City Council - Regular Meeting

I might have to bang my gavel today.

Or the gavel. I might have to bang the gavel. There we go. Alright, good morning everyone. Welcome to our Lake County Board of County Commissioners meeting this July 14th, 2026. And we're going to open the meeting with an invocation. Today, the invocation will be given by Rabbi Jeffrey Solomon from the traditional congregation of Mount Dora, and then we'll remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Commissioners. The President of the United States, the Governor of Florida, the Lake County Manager and these commissioners, Graciously grant to them knowledge, understanding, and discernment. May the Supreme King of Kings, in his mercy, preserve them in life and deliver them from all trouble and hurt. May the Supreme King of Kings, in his mercy, inspire them and all their counselors with benevolence to do good toward all that is in their charge, that this may be God's will, and we say amen. Amen. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much for the invitation for this morning.

It's not every day you get to hear Hebrew spoken so beautifully in Lake County, so we appreciate that as well. Thank you. All right, moving ahead to our agenda update. Jennifer Barker, County Manager.

Yes, good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners. We do not have any updates to the agenda this morning.

Okay, moving along then to minutes approval. Mr. Cooney isn't here, but Christy Mullane from the Clerk's Office is.

Yes, thank you. We request approval of the minutes from May 5th and May 18th. Move to approve.

All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Moving then to citizen question and comment period. This is the portion of our meeting where we open up the floor to the public to discuss items. that are on today's agenda with the exception of zoning items and we will take those up when we get to the zoning tab. Anyone who's joined our meeting through Zoom using their phone may press star nine to virtually raise their hands. If you're participating through Zoom, please click the raise hand button to let us know that you wish to speak. Everyone will have three minutes and then we ask that you'll wrap it up at three minutes. You may hear the buzzer go off, you may not. Realize that it's gone off and we may have to remind you but we ask that you wrap it up at that point So I'm going to start with the speaker cards. I have that are non zoning related. The first one is farmer banks Helfrich and

I am farmer Banks Helfrich. I live in the Clay Road District, farm tip of the day. Okra is in, well, harvest right now, and it is actually one of the most despised vegetables out there. Here is a super cool hack on making it appetizing. Salt, pepper. slice it up into pinwheels, roast it, it becomes very crispy, you lose that mucusy texture and it tastes kind of like popcorn or I like to say okra pops. Chairwoman, board, distinguished guests, as Americans we are 250 years old, so who exactly are we? We are travelers over the Bering Strait Bridge some 20,000 years ago with names like Hopi and Navajo and Cherokee and Seminole. We are settlers from England in search of religious freedom. We are immigrants from China and Japan, from Iran and Syria, from Venezuela and Colombia. in search of a better life for ourselves, for our children, and for our grandchildren. We are forced immigrants from Africa, yet to this day we call America our home. We are black and brown. We are mocha. We are white. We are the rainbow that the world sees in this country. We love who we want to love. We speak the way we want to speak. We are who we are. and we exercise the freedoms and liberties we have here because we can. We are a hodgepodge of peoples. We are a melting pot of cultures. We are the mutts of the world. The two things that Americans have that no other country has is, one, we are diverse, and two, we are united. In fact, our first name is United. And without United, there is no us. Without unity, there is no United States of America. I am Farmer Banks Helfrich. candidate for State House District 25. I am an immigrant, and I believe in the United States of America. May you all be blessed. Thank you for allowing me to speak.

Thank you. Ed Freeman.

Good morning, Chairwoman and commissioners. I'm here representing the Heartland League of Cities. The league is made up of towns and cities from Lake and Sumter County. Our concern today is Lake County. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that there's an implement implementation of the new comprehensive cancer plan coming soon. As Lake County's long-range planning document, the comprehensive plan will influence growth, infrastructure, utility service, transportation, and economic development for decades to come. The League believes that a delay in transmittal of this document, which recognizes the result of the property tax referendum, would promote stronger coordination between the county and its municipalities. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And we're in that process. We have to do that. You know, everyone, cities, counties, we have to do this every 10 years and we have to do updates and we have to take into account population projections and changes and so forth. And we are going to be a little while before we.

So the next update to this board from our consultant will be the second meeting in August. At that time. I believe we've received several requests to extend the project timeline So you'll be able to weigh in on that in the August meeting.

Okay, and one thing that's of note We received a report on They actually went in and they look at all the vacant land in Lake County as well as the vacant land in all the cities then they looked at all of the comprehensive plan designations on the county's and they looked at all the city's designations and they came to the conclusion, our consultant, that there didn't need to be any increase of density whatsoever in the Lake County areas and arguably in the city areas as well beyond what's on the plan because the plan takes into account these population projections. A lot of people have weighed in about concerns. Well, you're going to add more. You're going to actually open the door for more growth. But the reality is what we're doing is we're keeping everything pretty much the same, but we're trying to make our comp plan consistent with our LDRs where we have conflicts. And so there'll be some changes like that. But that's really the focus. But we have received several requests, as the county manager indicated. So I think that that's certainly something that our board will be looking at. And I see everyone shaking their heads. So I think everybody's open to the idea that we want to make sure we're collaborating with our cities and with our community.

Oh, thank you.

OK. Thank you. Igor Emery.

Commissioners, thank you for your time. My name for the record is Igor Emry, E-M-E-R-Y, and I spell that for a reason. I come forward to tell you about a project that citizens have made me aware of recently that I'm concerned about. It involves Embry E-M-B-R-Y Riddle University. They're quietly working on a project in the Ocala Forest to build an airport, and I want to stress they're building an airport. They're using a CUP that's in my opinion, ancient, involving a couple of landowners that got together to do a grass strip so they could fly to their retreat in the Ocala Forest. And what Embry-Riddle appears to be proposing is something much more substantial than that. They're talking about repaving this parcel to make it a longer airstrip and suitable for their trainers to come from Daytona and practice many hours a day in the Ocala Forest and landing in this area near Deerhaven. I don't know the specifics of this, because the citizens just may be aware of it, but I feel that this project deserves a public hearing. And I would like for each of you to look into this CUP and come to the conclusion on your own that I think you'll agree with me this is more substantial than that CUP conditional use permit allows. And I hope that you will encourage Embry-Riddle to bring this project forward and tell us what their initial plans are and what their long range goals are, and let us have a public hearing where we can discuss With you, our representatives, the merit of this project. Again, this is about the airport and the Ocala Forest. Thank you.

And Mr. Emery, I'll be happy to meet with you and with staff so that we can show you exactly what the old 2006 CUP says and what they submitted as a site plan. And it involves paving that airstrip, but there's just a single airstrip. It's as I understand it it's with the water management district and it's with forestry as far as what will be allowed or not allowed because our CUP is pretty I mean, pretty specific. The only thing that was being requested that was, I guess you could say, controversial, questionable, was when they initially did the airstrip, it was grass. They want to pave it. But nowhere in the CEP does it say it has to stay grass or that it can't be paved. So that created a certain level of controversy. from what we've seen as far as a site plan, I think they were replacing a hanger and that was it. So I've seen all kinds of things in social media, speculation and so forth, but there's nothing in that CUP that allows housing or any of the things that have been said on social media, but I'm happy to meet with you and show you everything on that so that you at least, as you hear from folks that want to talk about it, that you know exactly what's in that CUP and what's being requested.

I hope the whole commission looks at the project. Thank you.

Okay. All right. So that's it on cards. Do we have anyone online?

John B, will you unmute your line and state your name for the record, please?

Hi, this is John Blodnit. Actually, I've been attending the draft comprehensive plan updates and also been involved in the rural conservation subdivision updates. But one of the things that's come up has been addressing statutory requirements related to septic to sewer conversions and advanced wastewater treatment. The issue that I'm starting to see is that there's not really plans as how to get the sewer out to the rural areas and then implementing it when it comes to the residents that are in the rural areas and the costs that are associated with that. Nobody seems to have a plan or a direction on how we're going to get the costs associated with when a property abuts a sewer line and then the costs that are associated with that. so what i'm running into is everywhere i look we're now trying to push for sewer or central wastewater treatment at these different locations but the problem is is that what happens when a lot of these properties these rural properties are a thousand feet you know or 500 feet or whatever from the abutting property and they have to pay the cost to get from that sewer or from their septics current septic system over to that's that abutting property sewer And I'm wondering if there's anything in the works as far as grants or service condition funds or grandfathering systems that come into play with that. I appreciate if anybody has any answers to that or if there's any direction on how we're working. Also, the wastewater systems are not just an environmental issue, but it's also a growth management issue. i i think some of the problem is that we start pushing sewer systems out into rural areas it starts increasing the growth in those areas as well too because now you you have you start adding and it starts becoming where people want to make sense of what they're paying sewer-wise so i appreciate your time thank you

Thank you. It's good comments and something that I think we run into sometimes because that's the argument often made that if a lot of money is spent on a sewer extension then they want in return a certain level of density and so it does create a conflict if the idea is to protect the rural areas and protect the environment and then in return someone wants higher density because they laid sewer, it becomes a, you know, the two things are working against each other. So, okay, anyone else?

Susan Fetter, please unmute your line and state your name for the record.

Hi, I'm Mrs. Susan Fetter. I'm in Leesburg, and I noticed on the agenda that there is a planned discussion for Tab 18 about the budget, and I believe it's in relation to the upcoming vote we have in November about the property tax amendment. I'm very interested to learn more about what the budget will look like if this amendment passes. I think this is very important information for all the residents to understand what our trade-offs might be. I know we're all probably very excited about not paying more taxes, but what How does that affect our quality of life right here in Lake County? So we'd love to learn more about priorities if we do have a deficient budget for what we're currently providing in services. In particular, I know that you all can be trusted to focus on public safety. And I noticed yesterday that the statewide firefighters union is not endorsing this bill because they are concerned about the effects on public safety. So I think some questions I'll have moving forward And all of us would be, how will you prioritize if we need to make cuts to the budget? And how would public input come into play? So I'm very much looking forward to further discussions about all this. Thank you.

Thank you, Susan. Anyone else? No. OK. All right. Then we'll bring it back to the board, to the clerk of court's consent agenda, tab 2.

We request approval of the clerk's consent agenda, items 1 through 7. Move to approve.

Do we have a second?

Second.

We're in the middle of a motion and a second. On the clerk's consent, is it? Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Commissioner Parks, you have to vote aye or no. Okay.

Sorry, I'm having some tech issues.

Oh, okay. All right. Okay, so that passes 5-0. Clerk of Courts, consent agenda. Moving then to the Board of County Commissioners, consent agenda tabs 3 through 14. Do we have a motion for approval? Approved. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

I've got a comment on 13. I would like to pull tab 11.

I sense that there is a railroad approaching, a train approaching.

All but 11 and 13.

All right. We're going to pull off 11 and 13. We have a motion to approve all but 11 and 13. And we have a second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. Now we're going to pick back up tab 11. This is with regard to the Britt Road construction. Did you pull this? I pulled it. Okay.

I pulled it because I didn't think it was necessary to begin with and I didn't want a yes vote on this. I'm going to vote no.

Okay. I mean, this is in my district and I'm emphatically voting yes on this in hope that it will relieve traffic on State Road 44B after Britt Road collapsed and we saw a tremendous amount of traffic shift over to 44B and has created massive problems. And this road being out has created a lot of inconvenience, extra money, extra time for residents that rely on Britt Road to get from north to south or south to north.

So just to be clear, my vote, no, is not the actual reconstruction of the road. It's the amount of money that was paid to get it done. I thought it was ridiculous at the time, and I still think it's ridiculous that we're paying this much money to a private landowner that we could have done other things with. But here nor there. Yeah. To move this forward, we can just go ahead and...

And what we're voting on today is the construction contract, and this is a grant-funded contract, so we've worked really hard to actually meet all the parameters in order to have it paid by a Federal Highway Administration grant. So I appreciate our staff and all the hard work that got us to this point that we're able to actually use the grant funding to do the road construction. So do we have a motion?

Move to approve. Second.

All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Aye.

All right, moving then to tab 13.

Yeah, I just wanted to let you know that the original estimate for 466A went from 21 million down to 14. So there's some cost savings in there. If we have any extra money, maybe we can put it in the other road fund, do some repaving.

So am I understanding correctly that the assessment of 21 million is not correct? It should be 14? Yes. Okay.

Okay. All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. So that's for 466A. Excuse me.

Who made the motion and second? Motion.

Motion.

First.

I can't recall.

I think it was first. Was, Commissioner Morris, were you the second?

I will be.

Put me down in a second. Do you want to do it over? It doesn't matter.

Did we call the vote? Okay. All right. Let's start with a new motion.

Motion to approve.

All right. Now it's very clear it's Morris and Sabatini. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. And again, that's 466A, and a lot of people are going to be happy to see this get completed. Moving then to... our public hearings. So we are ready for Mike Fitzgerald.

Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. Good morning. For the record, Mike Fitzgerald. I'm the Office of Planning and Zoning Director.

