water Management District and Lake County for Aquatic Resource Conservation or Restoration or Recreation Improvements within the Upper Ocklawaha River Basin. The potential fiscal impact is not to exceed $200,000 per year (revenue).

Recommend approval and the Chairman's signature on a Letter of Support to reauthorize FDOT's Drive It Home grant for the Keep Lake Beautiful program. There is no fiscal impact.

public hearing: vacate right of way near clermont

Mr. Fred Schneider, Assistant County Manager, presented vacation petition #1270, noting that the applicants were Mr. Gordon Warren, Mr. Shawn Stars, and Mr. David E. Block, who were the owners. He explained that the location of the proposed vacation was near Hancock Road in the City of Clermont area, within Commission District 2. He specified that it was east of Hancock Road, between Johns Lake Road and Sunburst Lane, and he pointed out the vacation on an image, noting that it was an old platted right of way. He also noted the property owners who had joined in the request, and he showed views looking north and south along the public right of way. He mentioned that the residents were requesting to vacate the right of way so that they could fence off the property, and that staff recommended approval.

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. Parks, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved Resolution 2023-2 to vacate a platted right of way lying east of Hancock Road between Johns Lake Road and Sunburst Lane, in the City of Clermont area.

public hearing: vacate property near mount dora

Mr. Schneider presented vacation petition #1273. He explained that the applicants were Ms. Michelle Harris and Mr. Kenneth Harris, who were the owners and were Registered Agents with Solid Rock Opportunities. He added that the vacation request was east of U.S. Highway 441 in the City of Mount Dora area, within Commission District 4. He showed the area on the map, noting that it was south of the Country Club of Mount Dora, north of Wolf Branch Road, and west of Sunrise Boulevard. He showed the plat and believed that it was signed in 1974; furthermore, each lot had a cul-de-sac right of way and pedestrian walkway. He related that as they went through the Office of Planning and Zoning to build homes, one lot was not large enough to build a home according to current code and Land Development Regulations (LDR); therefore, they had to aggregate the lots. He specified that in order to do this, one would have a cul-de-sac in the middle of their home, and that the applicants had three locations they would like to aggregate to five lots each. He said that there would be half acre lots, he displayed an aerial image of where the lots were, along with a close up. He commented that the request was to vacate the areas in red so that they could build single family homes, and that staff recommended approval.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Chase Harris, a resident on Woodhaven Boulevard, commented that residents had built homes there already, and that they had already done a unity of title on them.

Commr. Campione asked how many total units there were.

Mr. Harris replied that there were six units in the front, and two groups of five in the back, for 16 total.

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

Commr. Campione asked to clarify that this item was just to remove the location of right of way dedication on the old plat.

Mr. Schneider relayed his understanding that there were three locations, and that the lots had to be aggregated by the zoning rules to build a home on them. He also stated that there was a typical cluster, which applied to each lot, noting that each property corner had a cul-de-sac or right of way. He mentioned that it was possible that this could have been missed as residents went through zoning or building.

Commr. Campione suggested the possibility of doing some type of vacation across the whole plat, and Mr. Schneider relayed that staff could look into this.

Commr. Smith said that it appeared that the resident was purchasing individual lots to build one single family home.

Mr. Schneider added that they would have to aggregate four or five lots to make one lot, and he was unsure of the zoning regulations that required this.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved Resolution 2023-3 to vacate a platted driveway, walkway and cul-de-sac easements, lying north of Wolf Branch Road and West Sunrise Boulevard in the City of Mount Dora area.

public hearings: REZONING continued

rezoning regular agenda

Tab 4. Ordinance No. 2023-4

Rezoning Case # RZ-22-05-1

Pacific Ace PUD Amendment

Amend PUD Ordinance #2020-63 to develop an additional 53.19 +/- acres into single family lots; revise the permitted use of the property to single-family attached and single family detached; increase the number of maximum dwelling units to 666; and include architectural standards specific for Pacific Ace PUD Phase 5.

Tab 5.