Madam Chairman, just to interrupt, what's next on the agenda are the ordinances. Do you want to go ahead and do rezonings first before the ordinances?

Let's see, we've got, we could move, let's do that, yeah. Ordinances first? I'm thinking we.

Or rezoning? Zoning. Zoning first?

Let's do zoning first. All right, so we're gonna move over to zonings, and then once we conclude zonings, then we'll come back and do ordinances.

Tab 19. Okay, if we're ready,

And let me just mention too, ex parte communications when we get to a case, if you've had ex parte communications, I will ask for those to be noted on the record.

Technical difficulties. Okay.

everybody just bear with us while we try to get the monitor working.

The controller for the presentation isn't working. The batteries must be dead. Okay, this morning we have 12 items on the agenda. These items have been advertised in accordance with Florida statute. With that said, I'll turn the meeting back over to the chairman.

Okay. All right. So we have tabs one and two on consent and I'm checking to see whether we had any cards on one and two. I see none on one and two. So do we have a motion for approval of consent?

Move to approve. Second.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Now we'll move to the regular agenda tab 13. Did I say three? I said 13. It's three. Three.

So tab three is entitled Hartle Hills Apartments. The requested action is to amend the future land use on approximately 17.89 acres from regional office future land use to planned unit development to facilitate a development program for the Hartle Hills Apartments, which is a 212 unit multi-family apartment complex with associated amenities. The Planning and Zoning Board unanimously approved this on their agenda. The location is north of State Road 50 and west of County Road 455 in the unincorporated Claremont area. The subject parcel is currently vacant and undeveloped. The concept plan depicts 10 multifamily apartment buildings containing a total of 212 units. It includes amenities such as a clubhouse, pool, tot lot, pickleball court, dog park, butterfly garden, and a community garden. Approximately 2.78 acres of wetlands are present on the northern portion of the property, and there's a 50 foot wetland buffer that's shown on the conceptual plan. 25% of the developable acreage will be dedicated as open space, and there will be a maximum impervious surface ratio of 65%. The subject property is located within the City of Claremont's joint planning area and ISBA, which is interlocal service boundary agreement. City of Claremont does not oppose the project if it is developed according to the approved utility agreement with the City of Claremont. And the City of Claremont will be providing water and sewer service to the property. Lake County Schools determined that capacity is available for this project. Lake County Fire Station number 90 is located one mile from the subject parcel. Transportation concurrency was reviewed and it's determined that capacity is available. The transportation analysis shows that the intersections that were studied will project to be maintaining their level of service at build out. An environmental assessment will be required prior to the site plan approval or in conjunction with the site plan approval. With the board's permission, I'll move on to tab number four. This is the companion ordinance to this agenda item. Tab number four is the rezoning action for Hartle Hills Apartments. The request is to rezone approximately 17.89 acres from agriculture district to planned unit development to facilitate the program that we have just discussed. I believe the applicant is here to give a presentation to the board. Staff is happy to answer any questions.

Okay, all right. Anybody have ex parte communications with people involved in this case? I'll register that I have talked to Ms. Tedro, the representative and applicant. Anyone else?

I did too.

I talked to the applicant and then received an email from the city of Claremont.

So I have also talked with the applicant, Ms. Tedro, the attorney, Mr. Hartle as well. and many conversations with the city of Claremont over the years on this project.

Okay. All right.

Good morning, Tara Tedrow here on behalf of the applicant, also am the applicant. So this is a project that my husband and I are doing. We have under contract there in the limits of city of Claremont, but obviously unincorporated Lake County. You can see on the screen before you that around us is a lot of dense development. And if you look in your comprehensive plan, it actually very specifically speaks to the exact type of infill development project that we're talking about today. So policy one dash one point one point four mandates that the county direct growth to existing urban areas. This is the exact textbook urban area that the comprehensive plan speaks about. And we're already in an urban future land use series. So that policy goes on to say that urban infill shall be encouraged in the urban future land use series, which is exactly what we're proposing today, and that higher intensity and density development shall be encouraged in existing urbanized areas and that's specifically to prevent urban sprawl so when looking at the comprehensive plan in the urban future land use series mapping the project today has a regional office future land use is in a highly urbanized area it is seconds from State Road 50. It is minutes from the Turnpike. It is the exact type of project that fits infill development. We have some industrial to our north. To our east, we have an existing walkable public shopping center. To our south, running State Road 50, we have strips of existing commercial development. And that commercial development includes things that are great amenities to residents of a multifamily project, such as a daycare center. We also to the east have existing residential as well. So you can see that there are existing residential developments on multifamily both to the east of us as well as to the south. To the south is at 17 units to the acre. To the east you can see it's below 12. The highest density under your urban future land use series today is 12 to the acre. We're not going over 12 to the acre and this has been a conversation that we've had working on this project for the last couple of years with the city of Claremont too. I understand there are projects oftentimes that will jurisdiction shop to find who will give them the highest density that they can get. There is no difference in development between what could happen in the city of Claremont versus what could happen in Lake County with this project. And that's because the county has adopted joint planning area regulations specific to the city of Claremont in your land development code. It's the only city that has its own set of regulations that have been adopted under a JPA. So our plan has been reviewed and approved extensively by both the county staff as well as by the city staff. I believe you all received an email from a deputy city manager over at the city of Claremont indicating their support for the project as well. So this has been a project that we have done with everybody reviewing to make sure that there were no questions or concerns with the project as was being presented. This shows you the layout of the project as well. As everybody knows, Lake County and especially places like Claremont and Mineola are known for their hills. The way that we've designed this project site is to have split level buildings so that we do not have to ask for cut and fill variances and waivers. This site shows you that we are designing those split levels to take advantage of the existing topography that is on the site. So there are some differences in the heights between the buildings, but we are not going over those three stories, but you can see where we have incorporated topography into the design of the project rather than asking for waivers and variances in that regard. The project site itself is also laid out next to existing wetlands, which we are not impacting. There is a 50-foot buffer from those existing wetlands. And then we have the 10 multifamily buildings that are designed around an extensive amenity package that we have put based on the types of popular amenities that we see in other very successful projects that we've designed before. So things like butterfly gardens, community gardens, tot lots, pools, recreational centers, yoga lawns, outdoor amenity centers, bocce ball courts, pickleball courts, dog parks, those are the types of things that we've incorporated all throughout the project. One of the differences between what you would get by right today on this project versus what we are proposing is that under the urban future land use series of regional office, it only requires you to have a 15% open space. We have a mandatory minimum of 25%. So under that required open space calculation, that would be 3.49 acres and we have 5.3 acres of open space. So sometimes you get a difference between what a PUD would allow that is a reduction and makes it easier for us to design. We actually have more stringent standards than what the existing future land use would require today. When we first took a look at this site, we analyzed a couple different options. Obviously, with the existing future land use, If you look under the policies of that urban series, it says that there are typical uses that are allowed under regional office. Those include things such as light industrial, so long as it's all indoors. It allows for commercial office. And as noted in the staff report, it also allows for multifamily. So if we were to do multifamily on this site, it would be calculated over a three FAR. If you do those calculations and I'm not a math person, so I had to write this one down. Um, but if you calculate out a three FAR over the 17.76 acres, That is a very intense development. I mean, that nets, you know, 2.3 million square feet of allowable commercial uses. If you just did a shopping center, by the way, on this project, it would be three to four times the amount of traffic that a multifamily unit would ever generate on a site like this, and that's just basic math under ITE calculations. But if you look at that 3FAR, based on the way that that policy is written today, you are permitted under this future land use series to have one multifamily unit for every 10,000 square feet of gross leasable area that you could get under that FAR, which means you could have 230 units. So again, the request today is not asking for something that is fundamentally different than what you could get by right, except that we're not asking for as intensive a development because we're not also putting commercial or industrial or office uses on the project site as well we didn't want to pursue this project site as a rezoning to a commercial zoning designation and then try to do it through live local we just wanted to come forward uh transparently with a plan that said we would like to do market rate garden style multi-family units that that meet a market need as identified during the planning and zoning hearing by the planning and zoning board that there is a market need here that specifically address your comprehensive plan policies about urban infill development and highly urbanized areas with access to existing transportation networks, one of them being County Road 455. And, you know, the millions of dollars that were spent putting a bridge over the turnpike just north of this project site. So that type of infrastructure was put in in a recognition that this is an area where there is growth existing and should be directed. And again, from a scale standpoint, what we are requesting is less dense and intense than what the calculations under the existing future land use would allow. And we are also providing more open space than what those existing future land uses would require. So this just gives you a summation of Some of those things that I had described about how we're meeting all of the standards under the JPA with the consent of the city of Claremont for all of those designs. This highlights some of those extensive amenities that we've incorporated throughout the site, again, without any impacts to the wetlands on the property and respecting that 50-foot development setback. from those wetland areas that have been recently flagged. This is also consistent with your staff's professional recommendations and their review, as well as with the unanimous recommendation that came from the Planning and Zoning Board. I'm happy to answer any questions that y'all may have, otherwise be happy to address any comments that may come from the public. Questions?

So right now under this use, There is some multifamily allowed, but what's the portion or proportion? If it's one multifamily unit, how much office space or commercial does there have to be in conjunction?

Sure. So the staff report outlines that specific policy, which is 1-1.3.6, and it talks about how the total number of multifamily dwelling units that's allowed is one per 10,000. So you get that 10,000 gross leaseable units based on the 3.0 FAR that's permitted by right today under the future land use series, which means you'd be getting a much more dense and intense development than what we are proposing. So that could either be done with multifamily in a mixed use building or a horizontally done project that's mixed use, so commercial separate or vertically integrated with retail first floor, office first floor, and having multifamily above it.

Thank you. Any other questions?

Yeah, I've got a question. Does your project include any on-street parking other than what's the designated parking spots?

So in terms of around the project site, the parking that's required is 318 spaces. That's a 1.5 space per dwelling unit calculation requirement. The parking that we've provided is 477 spaces, so it's definitely sufficiently parked.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Parks?

Yeah, okay, so could you, two questions, I guess. One, start with maybe a concern or two that I've received about the traffic along 455 and access there, and I think I know the answer, but what will happen, just so you're on the record, our understanding and our conversations about what will happen with that and then also this has been something I know I've this site is on and off for years you know there's this the corridor plan that the MPO put in place many years ago directing density of right along highway 50 city of Claremont adopted that but it seems like it's kind of going back and forth a little bit so maybe describe if you could the process that you've had with Claremont and I know Claremont having talked with staff and some of the council members are supportive going forward, but there's been some back and forth on that and what were the concerns and delays and things like that.

Sure, no problem. So from a transportation standpoint, I think you heard in the staff summation that based on the transportation study that was submitted, there's existing capacity. It's not going to create any level of service deficiencies. Intersections will operate appropriately even post-buildout. But, of course, we have to do an updated study at the time that we come in for site plan. So if some issue is identified at that time that did not exist as of the date the study was run, the applicant is required to address that. So that is on us, right? So if something happens between now and the time we go for site planning and there's changes and there's capacity issues or we have to change signal timing or whatever it might be, that's on the applicant to mitigate any of those direct impacts that are caused by our development. So staff has that in the staff report that we would be required to update transportation at that time. As it exists today, there are turn lanes designed for both in and out of the project. So it already accommodates turn lanes into the site going northbound and southbound. So we have those in place. They are of a sufficient length for the required stacking to go in and out of the project site. So there have been no identified issues. But again, if something comes up at the time we go in for permitting, we have to address it at that time. As it relates to the history on the project, did you have any follow-up?

No, I was just going to say, so again, conversations I had, understanding that there may be some traffic calming and whatever the engineers come up with. Correct. pulling out of the public's plaza there because you're one block off highway 50 right the concerns with that traffic there and i know you mentioned signalization and timing could be improved but it may just be more than some turn lanes it could be some traffic calming or splitters or right whatever the engineers okay that's exactly right yes um and then in regards to kind of the history on the project so we've been working on this a couple of years we had first

done the project, applied in the county. Then at one point, the city said, well, why don't you just come and apply in the city for your utilities? And we said, okay. Again, there's no net difference because we can get the exact same things under land development regulations between the two. So this is not jurisdiction shopping to get a better deal or a better density. And I know you all have had projects that have come before you that have not talked really to the city of Claremont, or the city of Claremont said, we don't agree with the density that they're asking you for, which is above 12 to the acre. This is not that instance. So we had gone in the city of Claremont, and at that time, unfortunately, we ran into a personnel issue with a former person at the city who said, after we spent about a year working with them, designed it to everything that we were asked to do, it was like, you can just go to the county. And then we had already had a water agreement in place that said they would give us utilities. I haven't seen a utility agreement like the one that we have where it says we'll give you utilities if you have this plan approved. So it's not as if, again, the city hasn't seen the plan. It was mentioned by reference in the utility agreement that this is the plan that needs to be approved for the provision of utility services, which is highly unusual, I will tell you. So I think there were some political issues at the time. that person is is no longer there when i've talked to folks about the experience we had it was unfortunately similar i think to other other people at the time who were trying to process applications um and there is everything's out in the open right so we we came back to the county with the exact same plan. It's not like we were changing it when we were in the city versus now. We continued that conversation with the city staff. They continue to review and provide feedback. We continue to revise to get everybody on the same page. So the city has the right to annex us if they would like for utilities, whether they ultimately do or not. to be determined, but that's where we stand today. It has been a back and forth that has not been the making of us as the applicant. I can assure you the Hartle family, who I think has had this property for 60-something years, the road used to be named after them, I mean, the fronting, the property, very frustrated with the process that we've gone through because it has caused tremendous delays in closing by virtue of factors outside of our control, unfortunately.