Rezoning Case # FLU-22-07-4

Sorrento Pines PUD (Transmittal)

Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category (FLUC) on approximately 199.39 +/- acres from Public Service Facility & Infrastructure to Planned Unit Development FLUC and amend associated Comprehensive Plan Policies to revise the development program for the Sorrento Pines Planned Unit Development to allow for an additional 328 dwelling units.

Pacific ace pud amendment

Mr. Howell presented Tab 4, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-05-1, Pacific Ace PUD Amendment. He explained that the property was approximately 378.93 acres, and was located east of U.S. Highway 27, south and west of Sawgrass Bay Boulevard, and north of Citrus Parkway in the unincorporated South Lake area. He said that the applicant was requesting to amend PUD Ordinance 2020-63 to increase the maximum number of dwelling units from 555 to 666, at a maximum density of 3.19 units per acre. He displayed an aerial image of the property, and he said that the applicant was also requesting to develop an additional 53.19 acres into single family lots; furthermore, revised permitted use of the property was single family attached and detached, and would include architectural standards specific to Pacific Ace Phase 5, which was a total of 111 lots. He stated that access to phase five was through a wetland area which the applicant intended to mitigate, and that on December 7, 2022, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the request on a vote of 3-2 on the regular agenda. He concluded that staff found the request consistent with the LDR and the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan).

Mr. Dan O’Keefe, an attorney representing the applicant, clarified that there would only be an additional 110 units for a total of 665 units. He showed an image of the entrance to the existing community currently under construction, and said that they were requesting to add 110 lots to the existing 555 lot PUD. He mentioned that the future land use (FLU) was currently Urban Low, which allowed up to four units per acre, and that they were not requesting any change to the FLU, nor were they requesting four units per acre. He opined that the request was consistent with the LDR, the Comp Plan and surrounding land uses, and that it provided an orderly and logical development pattern. He showed a map of the area, and pointed out the existing 555 lots, along with the entrance road that connected to this 53 acre area with some ponds and green space. He recalled that when this item was heard in 2019, the BCC requested to have some increased standards on development and architectural requirements including non-repetition of the same house, dark sky lighting, brick paver driveways, each floor plan requiring options for three siding/accent options, no wetland impact except for the access road, and garage doors had to have decorative features and other options to make them more attractive. He displayed a picture of existing homes there, and he mentioned that neighbors had been concerned about what the south pond would look like. He indicated that the applicant would ensure that the pond was shaped and contoured, and that they would plant the littoral zone with Florida native plants; furthermore, they had agreed to place a fountain in the pond, along with enhanced landscaping to buffer the view. He showed a map and said that the 53 acres was on the south portion of the property. He commented that they also had a pond on the south portion of the property, and that they could do the same enhancements there to be good neighbors for residents to the south. He showed an image of a contoured and landscaped pond with a fountain, noting that this was the kind of quality that they could expect on the subject property. He also displayed an image of an existing pond near the main entrance, and he recalled that the applicant heard comments at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting about transportation and how it was a significant number of lots to come out on State Road (SR) 27. He recalled that when the applicant came in for an amendment in 2020, Commissioner Parks had requested to add a new condition saying that the project would not exceed 274 homes before there was a connection to Sawgrass Bay Boulevard to the east. He showed an image of this road and the road connection, opining that it looked close to completion. He mentioned that other comments they had heard regarded the preservation of heritage trees, noting that there were four heritage trees within this area and that they were not planning any impact to this. He relayed that flooding was addressed, and that they would comply with rules and regulations regarding endangered or threatened species.

Mr. Tim Plate, a Project Engineer representing the applicant, recalled that at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting on December 7, 2022, some flooding issues were brought to the applicant’s attention by the Public Works Department. He said that since that time, they had some field reviews and had requested additional topographic information. He commented that there was an old grass pathway that went through the wetland and was elevated by one or 1.5 feet higher than the rest of the wetland, and that this had been blocking some of the drainage from flowing through the wetland. He stated that the applicant had proposed lowering the pathway, noting that it was an old easement which had already been vacated, and that they wanted to construct it so that it would allow the passage of 100 year storm event flows without any obstruction. He indicated that they would continue to work with the Public Works Department to create and implement a plan to hopefully resolve this drainage concern.

Mr. O’Keefe opined that the application was infill development surrounded by residential uses, and he opined that it was consistent with the Comp Plan and the LDR. He added that if approved, they would need to come back to the BCC for review of the final site plan and some of the site plan specific issues. He requested approval of this item.

Commr. Smith indicated that this was a quasi-judicial matter, and he asked the Board to disclose ex-parte communications.

Commr. Shields said that he had a Zoom meeting with the applicant, and interaction with the public.

Commr. Parks disclosed that he had a Zoom meeting with Mr. O’Keefe.

Commr. Campione disclosed that she had a conversation with Mr. O’Keefe.

Commr. Smith stated that he had conversations with the applicant via Zoom.

Ms. Marsh clarified that site plans did not come back to the BCC, and unless they specifically required this in the ordinance, it would not come back to them.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that the site plan would be changed to save some of the heritage trees, and he thought that it could possibly be a good idea to bring it back.

Mr. O’Keefe confirmed that they were planning on changing the concept plan to have no impact on the heritage trees, and that it could come back to the Board.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Carlos Sanchez, a concerned citizen, expressed concerns for the flooding issue, relaying his understanding that there was flooding in Citrus Highlands and that it also broke the recycle pipeline. He indicated an understanding that this was causing property damage and had not been repaired, and that as of December 30, 2022, all suspended Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerns regarding wetlands had been reinstated. He relayed his understanding that any plans under the old system would be reviewed under the new system, and he mentioned concerns for future prevention of flooding and the conservation of wildlife. He asked the Board to consider pathways for the wildlife, and he opined that there was apparently an EPA investigation occurring for the wetland regarding the pond.

Mr. O’Keefe indicated that he was not aware of an EPA violation or investigation, and that he was unsure about what flooding breaking the pipeline meant or how it would be attributable to anything that happened within the subject development.

Commr. Parks asked if they had water reuse there, relaying his understanding that Utilities, Inc. did not have reused water.

Mr. O’Keefe mentioned that neither he nor the owners had received any notice.

Mr. Jeff Earhart, Engineering Manager for the Public Works Department, said that he was not aware of any reclaimed water issues, and that staff had met with the applicant regarding stormwater flooding on the pond.

Commr. Shields inquired if he was comfortable with the solution, and Mr. Earhart replied that he was comfortable that the owners had said that they were willing to work with staff to address the issues.

Mr. Tom McFadden, a resident on Citrus Parkway, indicated concerns for traffic in the area and for 1,000 or more additional cars. He described traffic issues in the area, and he expressed concerns for this becoming worse when the applicant built more homes.

Mr. O’Keefe noted that the subject project constructed a U-turn on U.S. Highway 27 in conjunction with the original approval for the 555 lots; furthermore, the staff report indicated that the applicant would be required to complete a tier one traffic study prior to site plan approval, and that a copy of the traffic impact analysis must also be submitted to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), as the traffic generated would impact their roadway.

Commr. Campione asked about the status of Sawgrass Bay Boulevard connecting to Flemings Road, and Commissioner Parks noted that it was in Orange County. Commissioner Campione then noted that it was impacting not just this neighborhood, but there were multiple issues being compounded due to not being able to make this connection.

Mr. O’Keefe explained that it was within Horizon West and was part of an existing road agreement between the Village Eye owners and Orange County. He added that there were some amendments being discussed and requested, noting that the agreement currently had an outside date which was far in the future and unacceptable to everyone who was impacted by it. He also stated that there was an effort underway to move up the outside date and begin construction as soon as the engineering could be started and finished to accelerate it by a few years. He mentioned that they would continue to work with Commissioner Shields and Lake County, noting that he was the escrow agent and represented many of the Village Eye owners; additionally, there were reasons that it was in their best interest to also connect on a faster basis. He opined that there was a good hope that it would be expedited.

Commr. Campione asked if the limitation on the number of lots until the Sawgrass Bay Boulevard connection was made included this particular connection, or just a connection to Sawgrass Bay Boulevard.

Mr. O’Keefe responded that the connection to Sawgrass Bay Boulevard was what provided the relief and worked with the traffic study submitted in 2019.

Commr. Campione inquired if vehicles would still be coming out on U.S. Highway 27 until Sawgrass Bay Boulevard was connected to Flemings Road.