Mr. Hartle is here, so... Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay, all right. We'll move on to speaker cards, and then you'll have your opportunity to come back. Thank you. Cindy Newton.

Morning, Cindy Newton, District 4. I've just got a couple questions. First, I'd like clarification on what the FAR is on the regional office. When I looked it up, I thought it was 0.35 rather than 3. So I'd just like that clarification. And also, this property abuts the city limits. I understand some of the issues they've gone through of not going to the city. But with this utility service agreement, there is a two-year date of agreement where the city's allowed to annex them, and that's next month. So I don't understand why the counties put their resources into this project if they could get the same density from Claremont and now the county's doing all the work and then Claremont gets to annex and probably gets the impact fees as well.

The impact fees on transportation always come to the county. Water and sewer impact fees go to the city. So there's no change. And a lot of the charges, although it's not purely an enterprise fund on planning and zoning at this point in time, although building department is enterprise fund, They do pay significant application fees that help go towards staff time on review. And I think once you get in the pipeline and you've actually gone down that road, usually applicants would prefer to stay where they're at instead of then switching over midstream in light of the history of this. So that's my understanding of why they decided to continue on through the county with the understanding that the city would, in fact, annex them. Thank you. Did we need to answer the question on the FAR? But I think we got it answered, right?

Bear with me. Staff is looking that up. For the regional office, the FAR, which is the floor area ratio, the intensity of development that can happen on the property is 3.0. That is a very intense commercial floor area ratio.

But that's not what, I mean, just so everybody understands, that's what could happen.

Yes, this project before you is not near 3.0.

In layman's terms, that's if you had one acre, you could build three acres up.

essentially I mean it's worth of area assuming in basic terms assuming no setbacks no open space if you had one acre of property you could build a three-story building on the entire property so you'd have what 120 130 thousand square feet per acre yeah something like that yeah doing my math correct yeah

but just to be clear, that's not what they're asking for.

No, this has the open space and the amenities and is not as intense as what it could be.

Okay, all right, next card is Igor Emery.

Commissioners, for the record, Igor Emery, District 4. I have been involved in the planning process in Lake County for a long time and discussed with many people the whole concept of the joint planning. And the goal that I had and understood with those folks was the joint planning area was designed to give the cities the ability to plan their future. And the county is going to work with them on that. And nothing I've heard today makes me feel comfortable about this particular project. I'm asking you to vote no to it, simply because why should the county be approving urban developments in the county? This is clearly an urban development. They need city services. They've said that. Therefore, they should be in the city from the get-go. It shouldn't have to be annexed after you guys approve it. Put it in the city. Let the city choose when they want to do this project. Thank you.

And I just have to say something about the fact that that's the whole concept behind a joint planning area is that if you're in an urban land series in the county we're not talking about a rural land use here we're talking about an urban land use that's why you have a joint planning agreement so that you could actually pursue that urban in the unincorporated area and then you work out your agreement with the city to get your utilities which is exactly what they've done so we're doing exactly what the joint planning area tells us to do and a lot of work was put into that joint planning agreement. Okay, so as far as rebuttal, do you have any further comments? Does anybody have any other questions for the applicant, or is everybody comfortable moving forward with deliberation?

Do you have comments?

I just got a question, if I could. Just the obvious question, I think. I think it should be. Right now it's entitled to a bunch of density. You want a different level of density and a different concept. But right now it's entitled and it's obligated to be mixed use. It's supposed to be some commercial, some residential, and that's a good thing because people really like the idea that if they see density that it looks walkable or like there's stores involved, not just Here's your freaking huge apartments. Get out of your car. Go to the shopping center. Ideally, we have the opportunity as the commission to, because this is a legislative decision, we have the opportunity to allow a plan that allows density. I get that there's going to be density. This isn't a question of we're going to bring back agriculture there. There's going to be density. It's entitled. But this is density without commercial and walkability versus what you're requesting, which is just pure walkability. Density without those things and that's the hard part.

I'm in so like what what's your no and I appreciate that it doesn't mandate the comp plan doesn't mandate that you necessarily have to do the mix of uses it says if you want to have multifamily the way it's going to calculate it out is based on that far and So based on the allowable FAR today, which, by the way, three is what's allowed today, 0.65 is what our PUD limits it all the way down to. So from an intensity standpoint, it's an effective down zone. And even from a density standpoint, because the calculation under the comp plan yields 230 units, we're at 212 units. So it is a down zone of intensity and density on both levels, which you probably are not used to me coming before you and asking for. And it is an increase in open space requirements as well. And it meets all JPA standards for the city and the county. So we wouldn't have to do necessarily multi and commercial or multi and office on this project site. The permissibility is there. Under the comp plan, it says you can do things such as light industrial, all indoors, commercial, office, you know, some other non-res are listed there. And then you can also do multifamily projects. multifamily can be either vertically or horizontally integrated. We have on our project site, right next to us, you have all of those walkable amenities. So even though it doesn't have mixed use and maybe the traditional sense of retail first floor multifamily above it. It really doesn't make a lot of sense that it is off State Road 50 to have that type of commercial component to it. We looked at this every which way to Sunday. We are developing a mixed use building one city over. So understand how the market on mixed use works, and it's very difficult to do a successful, sustainable mixed use building like that. So the way that we've designed this is, one, you're going to get a lower intensity, lower density project that yields units that meet an existing market demand while providing convenient accessibility and walkability to all of that commercial that's near us. We couldn't get good commercial tenants when we looked at this for the first year. They just weren't there without having any visibility on 50. That's the unfortunate reality. People might say, well, Publix is set back off 50. Publix has height limitations under their ground leases that wouldn't permit you to put a building on State Road 50 or a sign that blocks any of their visibility. That's how they do all of their shopping centers. So that's what allows Publix to function without parcels in front of them and the store set back behind a sea of parking. So our project is going to have walkability to those amenities for the residents that we have. It's going to have access to a daycare next door, a grocery store across the street. There's an Orange Theory next door to us. So we capture all of those amenities while also meeting a very specific comp plan policy of yours. I know a question was raised as to why you all would do this. The answer is your comprehensive plan says you shall direct urban infill development to these exact types of areas. So when you look at your policies and your land development regulations, especially the ones with city of Claremont, it checks all of those boxes.

And it's interesting when you look around. The surrounding uses, like you pointed out, you actually have walkability. It's just the walkability is from your site to theirs, as opposed to you cramming all of those things on the site. And you could cram them all on the site if you use that FAR of three. But instead, you're using the 0.6. And you're adding a tremendous amount of open space. So it just makes a nicer, higher quality project. And the one thing that impressed me probably the most was the fact that you weren't asking for any variances or changes to the terrain. You're working with the terrain, the way the terrain is, and that's one of the complaints I hear from people all the time. They want the hills to remain the hills. They don't want everybody cutting down the hills and changing the topography. So I think that's a huge plus. Lower unit count than you otherwise could get, more open space, less intensity, and you have the mixed use, but it's just in combination with what's around the property. And I do like the conversation about the fact that some traffic improvements are going to happen to assist with traffic getting in and out of this site and in the adjacent sites as well.

Just a question. I don't know if you could put the aerial back up of the site here, but I think Commissioner Sabatini's question about walkability is a good question, and we need to always be looking at walkability now when we're thinking about these projects, but the trail connection is not far from there, is that correct, where it's?

It is directly across the street.

Okay, so what I'm wondering is if we could, I don't think we've, that's been sort of a question about safety with that trail crossing over 455. And I don't think there's a signal there now. There might be a blinking light. But that may be the answer for accessibility and walkability is, you know, a push button actual signal so that people can safely walk across to the Publix on the other side.

That's a good point.

You know, if you're putting you on the spot here a little bit, but if that's part of, if you're willing to accept it.

Yeah, for pedestrian access across the street.

Yeah, that's part of what's going to come with the engineering analysis, if you're willing on the record here to agree to that. We'll go with what the engineers say.

I was going to say happy, yeah, put that on there that we'll evaluate it with your professional staff as to pedestrian improvements for enhanced crossing over.

I think there's an opportunity there because it's something that we've been looking at for couple of years and I don't know somebody from trails can weigh in on that from our department here from trails, but That that's something I think with we could do and we also right to the south I mean our shared property line.

We have an existing cross-access easement with those folks so I mean it is directly walkable and Our access lines up with the shopping center across the street. So I mean you have literally right across the street You're able to walk. I mean, it's probably you know, not much further than parking at the furthest point in the parking lot away from the public store itself. So you could have people walking to a grocery store, dropping their kids to daycare and going to an Orange Theory all without getting in a car. Right, okay.

Okay, any other questions?

So if you, the city's okay with the project. If you went to start over again, how long would it take you to get the project through with them? A year? 18 months?

Yeah, I don't know how long it would take. We'd have to start the whole process all over. We've paid fees, I think, three times now. Paid fees to the county when we withdrew. We paid fees to the city who came back. We paid fees to the county again. So none of this is trying to get out of paying fees or not pay impact fees. And the two-year window was actually not correct on what Section 3 says of that utility agreement. It just says the city wasn't going to annex for two years. They retain the right to annex whenever they want. to provide services. That's what the cities do when they say that they're gonna give you utilities.

And this is market rate. That's correct. You're talking $2,000.

That is correct. Yes, it is not. If we stick with the utility agreement as written with the city of Claremont, it is prohibited from being anything but that.

Thank you.

Okay, all right, well, thank you. Do we have anyone online just to make sure? Okay, all right, bring it back to the board.

I'll just say that, unfortunately, I'd have to be a no on this because I just don't agree with creating these large apartments when we have the legislative option of requesting a better project, a more livable project, a more walkable project, a project that includes some commercial space for creative endeavors. This is just a bunch of apartments. You sold me on the fact that they're not like bad, like in and of themselves. They're probably as good or better than other apartments. But we have a legislative role here and we all have a duty here. And my duty is to the Lake County citizens that want me to vote for the type of planning and development that benefits the people that are already here. and this does not do that. What I think would benefit the people that are already here who I have a duty to is some sort of development that includes a commercial function or some other function that creates a better livability standard in the area or something along those lines. And because we have the option to request that, even if it took time to do that, I'd have to be a no, and I don't weigh, I don't assign a bunch of weight to what the city wants. The city has pushed enormous, reckless development. I'm not saying that this is what that is, but historically, the city of Claremont has allowed a reckless amount of terrible bad development that's almost destroyed South Lake County. And so I don't credit them or give any positive weight to decisions that they make or their opinions about what we should be doing in terms of land use. So I'll be in there.

Okay. Um, and I just wanted to at least rebut that a little because I think what I hear from people is they want less traffic and they want less intensity, and that's what they're offering. The flip side is you're saying, well, add more commercial, add more, you know, intensity I think that's exactly contrary what people really want they want green spaces they want open spaces and you actually get nice walkability and you get high quality it's the other thing that I hear from a lot of people is they want high quality if this were rezone to commercial which we would have to approve and then they brought it in with live local then they could do a cram down on different type of housing and we would have to approve it have to approve it and they could take the commercial component right out of it so it's just from a logical standpoint I'd rather see the lower intensity lower traffic and higher quality and then you get the walkability as well so I can't make a motion so do we have a motion for approval I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion for approval I have some comments if it's seconded

Second.

Second. Yeah, I guess my comments are this. I mean, I certainly appreciate everything that Commissioner Sabatini has said, and I will agree that everything that's happened along Highway 50 and 27, I'm being nice when I say this, has been less than ideal in a lot of ways. I mean, if we had the chance to do it all over again, I would love to have buildings that were more towards closer to 50 and avoiding these vast expanses of parking lots and It would have been much more mixed like you had said. But I think in this particular situation you are, you're probably getting the best option for what's available right now when it comes to more open space and what could occur with the floor area ratio underneath the office. So as long as, my motion by the way would include obviously what the engineer is gonna dictate when it comes to coming out of the Publix Plaza and if there's any kind of traffic calming, but then also a signal, a push button walk signal for the trail so that pedestrians can walk directly across the street safely. I think that'll go to your issue a little bit towards, at least partially towards making it more of a walkable community. So that would be just understanding that that's part of my motion.

Okay, yeah, I think it's a great idea to have a way for people that are trying to get over to the shopping center or crossing the road to be able to push the button, to be able to have a pedestrian crossing. So if the engineers and the traffic folks support that, I think that would be a huge enhancement. All right, so we have a motion, we have a second. Any more comments? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay.