Mr. O’Keefe confirmed this, and said that they were optimistic that they would be able to accelerate this significantly.

Commr. Campione asked if they would have to discuss signage on U.S. Highway 27 with the State.

Mr. O’Keefe said that this was correct, and that the applicant would cooperate with signage requested by the County and FDOT.

Mr. Mike Lewis, a resident of Orange Tree, believed that the original plan called for 675 houses, which was reduced to 555 houses. He also relayed his understanding that the applicant had to revise it to include a second entrance in the last phase, and he opined that they should not be allowed to build any more units if they could not connect to Orange County. He then expressed concerns for traffic on U.S. Highway 27 and for standing water in the area. He also indicated concerns for the subject property now being about five or six feet higher than his community’s property, and he expressed concerns for flooding.

Mr. O’Keefe mentioned that they needed to satisfy transportation concurrency before site plan approval, and that they would work with everyone to do this and meet County requirements.

Mr. Plate said that they had to meet all of the regulatory requirements for the County, the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and the State. He commented that when the applicant was alerted to a drainage issue, they tried to help resolve it, and he mentioned that they would do what they could to help solve those issues. He clarified that they could not have stormwater travel to the adjacent property, and that they had to provide the compensating conveyance and storage to handle the project’s runoff.

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

Commr. Campione asked if engineering would come in the next stage of construction plans regarding issues of how to store water on their property.

Commr. Parks confirmed this and said that the process could be underway currently, if not soon.

Commr. Campione added that one could not move forward from there unless the SJRWMD signed off that they would not impact adjacent property owners.

Commr. Shields relayed that the last official word from Orange County regarding the Sawgrass Bay Boulevard connection was that it would be complete in 2026. He mentioned that he had been working with Orange County Commissioner Nicole Wilson and anyone who could possibly help. He then recalled a discussion that this site plan would come back to the Board if they wanted it to.

Commr. Smith said that he would like to see this.

Commr. Campione expressed support for this to help ensure that items were being addressed.

Mr. O’Keefe indicated that this was agreeable.

Commr. Smith asked if they were discussing a total of 665 homes, and Mr. O’Keefe confirmed that this was their request.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved Tab 4, Rezoning Case # RZ-22-05-1, Pacific Ace PUD Amendment, with the condition that the site plan would come back for review and approval by the BCC, and to include the correction for the total number of homes to be 665.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:04 a.m. for five minutes.

sorrento pines pud (transmittal)

Mr. Howell presented Tab 5, Rezoning Case # FLU-22-07-4, Sorrento Pines PUD (Transmittal). He mentioned that this item had been tabled by the BCC at the November 1, 2022 meeting, and that in response to the Board, the applicant had provided a title opinion, a phase one environmental site assessment, a phase two soil quality testing report, and a special covenant release from the EPA to supplement the staff report. He added that the lot count was also being reduced from 399 to 328 in order to match the density approved under Ordinance 2019-73, which was phase one of Sorrento Pines.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford, an attorney representing the applicant, commented that this was a transmittal hearing for a land use plan amendment, and that there would be two more hearings before anything could be built. He recalled that the case was continued in November 2022, and that the applicant was tasked to answer three questions. He said that for density, the applicant had originally requested two units per acre, which was slightly more than the 1.64 units per acre of phase one of this development; furthermore, several Commissioners had asked them to lower the density to at least match the approved density of phase one, and that they had done this and were currently requesting 1.63 units per acre, noting that they had reduced their request by about 70 units. He also indicated that there were Board members and members of the public who had thought that there was a deed restriction on the property and that it could not be used for anything but a spray field; however, representatives of the applicant had looked at their B-II exceptions in their title report, and there was nothing. He recalled that in 1982, the property had been deeded to the City of Eustis by a warranty deed which was a matter of public record, and that it had an ownership restriction that the City could not sell the property without EPA approval because the EPA had funded 85 percent of the purchase price. He mentioned that this restriction was formally released in 2020 by the EPA in a recorded document, and he then relayed that for environmental questions and soil testing regarding the property’s use as a spray field, the applicant had done this and it came back clean. He requested approval to transmit the land use plan amendment, noting that they could discuss details when they came back for the adoption of the amendment which would be accompanied at the same hearing by an adoption of the PUD zoning.

Commr. Smith mentioned that this was a quasi-judicial matter and asked the Board to disclose ex-parte communications.

Commr. Parks said that he had discussions with Mr. Crawford.

Commr. Campione stated that she did not have discussions since the last time the case was heard, and that she had received some emails; however, she did not have any direct conversations.

Commr. Smith indicated that he did not have discussions since the November 2022 meeting, except that he had received some emails.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Joan Hill, a resident on Integrity Way, expressed concerns about the need to control development in rural east Lake County, and she asked the Board to approve Rural Transition with no more than one unit per acre for this project. She indicated concerns for crime, traffic, the condition of County Road (CR) 437, trash pickup, and losing power. She opined that the buffers only appeased nine or ten property owners, and she questioned how the density would affect the whole area. She expressed concerns for the amount of cars and deliveries associated with 328 more homes, and she commented that 1,700 units had already been approved at the intersection of CR 437 and SR 46; furthermore, she asked if the current traffic study included those homes. She opined that high density paved the way for similar developments to change the Rural Transition land use, and she mentioned that CR 437 was the western border for the Wekiva River Basin; therefore, she thought that a wildlife pathway would be needed. She relayed her understanding that the developer had allocated $1.5 million for a clubhouse and pools for each part of their developments, and she thought that there was leeway for them to build fewer higher end homes. She expressed concerns for poor trash collection, losing power every four to eight weeks, poor internet, and increased crime around the area.

Ms. Helen Donnell, a resident on Cardinal Lane, expressed concerns for high density development and traffic in the area. She opined that they did not have the infrastructure to handle 600 or 700 more cars each day, and that their garbage was not getting picked up regularly. She also opined that they did not have good fire rescue response times, and she questioned where the water would go that was not being sprayed.

Ms. Cindy Newton, a resident of Commission District 4, displayed correspondence between the EPA and the City of Eustis when they were trying to be able to sell the spray field, noting that it was going to be a solar farm. She remarked that an individual with the EPA had mentioned “I do not see this as a major obstacle, as the proposed use is also environmentally conscious in nature.” She relayed that the EPA had also mentioned the statutes for which the warranty deed had listed. She added that there was also a resolution stating a different statute for them to receive the $913,750 for the land acquisition, and she showed a copy of the resolution and the statute. She remarked that the City had made a comment to the EPA that “As stated, the property has been subject to nutrition loading from a spray field operation, and the value of that land would likely be compromised for alternative uses. As stated before, the property is located within the Wekiva Parkway Protection Act and would be limited for future use in other forms of development other than the one we have proposed and will likely have increasing regulations for alternative uses.” She opined that the City realized that the land probably would not be used for development.

Mr. Jon Suarez, a resident on Curle Road, expressed concerns about the number of homes when combined with other developments in the area, and he opined that the number of cars and the infrastructure were not feasible. He indicated concerns for traffic accidents, and for the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO), fire rescue, and hospital staff being undermanned. He also expressed concerns for a teacher shortage, and he questioned if being in the Wekiva Study Area had meaning. He relayed his understanding that the subject development would be using the Sorrento Springs sewer plant, noting that the plant did not have a line to anywhere and that they would have to truck the solids out. He questioned how many more semi-truck loads of waste would be traveling down the road, and he indicated concerns for waste getting on the roads.