And Madam Chairman, just to clarify for the record, that is for the comp plan amendment and the rezoning, correct?

That was my motion, yeah. Okay. All right, so that brings us now to tab five.

Yes, ma'am.

This is the Tiger Paul Estates PUD.

Thank you, Chairman. For the record, Mike Fitzgerald. I'm the Office of Planning and Zoning Director. This agenda item is Tiger Paw Estates PUD Rezoning. The requested action is to amend Skiing Paradise Swiss Fairways Planned Unit Development Ordinance Number 2018-6 to revise the approved land uses by replacing 18 duplex units and 30 vacation suites with 29 single family residential units in order to facilitate and incorporate the Tiger Paw residential development. The Planning and Zoning Board approved this unanimously on their regular agenda. The location of this project is actually east, west, and south of County Road 565A. Skiing Paradise Swiss Fairways development is comprised of approximately 406.8 gross acres. It's developed with single family residences, open space, a golf course, a water ski school, and other recreational facilities. The applicant is requesting to replace the 18 duplex units, which is actually 36 dwelling units, and 30 vacation suites with 29 single family homes. Part of ordinance 2018-6 approved 102 detached single family units, 18 duplexes, and the 30 vacation suites. Currently has 101 detached single family units constructed. However, the duplex and triplex units have not been constructed. The concept plan depicts the additional 29 single family residential lots on alternate keys 1438764 and alternate key 3918951. The subject parcels contain a total of 47.8 acres. The minimum lot size in this case will be 30,000 square feet as required by the PUD, and that typical lot size is about 120 feet by 250 feet. The concept plan provides open space meeting the 60% open space requirement of the PUD. On February 2nd, the application was provided to the Florida Commerce for determination of consistency with the Green Swamp, and Florida Commerce had no comments at the time. A portion of the development is located within the Groveland interlocal service boundary area, and the City of Groveland had no comments. Development would be serviced by individual private wells and distributed wastewater treatment system for septic. Lake County Schools reviewed the application and determined that the project had no impact. Lake County Fire Station number 95 is located 2.16 miles from the subject property. A traffic exemption was submitted and approved by Public Works as the traffic impact is determined to be de minimis. And as always, an environmental assessment will be required when they apply for a site plan or subdivision construction plan, if approved. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions? All right.

Yeah, I have a question. I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. Currently, today, as it sits, the applicant is allowed 66 dwelling units, and they're wanting to move to 29.

That is correct.

Okay, thanks.

That's the... I'm just looking at the calculation.

On the screen currently is the conversion table to show how we're arriving at the 29 units.

So from 67 to 29?

From the... Correct. I'm sorry, 67.

With the DW... With the DWTS, Mike... Are we gonna be required, if it goes to onsite, are we gonna be required to collect the money? Or are they gonna pay them directly?

I didn't see anything in the ordinance that I understand. It's my understanding that DWTS goes on the individual's tax bill, if I'm not mistaken.

So currently our current program is DWTS is only for county assisted projects, not for new development. I know we've had discussions about that. Commissioner Parks would prefer to have it all on the county MSBU. If the will of this board is to clarify that it is an agreement between Tiger Paw and DWTS separate from the county, we can add that. Or if the will of the board is that it would be included on the MSBU, then we could clarify it either way.

But if I'm not mistaken, it's required that they have to have some advance wastewater treatment or DWTS, correct? They can pick whoever they want as long as they have that requirement in there, right?

Yes, sir. They are located in a BMAP area.

Let a free market be the free market.

So just to clarify, the ordinance specifically calls out DWTS. It does not give them the option of the enhanced, I don't believe. So that would be another change that you could make to the ordinance if that's the will of the board.

And what about the roads? Are they going to be taken care of by the HOA?

According to the ordinance, the roads will be under a CDD or MSTU or MSBU.

So we're not adding roads to county maintenance and they have to do treatment.

Yeah, and the reason why MSBUs, I know this issue comes up from time to time, is because if we do an MSBU with the current contractor we have, they're locked into a certain price. If they go off and do DWTS with on-site or somebody else, they're gonna be, as the free market says, they will be subject to probably much higher increases in monthly fees, or yearly fees, I should say. Ours is capped based off the contract.

I don't disagree with that until somebody doesn't pay their tax bill. But we're paying the septic company regardless of whether we get paid or not. So, I mean, If somebody doesn't pay their tax bill and we have to foreclose, you know the years it's gonna take to do that. We're still paying onsite every year whether we get paid or not, correct?

I mean, but I would imagine, I mean, in that kind of scenario, though, that you would be ending up ultimately with the property, right? So you would be preserving the value of the property by having the service still intact. So if you just do the numbers, the numbers themselves, actually, it benefits you as taking back the property if that's where it goes?

And it takes time to do this. That's just it. We've got staff time. The more we keep putting on this MSBUs or MSDs,

I just don't see it. This is a scenario where people are more than likely not going to pay their bills or pay their tax bills.

MSBUs will always include administrative portion of that as well to cover.

It does cover cost.

I'm thinking this whole discussion needs to be on a different topic for a workshop because

Well, it is going off, so it does require DWTS, so yes, that part is settled as far as, or that question's answered for this zoning case.

And just to clarify, in order to bring it under the county's ability to do an MSBU, On-site would also have to agree because our current contract with on-site again is only for the county project. So we would have to have a separate contract with them or amend our existing contract for them to bring in new subdivisions to honor the current rates under our contract. So there would be a lot that would go into it before you could bring it into a county MSBU.

So unless the applicant wants to postpone, we literally could not, we couldn't do that today. We couldn't bring it under the county. We would just leave it separate, which is what you two want to do anyway. So unless the applicant wants to postpone, then it's going to be between them and on-site.

Yeah, if the applicant, so the option is, you know, you're going to either do it with them or with the county, the MSBU. I happen to believe that to the actual resident that's there five to seven years down the road, that's the better option. But it sounds like if this moves forward, you're gonna decide on that.

Well, either way, if they have to have a septic system, the state provides the permits for the septic system. The state's the one that requires all this stuff. So if the state gives the permit for the septic system, then the state agrees to whatever they're giving the permit to. So I'm okay with it.

Chairman, if I could just clarify, in the ordinance on page six, there's a statement that says the developer must contract directly with a qualified provider and make provisions within their restrictive covenants for the HOA to have easements over the system, meaning the DWTS system, and to assess fees for the system until connected to a regional wastewater system. So to correct the previous statement I made, this is an HOA fee assessment that is in the ordinance.

And then if in the future they wanted to bring it under the county's collection system, then they would petition like anybody else would for an MSBU.

Okay. All right, so we got that settled. Perfect. All right. Oh, we have speaker cards, and we have the applicant, so, okay.

Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Chris Kaye with Carter & Kaye Engineering at 137 5th Street, Northwest, Winter Haven, Florida. I'm the applicant, and I'm representing Mike Hirsch with Tiger Paw. And basically, it's a very simple matter here in our minds. This is taking 36 villas and reducing it down to 29 single-family units. And what we're doing is we are It's not an expansion, it's a reduction in the density. This amendment preserves the rural look with more open space and it's been determined to be consistent with the comp plan as well as the land development regulations. The site remains subject obviously to all future permitting and engineering requirement reviews. We are currently under review with the St. John's Regional Water Management District. The county has concluded based on the staff's report that this is a logical and orderly development pattern and it satisfies the review criteria. I wanted to thank Leslie and Mike for all of their help over the last three years in helping us put this together. We also wanted to note that the property owner and other owners that are around the surrounding PUD, this is a cutout. This is going to be called Tiger Paul PUD, if you all approve it. It maintains the character of the original PUD that's outside of this area in terms of open space and the requirements. So at this point, the other property owners, they retain the same rights that Tiger Paul ownership, which is Mike's property. And so any kind of adjustments to the original PUD, which was approved back in 2018, would have to come before you all, as you would expect, just as we are today. So anyways, I stand for any questions or comments.

Any questions? Quick question.

It's fine if you don't know the answer to this question. It's a little obscure, but do you recall what the land use was before the last PUD change that created the duplexes and all that? What was it before that? The PUD. And then what was the density there in that PUD?

The original acreage for the 36 villas was 14 acres, so the density would have been 2.6. We're currently going to spread out the 29 units over 48 acres. So it'll be 0.6 units per acre. Yeah, thank you.

Okay, if we don't have any more questions, we have two speaker cards. First one is Thiebaud Dayland. I've probably butchered your name, I'm sorry.

Good morning, commissioners. My name is Thibaud Daylon. I'm a homeowner at Tiger Poe Estate, phase one. My parents own the property in Swiss Fairways, and I'm a licensed real estate broker for over nine years, focusing especially in this area. I know this land, I know the developer, and I'm here this morning because I strongly believe that it's the right move for our community. What Tagopo Estate is proposing is simple, straightforward. Fewer units, bigger lots, better homes. As a real estate professional, the bigger homes on larger lots sell for more, and when home value goes up in one part of the neighborhood, everyone around them benefits. Every homeowner in Swiss fairways stands to see their own property's value increase. That is a direct win for the people already living here. The buyers who will be buying homes like these are families, retirees, and people who choose Lake County for his lifestyle. They play golf, they eat at local restaurants, they invest in this community long term. They are exactly the kind of residents that help local businesses grow. From a county perspective, larger homes on larger lots means higher property value, a stronger tax base, and less strain on roads and infrastructure compared to a 66 multi-family units would have demanded. This is simply the right project in the right place at the right time, and I respectfully urge the board to approve Tiger Power Estate PUD. Thank you.

All right, next card is John Crocker.

Good morning. My name is John Crocker. I am the owner of Swiss Fairways Inc. And the PUD that everybody's talking about is a PUD that is in my name. In 2017, I spent many hours getting the PUD approved. It's a continued PUD. I've been working with it. I renovated the golf course. I built a clubhouse. It's a continuation. And unfortunately, the development that you're trying to do It's not his PUD, Tiger Pies. It's my PUD, number one. There's property that's involved there that has been stolen through a real estate deal. It was a golf course. The golf course was forced to close because of a real estate deal. The property he's trying to develop is an existing golf course. The part that was approved, he had a permit 10 years ago that was approved for seven homes on the left side of 18th Fairway. When we had a meeting with Mr. Fitzgerald, he zoned out one area and said, well, this is already, put this aside right here. No, that was approved for seven houses 10 years ago. The permit ran out onto it. He did not develop the property. Now all of a sudden, he comes in, he wants to take, change my PUD, my density, so he can build on property that he stole. It's totally wrong. These golfers, they talk about they play golf, they do this, they do that. The golf course can't exist if I can't do nothing with the 40 acres that I have. It's not gonna exist. The golf course ain't gonna be there. Now, why'd you spend a million dollars renovating the golf course? Because there's a development going on in the city of Groland that's attached behind me, 673 homes. That's the reason why I'm doing it. I've been offered to sell my 40 acres many times for cluster homes. I denied every one of them, refused every one of them, because I want to build on five-acre lots. I want to build 10 estate housing on my 40 acres. Now, all said and done, somebody just out of the blue comes in, says, oh, I'm going to change the PUD. I'm going to do this. I'm going to do that. Well, keep in mind, it wasn't his PUD to change. It was my PUD. It was in my name, the PUD. And no one asked me, to change my PUD, nothing. Everything was presented. I think it's totally wrong. It's a crime what has happened with that property out there. I'm still trying to develop my 40 acres and now I'm limited. I can't do what I want to do because he wants to change the PUD. He submitted, it's totally wrong what's happening. It was my PUD. It still is my PUD in my name, not his PUD. And it's totally wrong what's happening. He closed the nine holes golf course, forced me to close over a wrong property deal that was stolen, and now I'm the one that's paying for it again. Now he wants to take off my density so I can't develop my 40 acres? Totally wrong. Thank you.

Okay, but you have a nine-hole golf course now, right? Just so I understand. That's what's left behind. Yes, I just renovated the nine holes, yes. Okay, gotcha. Okay, all right. Do we have any comment cards? Any folks online? Doesn't look like it. Okay, Commissioner Parks?

Yeah, I was just gonna say, I had met with Mr. Crocker a couple times with this, I think, once or twice at least, as well as Melanie. So we've had discussions. We wanted to vet that particular question Melanie, I think your weighing in would be important from you, from your legal team.

Well, I want to see what the applicant wants to put on the record. Did you want to address it?

Excuse me. Yeah. Appreciate your time. Just a couple things. There's a lot going on with respect to what's happened in the past between Crocker and Hearst as far as there's been a civil matter that has been recognized by the court. and we are where we are today as a result of that, which Mike owns the acreage, free and clear, that's been sided on already. It was a golf course, it's now currently not being used for anything, it's just open land. As I mentioned earlier, we wanna expand the area that's gonna be used, instead of clustering it all within this smaller area where the 18 villas, which ended up being 36 units, because they were duplexes, we're expanding those out to be, single-family units, and there's 29 of them that are proposed. Another comment that was made with respect to what Mr. Crocker wants to do, it's the same thing we're proposing to do. And the PUD that we're modifying was done in 2018. We've been at this for three years. We've got, obviously, a report back by staff from planning that indicates that we're compliant with the comp plan as well as the development code. Um, Mr. Crocker was able to come in, you know, before us from 2018 until now, we've been at this for three years and, um, he hasn't made any application to do what he's proposing to do. So, um, I don't believe that the PUD is under his name. It goes with the land. that the PUD does not run with any particular name, individual. He may have submitted it, but it goes with the land. And Mr. Hurst is one of the owners of the land. So again, I stand for any questions that you might have.

Okay, and I do want to ask the attorney, because usually when I've seen things like this come up before, we have two different owners that own property that has one PUD designation. Then there has to be basically a negotiation between where the density does, in fact, go. And one owner can't try to take all of the density away and leave nothing for the remainer. So I need some help from the attorney explaining whether any of that was divvied out during their... Civil suit or anything like that, right?

So there was a civil case in 2020 between Swiss fairways Inc and Clemson skiers Which I believe is the predecessor and interest to tiger paw That the gist of that complaint was an argument regarding the legal description and the sale of a portion of the property Which was the golf course to Clemson skiers Ultimately, there was a settlement agreement that the parties entered into which basically gave Clemson a the sole ownership of the property described in that legal description. As part of the original complaint, the purchase agreement was filed with the court, so I do have a copy of that. It is in the zoning file, but we'll enter that into the record just to support the decision if the board chooses to approve this today. But part of that purchase agreement was a very specific provision that says the buyer's obligation to close is contingent upon the buyer obtaining governmental approvals and permits necessary and required for the development of the property into a subdivision containing not less than 21 residential lots, each available for construction thereon of a single family detached residential dwelling. So that implies that as part of selling the property that the previous owner was also selling not less than 21 residential lots for dwelling units. So if there's a dispute regarding the number, then again, that would be a civil issue the parties would have to handle amongst themselves. But it does appear from the original intent of the purchase agreement that Clemson AKA Tiger Paw was intending to build a single family residential subdivision and they bought those entitlements when they purchased the property and that was solidified by the court and the settlement agreement that that property does belong to Clemson.

Okay, but then it's confusing because it looks like what they're asking for is 29.

Correct, and again, the wording in the purchase agreement was not less than 21. There's no top end on it, so that would be, again, a dispute that would have to take place between Mr. Crocker and the applicant.

And then what's left behind on Mr. Crocker's share of what's left of the PUD? What other number of units? Can he do his one unit per five acres that he wants?

And I'll have Mike come up and address that. But I believe that once these are converted, that there are no more entitlements. There are some platted lots that have not been built on, and those have been accounted for. But there would be no more additional units available under this PUD without a further amendment.

That's correct. According to the conversion table, there are 29 units available. If we assign 21, for example, if we assign 21 to the applicant today, that would leave eight left for Mr. Crocker.

And he has 40 acres and he wants to do one unit to five acres on his 40? I think that's what he said.

But Madam Chair, I do not recommend that the board make any type of judicial determination as to who owns these units. If the board is wanting to convert them, then again, that would be a civil issue between these two parties as to who is entitled to those 29 units.

And again, it's no less than 21, but it's 29 is basically what's left.

Correct.

Right. To be clear.

Well, that's it. You are making a determination. There's 67 left. He's only asking for 29.

Well, the 67 is in the form of duplex and triplex, which are one building, and he's converting those into single-family homes.

Right. There's formula for that.

But he's wanting to convert them to 29 units, and all we're doing here, all we're obligated to do here today is either approve the new PUD with the less density or not. Is that correct?

That's correct, but I believe the PUD does break it down into a separate section for Tiger Paw.

That's correct. If we're heading towards not assigning the units to specific properties, we would probably need to amend Exhibit C, the conceptual plan that is part of the ordinance that shows all 29 lots going to the applicant's property. That's page 23 of 24 in the ordinance.

So you would, I think what Mike is saying is you would remove the concept plan, we would go back, we would amend page four of 24 which says the additional 29 single family lots to be known as Tiger Paw would have these additional requirements. We could adjust that just to say it's 29 single family lots and whoever gets here first gets here first with their plan or again the parties can go to civil court and hash out who owns what.

And we'll be named. We'll be named in the suit.

There's a potential speaker that's requesting speak.

I mean, as far as all this conversation about Commissioner Morris isn't here now. We're going to somehow get pulled in and incur costs and all of that if we don't try to resolve it. I get it. This is not a civil suit but it would sure make a heck of a lot of sense for these two property owners to figure out whether he's going to get and you're gonna get the remainder and then call it a day, it would certainly make a lot more sense than us all getting embroiled in a lawsuit.

Yes, ma'am. You know, maybe there's another approach to this. I mean, we are asking for 29 from 67 to 29. Well, 67 to 29 is a large jump, right? And so perhaps y'all would approve the 29, let Mr. Crocker come back in and amend the PUD, to get the additional units and push that number back up for the total PUD.

I think the problem with that is that this is already probably not consistent with Green Swamp Rural, so you would be then still increasing the density, potentially, or making it, you're not, this would be making it more conforming by reducing to the 29. It is an option for the board to do that, but again, it's already non-conforming.

But again, the 29 is maxed out on the total cap. because there's a conversion factor.

Well, that's our conversion. Yeah, to 29.

Get to 29 with some reasonableness. Right, you're doing 29 instead of 67, which would, the 67 would be multifamily, would be duplex, triplex, or some mix, correct? Yeah, multiple. So you're not doing any of that, but it brings it down to 29 to keep the max number. So the big question for anybody in the audience would be, are we exceeding some max number? And that's not the case here. It's just now it's maybe a civil matter.

So I have a question. Who bought this piece of property?

Mike Hurst.

And did Mike Hurst understand that he had these development rights when he bought them?

Mike, did you want to speak to that?

Good morning. My name is Mike Gerst. I'm the applicant. When the purchase was made, the number 21 was the original construction plan. Eleven have been built in phase one, which left phase two of ten buildable lots, which was east of Phillips. In this construction plan will be a turn lane at Phillips and Monta Vista, which is going to increase our building costs for the for the construction plan. And that is why when we came back and asked how can we reactivate these 10 lots and ask for the additional lots to support the cost of this tunneling. And the only way to reactivate these lots is to create a new PUD. So Mr. Crocker or Swiss, when they come back and they want to build, they will also have to create a new PUD because these lots are expired.

Yeah, see, Mellon, that's where I was confused from. Mr. Crocker says it's his PUD, but he sold the land to Mr. Hurst, right?

Correct, and again, the PUD is tied to the land. Correct. So it's who owns the land.

Who owns the land, so he's asking for a reduction in the PUD on land that he currently owns.

He's asking for a reduction in the total entitlements for the entire PUD to get 29 single family lots, because the way it's written right now, there are no more single family lots available. There's just triplex and duplex.

And the original PUD plan, the duplexes were planned to be built on east of Phillips, which were converted to the 10 lots of phase two. Hold on a second.

So on this PUD, Melanie, the triplexes and duplexes are on the, the entitlements are on the land that was purchased?

I'm going to let Mike address that. I know we've looked at the site plan.

So the question is, have the entitlements been purchased?

No, the piece of property that was purchased were the entitlements on that piece of property that was purchased, the triplexes and the duplexes.

I think that's the question that remains unanswered.

Well, it had to have some kind of a site plan, right? So did he buy the property that had the portions of triplexes and duplexes in it, or did he not?

He purchased property that consisted of, bear with me one second here, let me get back to. He purchased property on the west side or the left hand side was part of the golf course. On the right hand side or eastern side, that was the area where 18 duplexes existed in the original conceptual plan for the 2018 ordinance. So he purchased property that showed in the conceptual plan 18 dwelling units. I'm sorry, 36 dwelling units, 18 duplexes. The vacation rentals were not on the property that is the subject property discussed today. So the question is, which property owner in this PUD has the rights to the development.

So wouldn't it make sense for us to have the two property owners figure this out before they come to us for approval? Melanie?

Well, that would be preferable, yes.

So why don't we just, so we deny it until we... can get them to figure out who owns what, and then they come back to us with what they want. Because I don't think we're in a position to say, well, you own this and you own that, because that's a legality thing, and there's only two lawyers up here that I know of that, and I'm certainly not a lawyer, and I think it'd be disingenuous for us to say, well, this property owner gets this many and this property owner gets this many. Let it go to court and let the courts decide, right?

So you could table it. As far as denying it, you have very specific standards that you would deny.

Right, we could table it.

I think tabling it makes the most sense, but to a time certain, obviously. But I do want to try to settle as much as we can so that we kind of give them some marching orders, hopefully, that they can get worked out. Do I understand it correctly, Mr. Crocker has 40 acres left that you wanted to build on and you wanted to do five acre tracts?

Ma'am, I have 48 acres, so I'm gonna keep it eight for the driving range.

Okay, eight for the driving range, 40 left behind, you wanna do five acre tracts. And then if we applied, if we took those number of units that would go for that purpose, eight, what are we left behind with? Once you do this conversion,

We would be left with no less than 21.

It is either we give all of those to the applicant and he is left with nothing or they come up with a way to split this number. You know, maybe you don't get eight, maybe you get six, and maybe they get two more, and so they get, you know, 25 instead of 27. But we got to, I think, give them 30 days or until the next zoning meeting to work it out.

Ma'am, can I just clarify one thing real quick? So everybody's confused over where... those dwellings were supposed to go and everything else. Ma'am, this is what's approved that I had approved in the PUD. Here's a diagram. It is not anywhere near his property. Nowhere near his property. It's not even on the same street. This is next to my clubhouse. This is an old diagram that they pulled up that was done in the 90s. Has nothing to do with 2017. And it shows over here on the left side of 18, and that's what's confusing with the planning and zoning. They think that these dwellings are over here. No. He had approval for seven homes in that area right there. And the permit ran out onto it, and he didn't build them. This is where all these dwellings are right here. Nothing to do with his property at all.

So then it goes back to whether the PUD was clear that they had to be situated the way a diagram that was attached to the PUD showed them. If it doesn't, which it sounds like what you've been telling us today, is it didn't say it had to be that way. That was just a diagram that was attached. Is that correct? It didn't.

It wasn't as specific back then.

Right. It wasn't as specific. Just like you want to do five-acre tracks, is five-acre tracks shown anywhere on this PUD that you just referenced? No, ma'am. Right. So you're wanting five-acre tracks.

So it sounds like everybody wants something different than... Well, ma'am, it's my understanding in the county that when I phone and do research onto it, a five-acre track in Lake County, I can build on the five-acre track.

Well, you can't do it under your PUD, though.

You can in regular zoning, but the PUD is different, though.

You'd have to rezone, get out of the PUD.

I mean, there's rules, there's laws, there's, you know, the Harris Act that was put into effect. it protects property owners such as me, who went through all this trouble to get this PUD done to begin with, and someone comes along and just wants to change the PUD. It's totally wrong. What's happening is totally wrong. So I'm going to have 40 acres I can't do nothing with? It don't make any sense. That's going to be a major lawsuit coming down to somebody.

Well, that's what we were trying to come up with a solution for.

And all the more reason it needs to go back to the court to figure it out.

Just table it and...

Yeah, I was going to say table it for 30 days.

Well, I'd say longer than 30 days because you know.

Well, I mean, I think. Longer than 30 days, please. Yeah, but I mean, from what I understand.

It's pretty quick for attorneys to get together and all that kind of.

I mean, all right, whatever. But I think they've said they pretty much own it. Is that correct? Yeah. So if ownership is the question, I'm not sure. I don't. I'm sorry. I know things happen, but.

So if we table this till November, November planning is on a meeting, that's 120 days?

That would be November 3rd.

Or table it indefinitely, allow the private parties to work things out, we will re-advertise it.

We could do that.

I don't think they're going to get it worked out.

All right, so I'll make a motion that we table this indefinitely until the applicants can come to an agreement and come back to the board with a... the only question about that is what I mean indefinitely though but well what when I'm sure that there's going to be Mr. Hurst is certainly going to want to push this forward as fast as he can and he's going to want to push us forward as fast as he can so it's going to be on their timelines not ours that should be them the ones that are on the on the hook to get this done not us so If they want to get it done quickly, they'll get it done quickly. If they want to take their time, they'll take their time.

If we don't table to a date certain, it's as simple as just re-advertising the agenda item. Correct.

So as a suggestion, what we could do is table it to allow them the opportunity to work it out. But if both parties submit an email that they're at an impasse, then at that point we could re-advertise it to bring it back.

Yeah, I think that's what you should do. Okay, but when would the impasse be declared, so to speak?

Well, it's really up to them. I mean, they could walk out of here and three hours later send us an email saying they're at impasse and then we could reschedule it or they could make a good faith attempt to work it out, which may take a month or two or three or who knows how long.

And it's behooving of the applicants to come together on an agreement because right now the best agreement is denial completely.