Ms. Katherine de Jongh, a resident of Commission District 4, opined that the City of Eustis had entered into a good faith agreement with the people, and that rezoning this land for a different use other than Community Facility District (CFD) would violate that agreement. She recalled that in 1981, the Federal Clean Water Act revisions made it possible to streamline the municipal grant process, and that in 1982, the City had received a grant and began discussions to use federal funding to purchase this spray field. She relayed her understanding that there were meetings with the public, and she believed that the warranty deed could be where some of this originated. She opined that during the discussions of the warranty deed was where the impression of the 99 year land use likely originated, commenting that it stated that “The grantee shall use the real property for the purpose of the original grant.” She elaborated that there were specific rules in the deed for how the land was to be used and if it was going to be changed, and she opined that the Wekiva River Study had identified this land as environmentally sensitive. She relayed her understanding that in 2009, the City was approached by solar panel manufacturers to build a facility, and that they had asked for a long term lease on this land for alternative energy. She indicated an understanding that the EPA had approved this, and that once the solar panel property became defunct, the City could have transferred the title back to the Federal Government and been compensated. She believed that the failure of the solar farm plant left the City with an obligation to the people to maintain this good faith promise that the land would be used in the capacity of a CFD and not as a subdivision in an environmentally sensitive area. She expressed her understanding that the City had promised the EPA future marginal land use for alternative energy, and she thought that the City had stated that the property was located within the Wekiva Parkway area and would be limited in future use for other forms of development, other than the ones proposed, because there would likely be increased regulations for alternative uses; additionally, she relayed her understanding that the City was unsure if the EPA would be open to potential future regulations if they surrendered the property, so the City chose to sell it.

Ms. Theresa Sidwell, a resident on Integrity Way, opined that adding more homes would add to issues including infrastructure, water, and sewer. She also opined that there were not enough retail services to support the proposal, and she expressed concerns for sound pollution and traffic. She questioned how they could do development in a reasonable way to not diminish what residents already had, and she asked the Board to vote to keep the rural nature and to keep Sorrento as a distinctive community.

Mr. John Wright, a resident on Yonge Road, opined that the growth plan for the area was one house per five acres, and that it was adequate for the services that the County was able to provide at the time. He expressed concerns for a situation that would be created if the services and substructure did not increase, and he expressed interest in the developers paying a fair portion of the cost for the infrastructure advances that needed to be in place before the growth occurred.

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

Mr. Crawford commented that all levels of service for traffic were either already met or failing, and he opined that both safety and level of service would be improved by the traffic light that the developer would place on CR 437. He relayed his understanding that they did not have any abutting property owners in opposition, and he mentioned that the City of Eustis had not been spraying the property for years; furthermore, the solids had always been trucked out. He explained that the statutes and the Code of Federal Regulations cited by Ms. Newton addressed the use of property purchased with public funds, and that this restriction was released in 2020. He mentioned that the City of Eustis had sold this to the applicant with a warranty deed, and had signed a utility agreement agreeing to supply utilities for 399 homes. He commented that they had passed phase one and two soil testing, and opined that it was not an environmentally sensitive property, nor were there any environmentally sensitive communities on the property. He said that they had designed their community strictly to Lake County’s proposed conservation subdivision design principles, and he opined that Lake County addressed road cut throughs on a consistent basis with traffic calming devices, signage and other options; furthermore, he opined that this issue did not have anything to do with the applicant, and was an issue that would already exist. He stated that the State and the County had adopted a system of reimbursement including impact fees, taxes and concurrency requirements that the applicant was meeting and paying. He relayed that under Chapter 163.3180, Florida Statutes, their levels of service were not impacted, per their full level one traffic impact analysis, which would have to be updated at the construction plan phase. He opined that safety would be improved, and he said that they would be rebuilding CR 437 along their right of way portions. He thought that the applicant had done everything that the Board and staff had requested, and said that they had a positive staff recommendation for both hearings. He asked for approval to transmit this item.