Yeah, it's either denial or you give them something less than what they're asking for, which then leaves something behind for Mr. Crocker. So I mean, I would just go ahead and put it out there just so it might help you all in your negotiations and coming to a resolution. I mean, I personally think that something fair would be somewhere you want eight, maybe you get four or five. If they want 29, you get 25. There needs to be something that's equitable When it comes back to us and and I would think that's probably where we would go is somewhere that we consider equitable but again, the I think the ownership is we just we need to we need to see the I Know you say you own it.

I think from what we see my crew. Yes, mister. I'm sorry, mr Hearst, but I think that's the critical issue here, right and I Of ownership?

Yeah.

He owns the land. Yeah, I know.

So land ownership is not an issue. Entitlement ownership is the problem, and that's where they can't agree.

But they're asking for it because they own it, the entitlement. Maybe. But he's saying that they don't own it.

No, I didn't say they didn't own the property. They stole the property. Oh, they got the property, trust me. They got the property. But what's in question is where those dwellings were supposed to be at is nowhere near his property.

Well, I understand that. But when you say stole, that kind of throws the whole thing off.

Well, I mean, I can prove it. I mean, it's not the facts of life. It's just that, you know, unfortunately, you know, being hospitalized and being out of the country, you know, it's kind of hard to... You know, it's kind of hard to negotiate. You know, we already spent millions of dollars defeating this thing. I mean, it's just fighting, beating a dead horse. It's crazy. This is absolutely crazy.

I want to respect your time. Chairwoman, I think we have a motion and a second on the floor currently.

We do, but did it define the... We didn't have a time, we just had the suggestion that if we get notification that they're at impasse, again, it's like if they tell us they're at impasse and we don't hear anything back, we need something that says a time certain, I believe.

So let me just add, if you don't mind, thank you. There's nothing that I'm aware of. Melanie, if you could help me here. There's not a beauty ordinance. There's not a development agreement. There's no recorded easements. There's no Florida law that I'm aware of and help me out here. This is just my opinion. Cause I'm not an attorney that indicates that, that you have to get consent of others to modify the PUD. And that's, that's what it looks like where we're at today is that we're getting his consent. There is no consent requirement. There is no constraint that prevents it.

No, it is. Right.

And just as we have proceeded, he could have proceeded as well.

Right, and then it's up to us to decide whether to give you what you're asking for and us taking into consideration whether there should be some of those units left behind for the remaining property. Yes, ma'am.

I'm sorry to interrupt. In effect, there is. We're asking for 29 units, and there's, under the old PUD... there's 67 that are allowed. And so we're just asking, we don't want to necessarily nullify the 67, and I understand your question about the green swamp, and we can talk about that a little bit more. But I also wanted to add one little point, and that is the area that he's discussing about the triplexes that he's showing you has been subdivided and appears to be single family lots. Is that right?

I don't know, but here's the law.

Chairwoman, can we go ahead and, And at least vote up or down the motion that's on the floor.

Triplexes will not go in that area.

Hold on a second, sir. We got a motion on the floor here. And it's been seconded. It needs to be voted on.

Can I just ask the clerk to confirm what is the motion that's on the floor?

It was to indefinitely, what's that called?

Table.

Table, thank you. Indefinitely table the motion and then re-advertise when they're ready.

That's just, I.

So the other option is, again, you can do it to a time certain, you can do it to November 3rd, or if the parties provide some communication that they're working it out and they would like longer, then it could be postponed further. I mean, I tend to agree you probably need a date certain because I don't think these parties are gonna come to a resolution.

What's the meeting before November? What's the October meeting? October 6th. October 6th.

It's got to go to the Planning and Zoning Board on October and then come to us in November?

No, sir, it would not go back to that.

Oh, it would go back to Planning and Zoning? Okay.

So, considering that there's a motion and a second, would the person that made the motion consider withdrawing and the person that made the second withdraw and reconsider a motion for it to come back to us on October 6th and we will give the parties... Oh, because of... to try to work issues out between now and then.

Okay, yeah, I'll withdraw my motion if he'll withdraw his second.

We're drawn. Okay, all right. Can we have a motion to go to October 6th?

Well, you don't want me to make my next motion?

Well, okay.

I'll make a motion to move it to, table it to no later than October 6th. Is that correct?

Right. Yep. Do we have a second? I'll second that. And I think what we're hearing is that, you know, it gets worked out or there's a high likelihood nothing gets approved. So we got to get, but don't necessarily want Mr. Crocker to take that as leverage that he doesn't have to work together. I think you both need to work together. I think that's the key here. So all in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. All right, we're gonna move on to, we have a whole bunch of variance cases starting with, let's see, tab seven, I believe. Tab six. I need five minutes, five minute break.

Yes, Chairman, if I could just clarify something for the record. Because that agenda item was tabled to a date specific, staff will not re-advertise it. Thank you.

OK. All right. Five minutes. It's 10.50. 10.55, we'll reconvene.

All right. Anthony Sabatini. Hey, I'm here with something. Thank you.

Yeah, but the timing is not good, so if it's already happening in real time right now and it's got a writ of execution, which means the sheriff has a lawful.

on the air. Okay. All right. We're going to pick back up at Tab 6. Mike?

Thank you, Chairman. For the record, Mike Fitzgerald. I'm the Office of Planning and Zoning Director. We're going to bring up our variance agenda today. Today we have Tab 6 through 12 variances. These have been advertised in accordance with state statute. Just as a reminder to the board and for the benefit of the audience, variances have previously been reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. That board has since been dissolved and variances are now being heard by the Board of County Commissioners. As a courtesy to the board, I just want to go over the purpose of variances and how they are considered. Variances are strict application of uniformly applicable land development regulations can lead to unreasonable, unfair, and unintended results in particular instances. The board is authorized to grant variances to requirements of the land development regulations and planned unit development zoning districts. The board cannot grant variances that are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan or grant a variance to permit a use that is not permitted in a zoning district. The application of land development regulations would create a substantial hardship or would violate principle of fairness. That is the criteria for the consideration with substantial hardship meaning a demonstrated economical, technological, legal or other type of hardship. Principle of fairness violated when the literal application of land development regulation affects a particular person in a manner significantly different from the way it affects other similarly situated persons. If the board has no questions regarding that, I'll move on to the first item. This is the Sherlock property. if I'm pronouncing that correctly. The request of action is a variance to the land development regulations to allow for an unpermitted deck to remain constructed 45 feet from the ordinary high water line, mean high water line or jurisdictional wetland line in lieu of the required 50 foot setback. The location of the property is 30033 West Time Avenue. And for the record, the purchase date on this property was February 13th of 2025. Subject parcel contains one gross acre and is developed with a single family residence, front wood deck driveway, and the subject unpermitted deck. On December 6th, 2024, the Office of Building Services issued a notice of violation for no building permit. The subject property was purchased by the new owners on February 14th, 2025. The new owners had no knowledge of the violation until they received the notice of violation on March 7th, 2025. On April 9th, 2025, staff advised that the after the fact deck did not meet the required 50 foot setback. On January 21st, 2026, the subject code enforcement case was presented before the special magistrate where the ruling required that the subject property come into compliance. Should the Board of County Commissioners approve this variance, the applicant will be required to obtain zoning clearance and building permits. And this is a graphic showing the wooden deck in the rear of the property and it indicates in the center there that there is approximately a 45 and a half foot setback where a 50 foot setback would normally be required. I'm happy to answer any questions. I believe the applicant should be here to answer questions.

OK. And I'm not seeing that we have any cards for this one. If anybody meant to fill a card out for this one, if you could raise your hand and let me know. Do we have anyone online? OK. All right. And where's the applicant?

Hello.

Good morning. Good morning. If you want to add something to what was said, from what I gather, you purchased the property, the deck was already there, then you found out that it had not originally been permitted, you had to correct the code violation, and that's what the variance is for?

I'm actually just the applicant. I'm here representing the owner. He's here, though, if you would like to speak with him or if he wants to add anything. It's pretty straightforward. Everything that they had stated was...

Hey, I'm Jason Charlock, the owner of this property. I'm happy to answer any questions. But yes, to your point, this property, my son purchased it, I co-signed. We thought it was a wonderfully cute little area until we started receiving all the variants or all the warnings that we got about code violations for this property. So the realtor that had purchased this property before us and had done a ton of work to it didn't pull a lot of permits and this is one of the ones that were unfortunately forced with coming to you guys and asking for a variance or destroying the deck. And redoing it.

And you're just trying to put it back, you're trying to put it where it is now.

We're trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube, exactly.

Okay. All right. Anyone have questions? Do we have?

The only question I have, the deck that was built would have passed. Permitting?

I'm sorry, what was the question?

I mean, it was a built-to-code?

Yes. When they have plans drawn for it, we're just waiting for the variants to submit the...

I understand that, but it was built-to-code.

Yes.

And can we have your name for the record? Jamie Blunt.

Okay.

Move to approve.

Second. I just... Question again. So this... Did you make a recommendation for approval of this, or no? You don't... It meets the criteria for variants? Yes.

So the staff has historically not made recommendations on variances. It's the board's determination whether the intent of the code has been met and whether they've demonstrated principles of fairness or substantial hardship, keeping in mind that self-created hardships do not qualify as substantial hardship.

Okay. So you said there were other things that the realtor did that they didn't pull permits on? Who was the realtor?

That would be Benjamin Champion with Tree Frog Realty.

All right. So we're just trying to correct the situation with the deck so that you can have the deck back where the deck was originally shown. And it's a five-foot variation basically off of the wetland area. Correct area.

And you know I it's consistent with the comp plan.

This is in District 4, and I personally think that it's an easy, this is an easy one. Some variances are really, really hard. This variance is a really easy one. It's an easy way to rectify the situation. It's a five-foot variation. It's not having any environmental negative impacts, and it will improve the value of the property.

And I'm sure that the purchaser didn't know any of this when he bought the property.

Yeah, it's not like, if it's like five feet, let's just say it's right up into the wetlands and you can tell you've got a problem or whatever, we're talking about a pretty low impact situation here.

Yeah, and I think this is okay. It's just gotta ask the questions. In my world, variances aren't granted too often. There could be a lot of cases where people say I didn't know, and I know it's not your fault. You were misled on this, but anyway.

Well, the other option is you could call the realtor to take 40 feet off of it.

Yeah, it's not a very big deck in the first place, but I get it. Well, we have a motion.

We have a motion and a second.

Motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Thank you. Tab number seven. This is District 5. And Mike? Thank you, Chairman.

This is the cliche property. The requested action is a variance to Lake County PUD Ordinance 29-93, Section 2A, entitled Setbacks and Buffers, to allow the construction of a pool, pool deck, and associated screen enclosure five feet from the rear property line in lieu of the required 20 feet between structures or 10 feet from the property line. The location is 500 Grand Vista Trail, And for the record, the purchase date was December 6th, 2023. Subject parcel contains approximately 0.18 gross acres. The subject parcel is developed with a single family residence, screened entry, screened lanai, driveway, and walkway. The ISR is consistent with the grandfathered 1991 maximum ISR, no greater than 0.45. With that said, staff is happy to answer any questions, and the applicant should be here to speak.

Now, didn't we get a letter on this one? This is the one that's in Royal Highlands?

No, ma'am, that is the next one.

Oh, wait, I'm on the wrong one. Okay.

Is there any medical reason for this?

The applicant is here to address the board.

OK. All right.

Good morning. Christy Folker, premier pool contractor. We're the contractor here on behalf of the homeowner, as he's a snowbird and not in town right now. When we submitted, when he came to us and asked us to build the pool, we were given a survey that showed a five foot setback. Upon applying for our pool permit, we were told that there was an ordinance, let me back up, we received homeowner association approval. Homeowners association was not even aware of this ordinance that was put into place by the county. several years ago, homeowner was not aware, HOA was not aware, HOA approved our pool. This pool does back up to a golf course, There are other properties in line with this one that have pools that are on the same track that still meet the same type of setbacks. This is just a much smaller lot. We've already made accommodations as much as we can for this. This customer wanted a 12 by 24 pool. We've reduced the size of this thing to eight by 12 just to try to bring it in and he will be using it for medical purposes. And again, it's not impeding anyone else's home because it butts up to a golf course and we're well within any other buffers.

And do you have that HOA approval with you?

I believe I do. me just a minute to find it but yes yep any other questions I can ask while she's looking for it it came to us electronically so I might not have printed it but I do I do have it at my office I can get it if I need to and have it sent to me.

There we go.

I believe we did submit it with our packet, though, so I'm not sure if it's in with what you have. All right.

We could, you could make a motion contingent on that letter being included in the record. I'm looking to see if it's.

Just to remind the board, not that long ago you passed an ordinance that's going to require them to sign an affidavit that they're in compliance with their HOA restrictive covenant, so.

And that would be submitted with the permit, right?

That would address that.

Move approval.

I have a question, though. Okay. Your neighbors, nobody's? but both neighbors don't have an issue with it?

No, he's spoken to both neighbors and like I said, he backs up to a golf course so there's nobody in the rear that would be opposed to it.

Okay, now we did get a motion and a second. The only problem is I just see where Cindy Newton filed a card on number seven. Cindy, did you wish to speak on this variance request? Okay.

Morning, Cindy Newton, District 4. This property doesn't show any wetlands, but I want to show you my concern. Here's the property. What has happened with that golf course is they got a map revision. It's actually a floodplain. So if you back this impervious surface up and you look at the contour map, I'm worried that some of this water is going to be impacting the neighbor's backyard. What I would like to see is in the next case, You have the public works provisions to look at this a little better, to make sure, as some of you know, we've got a property on Estee Road that flooded. Part of the reason of that was there's only a five foot setback behind it where the water used to escape and run down towards Blue Lake, and it ended up getting trapped behind it.

but remember and you know that area well the elevation of the adjoining property was raised in that particular situation that's why the water doesn't run where it's supposed to be property you've got the golf course is that a little higher

elevation so water running towards this property could impact the neighbor all i'm asking is that it gets looked at a little better for the water since it's had a map revision map revisions don't mean it won't flood map revision just means you don't have to buy the insurance that's all

Back to the fact that the HOA weighed in on this.

Very quickly and easily, and again, the HOA was not even aware of your county ordinance that was put into place. No one knew about it. My homeowner didn't know about it. It was just adopted, right? No, it had been adopted some time ago, but the HOA was never told that there was a setback change. Oh, oh, we're talking about a different ordinance. Yes, yes.

Yeah, the PUD was adopted in 1993, and it would have shown up in everybody's title. I mean, it's recorded in the public records, so they should have been aware of it.

As far as like flooding issues and concerns, that's kind of where I was going with if the HOA was going to weigh in and be okay with what they were proposing that I would have thought if they had a concern they would have raised it.

We don't have it. From what I remember from my site pictures and all that stuff, I don't have any elevation issues out there. I'm building on level ground. I'm not on a slope. I'm not going to be changing grade.

Okay. That's important. Okay, we have a motion, we have a second. I think we'll move forward with the call on the question. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, moving then to tab number eight. This is the one that is in Royal Highlands, correct?

Step number eight is entitled the Comos Property. The requested action is a variance to plan unit development ordinance 2005-45 to allow the construction of a pool, pool deck, and associated screen enclosure five feet from the rear property line in lieu of the required 15 feet. The location is 5651 King James Avenue. For the record, the purchase date was February 23rd, 2026. Subject parcel is approximately 0.15 acres and is developed with a single family dwelling unit, a driveway, a front porch, and a backyard patio. Public Works has stated in this case that if this is approved, they would be looking for a lot grading plan and no obstruction of the five foot drainage easement. Subject parcel is located within the city of Leesburg ISBA. The city of Leesburg had no comments. In this case, the applicant stated that there was a precedent set with a similar variance. Staff did the research and found that there was a variance back in 1999 that was approved for a setback for an 11-foot rear property line setback in lieu of the 15 feet for installation of pool decking and the pool cage. But in this case, it is requesting that there be a five foot setback.

So that was 15 to 11, the one that you said?

This was, correct, this was 15 required, reduction approved to 11. Okay. The case before us is 15 required, reduction requested to five. This is the site plan that was submitted to staff. It's important to note for the board that staff received and I believe the board was copied on this letter that the Royal Highlands Board of Directors, Homeowners Association Board of Directors reviewed this item and on July 8th, 2026, the board denied the homeowners request for this. I believe it's their architectural review board that denied it.

So we couldn't override with a variance a decision by the? HOA board, could we?

Right. So no matter what you do today, they would have to deal with their HOA separately.

Okay.

And I believe the applicant is here to speak on this one.

So again, Christie premier pool contractor on behalf of my homeowner. Um, same thing. We, uh, applied for HOA approval, uh, with, um, Royal Highlands. Um, the, one of the board members is actually the person who was granted a previous variance for a pool. Um, what we were told was that the HOA would not unilaterally grant my client, um, approval, uh, for this without it coming before the variance board. because other members in the community had to go through that process, so therefore my homeowner should have to go through it as well. That was what I was told by the board member of the HOA at the time. We were told that if we brought it before the variance process and it was approved by you, that then the HOA would approve it. What we have since been told is that we had, there was a July 4th picnic at the community and someone in the community took a petition around and got signatures signed in opposition of this and then it was brought to the HOA board last week That HOA board though did not let my homeowner know that this was brought to their attention and did not let her know that there was any opposition or any chance for her to speak on her behalf.

Okay, do you have a question?

I have a question for staff, Mike. And I'm sorry if you said this. I'm getting my mind set back into variances and doing this kind of thing. But on page three of 17, You say, due to the existing residence configuration, lot coverage, and rear yard space, the proposed pool deck and associated screen closure could be reconfigured and reduced to meet the required 15-foot rear setback.

That is an option. I mean, the pool could be reduced. Maybe the pool contractor could speak on options for construction design.

Because that's one of the four criteria for the variance?

Yeah, is there another way to accommodate?

Let me show you why we're asking for the variance. This is our original design. I don't know if you can see that.

Don't bring it up.

So again, her survey shows a five foot setback. We did not find out about the 20 foot setback until we applied for our zoning approval. So this is her original layout based on the fact that we're following her survey with a five foot setback. If I am to follow the setback for the ordinance that is in place, that is what my homeowner is allowed to install in her yard. And again, this community has had variances before this board that have been approved for this use.

I understand that. That's a tough decision. We're in, you know, some of these The realtors don't tell you what you can actually do with your property most of the time.

Well, in this instance, like I said, we went off the survey, which that's what we have to go off of when we do our contracts. It wasn't until we went to apply for our permit that we found out about the discrepancy between a surveyed setback and an ordinance setback.

The letter that came from the Royal Highlands HOA, does it reference the fact that they were against it unless a variance was approved.

The letter that we received, it looks like it's dated July 8th, says encloses letter signed by the Rural Highlands Board of Directors asking you to deny the variance. At today's board meeting, the board denied the homeowner's request. So there's nothing in here about

But we didn't have a current application in at that meeting. So again, while they had already previously denied us pending us coming to get a variance, it is my understanding, though, that the board, several members of that board have changed hands. So we would still have to, if you grant the variance, I'm still going to have to go before the HOA and request approval pending the outcome of this variance If I am NOT approved then I mean it is what it is and we'll we'll move forward but My homeowner deserves proper enjoyment of her backyard I

So you should have a copy on your dais, but there is additional language in the petition. It says, we, the board of directors, respectfully request the county commissioners deny the requested variance. The requested reduction is substantial. A setback requirement exists to protect neighboring properties, preserve open space, maintain privacy and neighborhood character. Reducing the required setback from 15 feet to five feet would remove 2 3rds of the required buffer and place the proposed improvements much closer to the neighboring property. Again, your consideration today isn't really what the HOA says or thinks about it. You have to consider whether they can meet the intent of the code as prong number one, and then prong number two is whether or not there is a substantial hardship or principles of fairness that they have demonstrated. So that's what your consideration needs to be focused on.

I have another question for Mike.

Sure. If this variance were granted with the ISR, for the requirement for this PUD be met on a lot per lot basis?

Yes, the ISR will be 60%. The maximum allowable is 65%.

That's on page three of the staff report. All right, I didn't see that.

Well, I think that based on the reasoning of the applicant's representative that the hardship has been met, and so I would move to approve this.

Do we have a second?

They have cards on it.

Hold on. I've got the Comos. I have Linda. And then I also have Patricia Reynolds. OK. All right. So we have a motion. We're just going to leave that. We don't have a second. So we're going to take comments from Patricia Reynolds.

Thank you. My name is Patricia Reynolds. I'm vice president of the Royal Highlands Property Owners Association. We sent you a letter stating our objections granting this variance. You read our concerns. Yes, there have been other variances. granted, but these do not, these variances did not back up to another property. This house does back up to another property. And we are concerned that if you grant this variance, you will be devaluating the property behind And the big thing is that you will now be setting a precedent, so we have to approve any variance that comes before you. And it doesn't matter if it backs up to wetlands, to a farm, or to another property. And some of these people did not buy these properties to have now pools or decks backing up to them. These people supposedly own this house since 2002. The AHRQ committee, the board did not approve this. The AHRQ committee approved this in July of 2025. The board was not really aware, and this was our mistake, the liaison to AHRQ should have notified us about this variance, but it was granted with you approving the variance And it says right on their application that it is good for six months. It is way over the six months. And the final approval is the board of directors. We took a vote at our last board meeting, which was last Wednesday, and the board of directors do not feel that we would want this approval. recommendations so we voted down their recommendation for the pool pool deck and screen enclosure and it does state in our laws that we the board of directors are the final decision maker I also am here representing property owners, and I have a petition signed by 53 residents, one from each household, asking you to deny this variance. And if you'd like, I would like to present that to you right now.

Is this the one we have? I think we have that. Yeah, we received it. Thank you. All right. Okay.

Okay, thank you, that's very helpful. And then Linda Comos? Okay, sorry, so she doesn't want to comment. As the applicant, yes, you can.

Would just like to note that, um, I only counted 43, so I don't know if they got more signatures before this was sent out, but of the 43 people that, um, signed in opposition to this, none of them are any of the neighbors of this property. One of them lives a quarter of a mile away. All the rest of them live in excess of a quarter mile away from this property. It will not be, it will not be messing with their home or any of the adjoining homes. Yes, the current homeowner bought this house in 2002 I think it was but it was her mother's property since then her mother bought this property in 1998 and her mother still lives in that home Okay, all right and Only because I'm curious.

I want to hear what Miss Reynolds says. Is there something that we're missing? I as to you had said that people around didn't like it, didn't want it, it was going to affect adjoining neighbors.

I've asked a couple of people on the street to sign that petition, and their answer was, well, they're our neighbors. We don't want to get in trouble with them. We don't want to cause any problems. But we as the board of directors have to look at everybody in the community, not just the neighbors who don't want to cause problems with their neighbors.

That's true. It would just be really nice if neighbors would just work with each other and just be reasonable with each other. I mean, I understand trying to adhere to the rules and the rules are the rules, but it's also these lots, these setbacks are just so tight and it's...

I do have a follow-up question. If a variance was graded before for a 15-foot setback down to 11 in the same community, then we could reduce hours... and she'd still get at least most of what we proposed.

Would the board be willing to allow this? And I had thought about that, the fact that maybe going from 15 to 5 is a lot, 15 to 11 is less impactful, and maybe even the board of directors and the ARC, maybe they would look at it differently if it wasn't such a drastic change from 15 to 5. Is there any chance that... the board would support a 30 day table of this. So they go back and talk to the board of directors and see whether they could reach a resolution.

I'd love to do that. The denial in July, the only reason why it's taken so long is it's taken me six months to get on the variance schedule. So that's, it's taken that long for me to go through the process.

So we can do a time certain. Yeah. Let's pick it.

Our next, if we went from 15 to 10, I could still do most of what's here. I would still have to shave off quite a bit. But that would be obviously much more amenable than her having a six by six.

Right. That's really extreme.

Off of her back door.

Right. And I would think maybe the neighbors would be more amenable to it if it wasn't the you know, as much of a variance.

15 to 10, we could definitely work with that.

So would Mr. Morris, would you consider a motion to that effect? We have the, you're talking about the one that commissioner Sabatino originally made.

I'll withdraw my motion if there's a consensus to postpone.

Commissioner Morris?

There was no second. Okay. Yeah, I'll make a motion that we do a 30-pay postponement and let them go to the HOA and see if they can work something out.

It would be postponing until September 1st. September 1st.

Okay, September 1st.

Mr. Sabatini, okay, all in favor say aye.

Hold on a second, I'd like to make a comment. It would be most beneficial to you and your customer to get the HOA to approve it before it comes back to here.

Yeah, 100%.

And hopefully the HOA would be more inclined to do that if it's a less impactful variance request.

We'll see.

We'll see. Okay. All right. All in favor say aye.

One more thing for the record because I was the one that made the motion. Just so you understand, I think the hardship is met. I still respect the fact that the HOA at the end of the day still gets the authority. If it was a different situation, the HOA wasn't involved, I'd probably be looking at this different. So with that said, aye.

Okay. All right. So I think just make sure everybody was unanimous in that all eyes on that. Um, and I think that's a really good point that we're in a deed restricted community. It is governed by, you know, rules and regulations. And the hope is that maybe with a lesser impactful variance that the HOA would be inclined to support it.

If that happens, then we would just come back before you for just the difference in the 15 to the 10 for approval. Correct.

Okay.

Ms. Folker, we're going to need copies of what she presented. No problem.

All right, moving on.

Do you want to call a vote? Did we vote? We did.

We did. It was unanimous. All right, we're moving on to nine. This is also in Commissioner Morris' district.