Commr. Campione stated that CR 437 was the dividing line for the Wekiva River Protection Area, and at that point it went to one unit per 20 acres. She elaborated that SR 44 and CR 437 north of this was a rural protection area (RPA), and that when the White Rose property came in, there was a concern that the City of Eustis would ultimately annex it and increase the density; therefore, the Board tried to keep the density low and work with the developer to achieve something more beneficial than the high density that the City would likely give them. She relayed that everything west of CR 437 and south of SR 44 was currently Rural Transition on the County’s FLU map, and she opined that their rural conservation subdivision guidelines and regulations fit perfectly in Rural Transition because it was one unit per acre with 50 percent open space if the higher density was desired. She indicated that she could only support a PUD land use if they tried to do the rural conservation design and could achieve a better design using a PUD; otherwise, she thought that Rural Transition was the right land use, reiterating that Rural Transition was around the subject property. She commented that Eagle Dunes was a vested project years prior that received a grandfathering type status, and that it was used for the initial phase of Sorrento Pines to say that the density to the north was high, and that they should be able to do the same thing. She recalled that she was on the BCC at that time and had voted against it, opining that it should have stayed Rural Transition. She mentioned that she would be consistent, and that she did not think that the first phase should have been approved, opining that it should not be the basis to do this. She expressed support for Rural Transition, and if not, she thought that the CFD land use should remain. She relayed her understanding that if a majority of the Board approved moving forward, then when it came back for a PUD rezoning, they could address the issue of the water and sewer connection, in addition to the requirement that they would not be forced to annex in order to receive a water and sewer connection. She also thought that the County should contact the City of Eustis about what the County had heard regarding the sewage being hauled off the property to another site, noting that there appeared to possibly be some health concerns. She asked the Board to stand with the residents in the surrounding area and to be consistent with their current Comp Plan designation of Rural Transition around the subject property.

Commr. Smith recalled that he was not on the Board when the first phase of the PUD was approved; however, it was consistent with the PUD. He indicated an understanding that this item was for a transmittal to the State to see what the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (FDEO) had to say about it; furthermore, the applicant was going to bring the concept plan back to the Board, and the Board could turn the item down at that time if they did not like the plan. He expressed interest in possibly starting with the rural concept design to see what happened at that point, noting that this was not the final approval and was only a transmittal to FDEO.

Commr. Campione inquired if there was an issue if it was approved as a Comp Plan designation for the property, and she thought that everyone needed to be clear that there was no guarantee with the PUD zoning that they would have to adhere to this density.

Ms. Marsh confirmed this, and explained that the Comp Plan designation would be the maximum density. She added that the rural conservation subdivision FLU amendments, code amendment, and regular subdivision guidelines would be coming back to the Board on January 24, 2023 for adoption; therefore, it would most likely be in place before the current item would come back from FDEO.

Commr. Parks asked that if the Board transmitted this item, could they come back and require the applicant to adhere to the County’s new conservation subdivision criteria, which would require more open space, and could also include a reduction of units. He also inquired if a Commissioner could vote no at that point if it did not meet that criteria, with this understanding on the current day.

Ms. Marsh said that this was correct, and that if it was transmitted on the current day, the Board would be giving it a PUD FLU. She suggested that if the Board transmitted it, to change the proposed ordinance to at least say “maximum” versus the way the applicant had it worded. She stated that if it came back from FDEO and the Board did not approve this as their FLU category, then the Board would have to designate it as something else because the property was currently Public Service Facility and Infrastructure. She mentioned that the applicant could request Rural Transition at that point if the Board did not approve the PUD as the FLU.

Mr. Crawford commented that the applicant was going to request a PUD zoning, and that the Board could condition this upon the rural conservation subdivision guidelines. He said that they would agree to the same language in the PUD zoning that Sorrento Pines Phase 1 had regarding the lack of mandatory annexation requirements by the City of Eustis, and he pointed that north of SR 44 was an RPA, and east of CR 437 was the Wekiva River Protection Area; therefore, he opined that this argued that density should be directed to the subject area. He reiterated that the applicant would be making road improvements, and that there would be two additional hearings, noting that the Board could impose the conditions they felt were appropriate. He asked the Board to let them move forward to the next step.

Commr. Campione opined that Rural Transition was appropriate, which was why the BCC included this in the FLU map for everything west of CR 437 and south of SR 44.

Mr. Crawford mentioned that they could currently do many things with Public Service Facility and Infrastructure which would not be consistent with Rural Transition. He added that they did not currently have an application for Rural Transition.

Commr. Smith asked that if the Board approved this item as a transmittal for a PUD, were they bound to be at the maximum of 1.63 units per or acre, or could they change it at the time that they approved the plot plan.

Ms. Marsh responded that the Board could change it when it came back for adoption.

Commr. Parks thought that they would want to make it clear that it would be up to the maximum.

Ms. Marsh confirmed this, noting that they could reduce it when it came back. She added that if the Board increased the density, then the question would be whether it needed to go back to FDEO. She thought that as long as the Board set a maximum density on the current day, then they could reduce it if it came back for adoption. She recommended adding the language “up to” if there was a concern.