This agenda item is a tough shed at Griffin. The requested action is a variance to the land development regulations to allow an accessory structure to be located 38 feet from the front property line in lieu of the required 62 foot setback requirement from the center line of the road. And it'd be located five feet from the side in lieu of the required 10 feet. The location is 35142 West Griffin Drive, and the current owner purchased the property May 4th, 2023. Subject parcel contains approximately 0.43 acres. It is developed with a single-family dwelling unit, deck and dock, boathouse, carport, and utility building. The ISR remains within the maximum allowable ISR of 30%. The applicant has indicated that there is a substantial hardship due to the location of their drain field and septic tank. The proposed location of the development appears to, I'm sorry, the proposed location of the development appears to reduce or prevent impact on the shoreline protection of Lake Griffin. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. The applicant should be here to address the board.

Okay, all right, this is tab nine. I don't see any speaker cards against this. Do we have... Is the applicant here? OK. Come forward.

Hello, commissioners. My name is Chris Canova. I'm the applicant on behalf of myself and my wife, Mary Canova. We were seeking a variance to put this tuck shed in. your typical neighborhood you probably would be hesitant to put a tough shed in what's considered the front yard that is where you drive in to your residence but this is not your typical residence or typical neighborhood let me show you um we do not butt up against a road we do not front a road is that where i need to have that i'm right on the x whichever

There you go.

This is an easement, and I call it a dirt path. It's not really a road. We don't get our garbage there. We don't get any mail there. We have to walk about a block up to a paved road at Twin Palms to put our garbage and get our mail. So this is an easement from that property owner that owns the carport there to the right for us to travel down and turn into our residence, which is to the left. There you would pull in where you see the car and the truck. That's where you pull into our particular neighborhood. This is looking straight across from my property to that carport on the other side of the dirt path. I'm proposing to put the tough shed in this area right here. In terms of the aesthetic, what I'm about to show you is much better than what the carport looks like that's across the street from me. This is what we propose to put there, tough shed, 10 by 16. You can see the colors. are very consistent and the architecture is very consistent with the dwelling that's on the site. So it's much more aesthetically pleasing than what I have to look at across the street. In addition to that, there is a hardship for me to put the place elsewhere on the property.

On the north side of the property, it's very narrow. See right here.

There is a path that that the tree line on the left is about five feet into my property line and so there's only between that tree line and my house is only about 20 feet of usable space and That is the only path with which to get around the house and actually my neighbor's house To bring heavy equipment in for any maintenance or repairs I've allowed my neighbor access to that path so he can actually put a well in over on his side of the property and And so if I were to put the building in that narrow path, there really wouldn't be enough room, but I'd also be obstructing the only path we have to get around both houses for equipment. That's the north side of the house. On the south side of the house is about as narrow as a path, except it's occupied by the septic tank and the drain fill. On the opposite side of the house from where I showed you the carports is the lake. And obviously there would be opposition here if I was trying to put a tough shit on the lake side, which I consider the front of the property, which is where my front door is. So with that, we would ask for variance. We believe that there is a hardship there and we believe this is a logical development pattern for that property.

All right, nobody in the audience here on this one. I don't have any cards.

No, there's no HOA in this area. And my neighbor next to me has no objection to it on the other side where I showed you that carport, that carport, uh, services cottage is just beyond the carport and their rental units.

Okay. All right. Any other questions from the board? Do we have a motion? Commissioner Morris, this is in your district. Move to approve. All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Moving then to tab 10.

Tab 10 is entitled Operation Parachute. The requested action is a variance to land development regulations to allow for the construction of an accessory structure to exceed the maximum height of the dwelling unit and or 25 feet, whichever is greater, and to allow for such accessories structure to be constructed in the front yard of the subject property in lieu of the side or rear yards. The location of the project is 19811 Eustis Airport Road. The purchase date of the property most recently was March 7th, 2024. Subject parcel contains approximately five gross acres. Subject parcel is developed with a 17 foot tall mobile home and an aluminum shed. The applicant is requesting to allow for the construction of a 35 foot tall, 8,000 square foot metal accessory building Public Works reviewed this application and has asked for conditions to be met, including a five foot drainage setback to allow for drainage on the property. Fire safety conditions are maintaining access to the property, water supply for fire suppression, and no events shall be held on site. Subject property is located within the City of Eustis JPA, and the City of Eustis had no comments. The allowable ISR within the agricultural district is 10%, and the project will meet that if approved. I'm happy to answer any questions, and the applicant should be here.

Okay, all right, we have several cards. They look like they're in support. Harmony, Pentecost. Oh, wait, first the applicant, applicant, applicant.

Morning, ma'am. How you doing? My name is Dan Reese. My wife and I own the property there, and we are looking to get this variance so we could support the Phantom Airborne Brigade by hanging their parachutes.

Does everybody know what the Phantom Air Brigade does and why they need the height of the building the way that it is? Just... You might want to just explain that a little bit.

Okay, so Phantom Airborne Brigade, it's a group of about 500 members, mostly prior military, airborne rangers, jumping. We jump in Lake Eustis, Lake Dora quite often, about three to four times a year. They're looking for somewhere to dry their parachutes after jumping in the lakes here. That's literally what I mean, they're a bunch of retired, disabled veterans, and we just offered our land to them to use to drive their parachutes.

Okay. That's why you need the highway.

So this is for your parachute drawing, right?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Okay, all right. We have several cards. It looks like perhaps they're all in support. Okay. If I call your name and you just want to give us a thumbs up or if you would like to come forward, that's okay as well. Harmony Pentecost? Yes.

Hello, my name is Harmony Pentecost. Not only do I think this is a great organization, but a great cause, and I support this project. My sister and I actually own the property right next to him, so we are 100% in support of this.

Okay, that's helpful. Thank you.

Cecil is giving us the thumbs up, it looks like. All right. Then is it Andrew, the thumbs up? Okay. And that was Brzozowski, I believe. And then Geoffrey East? Geoffrey and thumbs up, okay. All right.

Second.

All right, all in favor say aye. Aye. That passes unanimously. Go forth and hang up the parachutes and continue the good work that you do, thank you. All right, moving then to tab 11.

Tab 11 is Osprey Point lot nine. The requested action is a variance to the land development regulations entitled heritage trees to allow for the removal of one heritage tree to facilitate the construction of a single family residence. The property is located at Osprey Point Boulevard in Claremont. The purchase date of the property was November 21st, 2025. Subject property contains approximately 1.54 net acres. This has been reviewed by our floodplain management staff, and they understand that the tree is directly in the middle of the upland developable property, and they have no objection to the proposal. Just to further that point, this is showing the flood map. According to our regulations, if you have upland and floodplain on your property, you're supposed to direct the development towards the upland. In this case, they have a hardship because there is a heritage tree directly in the way of where this home can be constructed. And getting back to an understanding of what the principle of fairness is, you can see the lots that are next door to this. They are able to build their homes because there are no trees in the way. With that said, I believe the applicant is here to address the board, and I can answer any questions that you have.

Okay. Question from Mike.

I'm sorry if you said this again, but tree mitigation?

What's the requirement? I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but they will receive the variance to remove the tree. When trees are removed in conjunction with a permit, they do pay tree mitigation fees in association with that permit.

I don't have those numbers. Any approximation?

Okay. I wouldn't want to guess.

They would pay mitigation fees.

They will have, for tree removal, they pay a mitigation fee when they're removing trees with a permit, yes.

And then they'll also, in association with building a house, they would have to comply with the landscape requirements for tree planting on their own property.

Minimum number of trees.

That's correct. We would probably, as you can see from the aerial, they have a considerable amount of trees on the property, so we would certainly take that natural vegetation into consideration.

Okay.

That's true. It'd be nice if they put trees in the front, though, after they build, if they get the variance. Street trees.

Something that won't fall on the house during a storm.

As we move forward with our LDR rewrite, we have a perfect opportunity to reevaluate trees in the front yard.

Okay, all right. The applicant wishes to speak.

I'm here to answer any questions. Obviously, we're trying to comply with the recent update to the heritage tree ordinance. There's really no way to construct a single-family residence with that tree there. And the tree is original, pre-development. It's actually in a bit of a hole. Probably would not last. We couldn't construct out. I do have an overlay of the setbacks, and I can put it up. Actually, I only did the front, the canopy tree. But that's a 25 foot setback from property line. I kind of used the little measuring tool on GIS. There's no way to construct the required requirement from the HOA size home without removal of the tree. And in answer to your question, It appears that the tree mitigation fee for 55 inches currently is $2,760, which would be the mitigation to the county, and there's probably 200 or greater canopy trees left on property in that wetland area.

You'll plant street trees probably, right?

Osprey usually requires oak trees on the stuff and also... Generally, there's an adjacent parcel to the left which is HOA owned, so I would imagine there would be some sort of bushes typical in that whole neighborhood. Oh, I'm sorry, my name is Adam Edgington.

And can you please provide the copy that you showed to the clerk?

Yes. The copy, I'm sorry? Yes.

Okay. All right. We don't have any opposition. You've heard the applicant. Do we have a motion on this request? second all right all in favor say aye aye any opposed that one is pretty much a good textbook variance case unique to the property can't work around it trying to mitigate all the things you hate to see a tree have to go away like that but definitely checks all the boxes thank you

the next agenda item is the rodriguez and garcia property this requested action is a variance to the land development regulations to allow a livestock building a horse barn to be off-centered within the boundaries of the subject parcel and to be constructed 11 feet from the northern property line in lieu of the required 50 foot setback the location of the property is 12901 cynthia lane and this property was purchased by the current owner june 23rd of 2022 Subject parcel contains approximately 5.75 net acres. It's developed with a single family residence, pool and spa, a metal storage shed, two wooden storage structures, a metal accessory storage building, and the subject two-story barn. On November 4th, 2024, subject property was cited for being in violation for having no building permit issued for the building, the subject barn being constructed on the rear of the property. On May 21st, 2025, the special master ordered the owners to take corrective action. On March 25th, still not in compliance with the order of enforcement. The owner determined the location of the structure based on the setbacks given to them for single family residence and non-livestock accessory structures. Due to the use of the subject structure for livestock, the structure is subject to more restrictive setbacks. If approved, the requested variance would allow for zoning clearance to be granted and will assist to resolve Code Case 2024-110023. The intent of the LDR keeping of livestock for general agricultural non-intensive agriculture is to help reduce the noise, odor, and air quality impacts on neighboring properties. Subject structure is approximately 318 feet from the nearest adjacent residence and is more than 400 feet from the adjacent residences to the north and south. With that said, I'm happy to answer any questions and the applicant should be here.

Does the applicant wish to speak?

Good afternoon commissioners, Madeline Damon. I'm the attorney for the property owner, as well as the applicant. Um, the subject property, as, uh, Mr. Fitzgerald mentioned is located in an area that's rural and agriculture in nature. Um, with those ad parcels to the south and the east, um, the property owner reasonably believed that the property was agriculture and, um, to his understanding that a horse barn didn't require a building permit, which is why we're before you today. Before constructing the barn, the property owner did his due diligence. He did reach out to building services and asked them about the applicable development standards, including setbacks, among other things. Building services did tell him that the setbacks were 10 feet from the side property line. They did not advise him as far as any changes in that standard for livestock buildings. So the property owner reasonably relied on those statements from building services prior to construction. He proceeded with construction. And following that is when he received his building permit violation. This wasn't from a neighbor. This was from, I believe, a code official who was on a neighboring property and saw this and reported it. Um, so quickly after that, the property owner submitted all the drawings and plans required to get his building permit. And it was only then that he discovered that there was an increased setback for livestock buildings. Um, and so, you know, he acted in good faith in reliance on the county's, um, advice before construction. He didn't intentionally, you know, violate the LDRs and, um, strict enforcement of that setback would be. Um, in my opinion, um, you know, inconsistent with the owner's reliance on that information as well as disproportionate to, um, you know, the violation at hand and I'm available if you have any questions, um, as well. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions?

Did they have, um, anything in writing from the, um, permitting department?

Yeah, that's a great question. Nothing in writing. I did speak with the property owner yesterday to confirm his statements. Um, he said that he did call and ask these questions, so he didn't have anything in writing. Um, but that was his, um, what he shared with me, um, pursuant to his phone call.

Did he write down who he spoke with?

Not that I'm aware of. I'd be happy to clarify. Um, and he didn't specify. Um, but that was his, what he shared with me yesterday. And so I confirmed those statements with him.

I'm amazed that, I mean, staff knows the rules, so I've got some concerns.

Okay, I've got one speaker card. Dan, is it Dash Tari?

Yes, ma'am. First of all, this barn has living quarters on top with electric lighting outside and presumably water. I'm assuming that people are living there. But my only request is to have a condition to the variance or the lighting that's there to be not allowed within the 50 feet setback. Okay. Just for people, you know, when you're trying to sleep and all the lights, like, comes right into the bedroom, and I can't. It just comes right in the crack, right where the.

But as far as the use of the livestock, that's not problematic to you?

I don't really have an issue with the livestock stuff. I mean, he's trying to make the best he can of his property, and I get that. But the lighting, if we could have that condition, I would be okay with that.

So it's directed away from the boundary, the property line.