Commr. Campione made a motion to deny this item, and Commissioner Shields seconded the motion.

Mr. Crawford opined that the Board had always allowed a postponement by the applicant to reach a five member Board, and he requested that this item be postponed to be considered by the entire Board.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields which failed by a vote of 2-2, the Board did not deny Tab 5, Rezoning Case # FLU-22-07-4, Sorrento Pines PUD (Transmittal).

Commr. Parks and Commr. Smith voted no.

Commr. Parks made a motion to continue Tab 5, Rezoning Case # FLU-22-07-4, Sorrento Pines PUD (Transmittal), to the February 7, 2023 BCC meeting, but the motion failed due to the lack of a second.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that if the Board supported the postponement, then the applicant could possibly receive a third vote and move forward with a higher density than she would support.

Ms. Marsh commented that this item was not being denied or transmitted unless the Board took another action or decided to postpone it. She explained that if a denial passed, then res judicata would come into effect and the applicant would not be able to bring this item back for a minimum of one year; additionally, there would be a need for a substantial change in circumstances, unless the Board denied it without prejudice, which would allow them to bring it back prior to the one year timeframe.

Commr. Campione noted that the item was not technically denied.

Commr. Parks asked if a 2-2 vote was a de facto denial.

Ms. Marsh clarified that it would not be a de facto denial, noting that the motion was to not transmit it and that the motion failed. She clarified that there was currently no action.

Commr. Campione inquired about the applicant’s rights regarding what they would do next if they wanted the item to be reheard.

Ms. Marsh mentioned that she would have to discuss this with the applicant.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that the motion to not transmit this item failed, and that the applicant would meet with the County Attorney to determine the next steps.

Ms. Marsh confirmed this. She added that legally, unless the Board was going to make another motion, there was nothing else that they would do with this item. She recommended postponing it until they had a full Board.

Commr. Parks mentioned that another option could be to deny without prejudice.

Ms. Marsh said that this could be another option, and that if the Board did this, her recommendation would be to provide some guidelines as to under what circumstances the applicant could bring it back.

Commr. Parks made a motion to deny Tab 5, Rezoning Case # FLU-22-07-4, Sorrento Pines PUD (Transmittal), without prejudice, assuming that the applicant would meet the rural conservation subdivision criteria, but the motion failed due to the lack of a second.

Commr. Campione expressed concerns for making everyone attend another meeting, opining that this was not fair. She also indicated concerns for the density, and she thought that they should be consistent. She felt that Rural Transition could possibly be the density if it was one unit per acre with 50 percent open space, and that if the applicant wanted to have some flexibility and stay with one unit per acre, but wanted to variate their lot sizes, etc. under the rural conservation framework, then she would be amicable with this. She expressed concerns for the current request increasing the density, noting that she wanted to be consistent.

Commr. Smith believed that the motion was for denial of transmission without prejudice, so that the applicant could come back with a rural conservation design, relaying his understanding that it was one unit per acre with 50 percent open space.

Ms. Marsh was unsure if the rural conservation subdivision design criteria required this, and she proposed possibly denying the item without prejudice if the applicant came back and sought a Rural Transition or other FLU.

Mr. Crawford stated that the applicant would like to withdraw their application at the current time, understanding that it went nowhere. He added that the item was not denied, and that they could reapply.

Ms. Marsh confirmed that if the applicant withdrew their application, then res judicata would not apply.

Mr. Crawford confirmed that the applicant withdrew their application at the current time.

reports

county manager

happy new year

Ms. Barker wished everyone a Happy New Year.

commissioners reports

commissioner shields – vice chairman and district 1

happy new year

Commr. Shields wished everyone a Happy New Year.

commissioner parks – district 2

happy new year

Commr. Parks wished everyone a Happy New Year.

commissioner campione –district 4

happy new year

Commr. Campione wished everyone a Happy New Year.

commissioner smith –chairman and district 3

national cream puff day

Commr. Smith believed that 2023 would be a great year, and he commented that the current day was National Cream Puff Day.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 a.m.

_________________________________

kirby smith, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK