Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Board of Lake County's hearing of January 7th. If you would all please rise for 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.

If you all please remain standing for a moment of silence. Okay, and let's be seated. Good morning. The Lake County Planning and Zoning Board is an advisory board to the Board of County Commissioners. The board is responsible for reviewing proposed changes to the comprehensive plan, zoning, conditional uses, mining site plans, and making recommendations on those applications to the Board of County Commissioners. The recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board are transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration at a scheduled public hearing. And in the instance of these cases, They are scheduled to be heard at the February 3rd, 2026 Board of County Commission meeting at 9 a.m. Okay, moving on. Is there any update to the agenda?

Good morning, Madam Chair, board members. For the record, Janie Brown, planning manager with the Office of Planning and Zoning. I'll be presenting to you the two cases that are on the agenda at this time. I do want to enter into the record that the cases have been dully noticed in accordance with the law. And at this time, there are no changes to the agenda.

Okay, I do have one speaker card on one of our consent agenda items, which is tab two, the Schofield PUD. So we'll pull that and hear that information so that we can hear from that individual on that topic. Okay, so tab one will remain on consent, tab two will move down to the regular agenda.

Actually, I'd like to pull tab one, please.

OK. And we will also pull tab one. So we will move everything off of consent. If there are no other changes to the agenda, wonderful. OK. Has everyone had an opportunity to approve the minutes? And if there are no changes, I will entertain a motion. So moved. I have a motion. Is there a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? All opposed, same sign? Okay, motion carries. Okay, at this time, we would welcome anyone from the public who wishes to speak on any items which are not on our agenda today. This is for anything outside of the focus of our two scheduled agenda topics. If anyone from the public wishes to speak at this time, please come forward. Seeing none, okay. So we will move on to the consent agenda, which has now all been moved down to the regular agenda. So let's begin with tab one, the barn at Southern Oaks.

Good morning, for the record, Megan Braccioli, planner with the Office of Planning and Zoning. I'll be presenting tab number one, case number PZ2025-148, otherwise known as the barn at Southern Oaks. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow an enclosed barn wedding venue that will accommodate members of the general public. The parcel has received an AG exemption through the property appraiser's office for hay farming. The subject property is located in unincorporated Umatilla and contains approximately 21.49 acres. The subject property is currently designated with a rural future land use category and is zoned agriculture district. The accompanying concept plan depicts the existing home site agricultural structures and the converted barn. The proposed ordinance does request a waiver to the road access requirements pursuant to Appendix A of the Lake County Transportation Planning, Design, and Construction Standards to allow the proposed development to access the property from La Grande Street, an unmaintained dirt road. The applicant has made this request citing that alternate points of access are either infeasible due to surrounding development patterns, environmental constraints, or would require significant offsite improvements that are not proportionate to the scale of the proposed use of the property. Pursuant to LDR 9.05.03 , the feasibility of constructing access roads to these standards shall be analyzed from the nature of the existing adjacent land use. Other conditions that may make access roads unfeasible are but are not limited to roadside areas with lakes, wetlands, and utility corridors and existing buildings. I've included some site photos of the structure as it is. And staff finds the conditional use permit request for an enclosed barn wedding venue to accommodate members of the general public on the subject parcel is consistent with the land development regulations and comprehensive plan. Myself and the applicant's agent are available for any questions.

Thank you. Okay. Does anyone have questions for staff before we hear from the applicant? If the applicant is present, is there anything you would like to say or communicate about your project? Please come forward to the microphone. And then just state your name and address for the record.

Jamie Blunt, 995 Vincent Drive, Mount Dora, Florida, 32757. Thank you. So does anyone have questions for the applicant?

I do. In the application, it states that there was a limit of 10 to 15 events a year. And in the final order, it will limit the venue to 15 events. So if the social media is correct, this venue hosted 41 events last year, including the Umatilla High School prom. So if we approve the ordinance as it's written, this venue would be limited to 15 events. Am I reading that correctly? Would the applicant care to revise their statement in their application? Because I believe that if you violate this order, it will be in front of a general magistrate because it would be at that point a code enforcement issue. So I think if we approve it as it's written, we're setting the property owner up for failure.

So whenever you say like the events, if they have their own private family events, are those included in the 10 to 15 or is this?

Well, the venue is accepting payment for hosted events, correct? Between baby showers, proms, weddings, private family events is an event. If it's not their own personal family, then it's an event. Okay. Okay. So if we approve this as it's written, based on your attestation that there's only 10 to 15 events, I can almost guarantee you're gonna be in front of a general magistrate for a code enforcement violation. Does that make sense? So do we wanna revise this?

And it may be a question of the item C in the ordinance. Just maybe we want to look at the verbiage to see if maybe it's just a question of the language and how it's stated. Um, item C from what I'm seeing in the ordinance and Melanie, please correct me if I'm not reading this correctly, but item C says wedding venue slash event use. There will be no more than 15 weddings slash events slash special events per calendar year. but then it goes down to describe what constitutes a special event. Was this supposed to limit it to 15 special events or to 15 of any type of activities?

It would be a limitation of 15, that's it. We just talked about unless it is the property owner's family, anything else is limited to 15 on this property.

So any paid events for outside users? Correct. Okay.

It also says here under special events that in a special event shall be classified as events expected to draw 500 persons or greater. exceeding the maximum. So I'll have some follow-up questions for staff only because I wanna know if it changes the scope of.

So the special event, that language is a separate code provision, a separate LDR. So any event that has more than 500 people that does pyrotechnics or exceeds occupancy limit for a particular building automatically triggers the special event requirements under the LDR. We carry that over into the CUP just so people don't think they're exempt from special events. So if you hit any of those three, that's a completely separate category than just a regular wedding event. You might have 200 people at a wedding event or 200 people at a graduation event, and those are limited to 15. I mean, all of them are limited to 15 on this property.

And you have to get a different permit for a special event, right? That's correct.

A different permit and a site plan.

Yeah. So my follow-up questions would be for staff, if nobody else has any questions for them.

Well, you brought up the same two things I'd made notes on. I'm looking at, it's talking about La Grande Road, I believe it is, is an unpaved, unmaintained access road, correct?

That's correct.

So wear and tear... special event, 500 people coming in and out, wear and tear, at what point and at whose responsibility is then to maintain that portion of the road that could be undermined from the traffic in and out?

The answer is nobody's. That's my question, thank you.

Any further questions?

I have a question. So if the limitation of 15 events should change, does it alter any requirements that the county would have for bathrooms, et cetera, because the order goes on to explain, is there any other modifications that would need to be made?

Nothing, I don't believe anything else would be modified based on the number of allowed events.

Okay, very good, thank you. And as far as the road is concerned, the unmaintained, this is what they're, they're asking for exception to the unmaintained road. But if we're allowing events up to 500 people, then that road, is it even, can it even accommodate that? I don't think the site, based on what's available, could accommodate 500 people to say.

We're not, hang on, wait, wait. Just a second. We're not actually allowing events up to 500 people. Those are special events. They have to go through the county separately. Those are not being allowed here. This is saying they have to go through the county to do that. They would deal with that issue at that time. That is not part of what's being asked here. That statement is in here as a reminder that they have to go get a permit for a special event over 500 people.

But, okay, to that point, they don't need a special event permit up to 499 people.

Correct.

So that doesn't necessarily significantly change that impact on that road and the accessibility to it.

So because this is a conditional use permit, you would have the option of adding a condition that it is their responsibility to maintain the length of the road to their property. And we've got some language that we've used before to county standards or emergency service standards, those types of things. So that is something you would have the ability to add to this ordinance.

I would also like to point out under D in the ordinance, the specific conditions, there are occupancy limits to this property of 216 persons.

So that's the maximum limit, though under, looking on page 21, it says each ceremony, talking about different ceremonies, et cetera, 10 to 125 guests, but then you're coming in and saying it's limited maximum to 16?

Just to clarify that, the maximum occupancy is for the building. They could have more people than that, they just can't have more than 216 people in the building at any given time. Thank you for the clarification.

I would be more comfortable amending the final ordinance to include that the maintenance of the road is the property owners because they are putting the wear and tear on it and amending the verbiage where it limits them to no more than 15. I don't know what's reasonable because I don't know what the property owner is looking at as far as events next year. But if you have 52, that's one a week. And that's probably not even feasible to be profitable as a business. So what's the limit there?

Yeah, I was looking at that number as well with 52 weekends and anything that might fall in between the week. I thought that was a little low on what you can expect in a business plan, and it's a beautiful building, if it takes off. Other homeowners use that road for access to their property? They have ingress and egress there, is that correct?

I believe so. If you'll come up, please.

Thank you. It might be paved, the portion that is for people that live on the street. I don't remember. I went out there a couple times, but to be honest with you, they're so spaced out, I don't remember what house was where on the street.

I'm sorry. So you're the applicant, correct? Yes. Do you own the property? No. OK. So do you operate the business side of this? No. They hired me to help them. OK. But you don't know what condition the road is in leading up to the property?

What do you mean condition?

You said part of it is paved for residents, but then part of it's not paved.

Yeah, whenever I visited the site, a portion of it was paved. I don't know where it stopped at, but I remember it being paved and then not being paved.

Okay, so we have a member of the audience raising her hand. It looks like she might have something to input.

That's, I'm sorry, you'll have to wait until we call for citizen comment, and then you can come up if you do not have a role within the project. Let's see.

Does staff have any clarification on the road, paved, not paved?

Public Works included a statement that says, access based on provided survey and GIS is off an unmaintained dirt road named Le La Grande Street. The ingress, egress, easement is only 30 feet. The county requires paved access that allows for two-way traffic. The easement width may need to be greater to achieve paved access while maintaining the stormwater drainage.

Thank you. And just looking at the aerial, it does appear that it is completely unpaved, but Seth is here so he can elaborate on that.

Yes, Seth, that would be very helpful. Thank you.

Seth Lynch, Public Works Department. The road is not a county road. It's more of like a driveway access to properties, and it's mostly dirt, maybe some gravel or something on it too, but it's not a paved road.

And it's not a county right-of-way?

Not a county right-of-way, not.

Not anything the county gets out there and does anything with?

Yeah, we don't touch it. It comes off of the county road that's paved.

So the apron onto it coming off the county road is paved?

There's like a little... A little bit of that, but yeah. Past that, it's... It's almost like a driveway apron. Yeah, it's not on a paved road. Okay. If the property touched the road, the county road, it would be more of just a driveway. This is used by several other people, but...

It's almost like a shared driveway or shared easement.

Shared easement. Shared easement.

OK.

So the other individuals that share that easement, have they weighed in on the possibility of the traffic on that one portion for the ingress, egress, and how that might impact the easement into their homes?

Staff has not received any opposition

And to add to that, that would be a civil issue. If this property owner is exceeding the scope of that private easement, then the other property owners that are benefited by that easement would have to go to civil court to resolve that.

Thank you. And just for the record as well, this parcel which is agriculturally exempt under the agritourism statute is allowed to host ceremonial events. they need the cup specifically to have a general assembly building. So even without the conditional use permit, they will still be able to host ceremonial events outside on their property.

Outside, just not in the barn?

That's correct.

Now the barn has been constructed, yes? The barn has been enclosed, yes. And it's been being used for the purpose without a conditional use permit? That is correct. It was permitted to be built this way without a conditional use permit?

That is correct.

Well, it was permitted, but... Meaning they went through the county, they got a building permit, they submitted a site plan, and they built this event venue.

They were allowed to enclose the existing agricultural structure, which was a pole barn, to my understanding.

So they got a permit to enclose their pole barn, and then... Did they get the occupancy standard for it through the fire department and code enforcement, the building department and all that, or did they just enclose a barn?

They enclosed the barn as an agricultural structure. They wouldn't need the fire sign-off. Now that the change of use is being requested to house the general public, that would come into play.

And that has or has not been done yet? Has the building been evaluated by the building department, fire department, code enforcement, all those folks for compliance with assembly uses?

So they have a permit for change of use, which actually the status of that permit is expired.

This is as a result of code enforcement action?

Yes. Through the

I know I had a hard time following the documents for all the code stuff that's in here and then the settlement agreement. I was having a hard time following that.

I would have to speak to our fire safety team to have a better understanding of whether or not they've been out to the structure to inspect it for their fire and life safety, making sure they have the right number of ingress, egress points, exit signs, all that good stuff so that it is actually compliant for use as a public assembly space.

Right. So again, their change of use permit is expired. and it does not appear that they have any other permits to convert the pole barn to a assembly structure. The only other permit I see from 25 on this property is a 30 by 40 metal shed on a concrete slab. Other than that, they have had, they had a 2020 permit for single family residence, 2020 permit for a pole barn, and 2020 permit for power to the property. So they have no other permits.

Okay. The post-CUP process would be the change of use. The change of use would then go through the building permitting process and fire would address any concerns.

That's when they would submit their plans for the building permits.

How long have they been using this building for events? I Am not sure how long it's been used for events I mean at least a year because we know they had a number of events there last year in 2025 so it's been being used for General assembly events for at least a year

So I came in in the middle of what she has going on. She got frustrated. I think she went through and did a permit and then they were, whoever she was discussing it with, were wanting her to change the use of the property to commercial and she got frustrated. I don't know exactly what happened. It was equally as confusing for me whenever I started working with her. So then I got in contact with the county, I had a meeting and then we came up with a conditional use permit and then that's where I come in and here we are.

So the current property owners purchased this property in 2020, so at the very least. And we know they did pull permits in 2020. Right, so 2020 was when they put in the home and the pole barn. So sometime after 2020, it would appear that they were using it for events and that's when they got cited by code enforcement for a commercial use on the property.

2022 is the date of the violation notice from Lake County.

I believe she enclosed the barn for her daughter-in-law's baby shower. So I would maybe say roughly two and a half years maybe. I believe.

Okay. So does anyone have any further questions for the applicant at this time?

No.

Okay. Let's go ahead and hear just from the public and then we'll come back. and you'll have another opportunity to speak after anyone from the public says whatever they need to say, we'll give you another opportunity to come up.

Okay, is that when I do the change of the event?

Yeah, we'll get to that after this. Does anyone from the public wish to speak on this item? If so, please come forward, state your name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.

Rhonda DeLitas, 40430 La Grande Street, Umatilla, Florida. I live on the street, and my biggest concern, while I love the venue and I think it's a great thing for the community, is the road access. The road is unmaintained. The road is unpaved. The road is essentially a one-way, and when there is traffic coming the other way, someone has to pull over to the side to make access. And thank you, Judith, for bringing up the... who would be responsible to maintain the road. That is a concern of mine. And I've only been a new neighbor for nine months. So that's all I have to say, thank you.

Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak on this matter at this time? Okay, seeing none, let's bring staff up. And does anyone have questions for staff or anything to resolve with staff before we hear from the applicant to discuss the number of events?

My question is, will it be required to expand that dirt road so that they do have two-car length so that we don't have the traffic jams?

I believe it was recommended by Public Works that additional land be donated to accommodate an expansion. However, there is a waiver.

requested to those that's part of this application correct they're asking for a waiver from those requirements so that it would stay as is and they wouldn't have to do those improvements and this property owner doesn't own land around majority of the road so they would not be able to donate their own property they'd have to get other neighbors to donate this is not a public road this is just a shared access dirt path okay any other questions for staff Seth, did you have anything to add on this item? Just making sure. All right. Let's go ahead and bring the applicant back up to discuss what seems to be the biggest point here, which is the number of events. So in the application language and then also in the ordinance, the ordinance limits you to 15 a year. The application said 10 to 15. So what is the more realistic number of events that you would be requesting?

45. Okay.

That's going to be less than one a week.

And then are there any in the event that the waiver is not granted or in the event that the number of events is not increased to 45, does this is this something they would still want to move forward with or would that be something they want to go back and rework?

Can you repeat that?

So if we decide that we do not recommend increasing the number of events to 45 or that we do not recommend the waiver, is the applicant still wanting to move forward with their application for conditional use permit if it remains limited to 15 events and the waiver for road improvement is not recommended, would they still want to move forward with this change of use or this conditional use?

I would have to discuss that with them because the road changes, what was initially brought to me was they would have to pave the road. So that's why we went with the waiver. So whatever the changes are, I would have to discuss that with them. I would assume yes, but I don't want to say yes and it be no. So I would have to discuss it with the owner. Okay. Okay.

Is there anything further for the applicant before we bring it back to the board? All right. Thank you so much. Okay. So are there any other questions for staff or for our attorney public works? Anybody like that? Okay. So at this time we would entertain a motion and then we can go into discussion. Would anyone care to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to not approve as it's written. My biggest concern is the road access.

Okay. So we have a motion against. Do we have a second?

I'm going to second that one.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. We will now move into discussion. So this one is tough. Let's begin here and then we'll work our way down.

This one is tough because I support small businesses in the community and I think this is a wonderful business and I think they're doing great things for the community. Unfortunately, I think they put the cart way before the horse and when I pulled up the pictures online and I saw that they had hosted the Umatilla High School prom, My brain went to, you know, if we approve this as it's written, we're the jerks if something happens to those kids, you know, a bay of hail catches on fire and emergency services can't get back. I know that's, I took it deep down, but that's where my head went. And I think that this road is a problem. I think the cart is way before the horse on this particular issue. They spent a lot of money on a project that I don't think that they can fulfill.

without pulling the waiver on the road. I don't think you can host 45 events on a single lane dirt road. So they would have to, that would have to get pulled in order to, I would love to see this venue. I have three daughters and boy, it would be nice to have them marry close. But as it stands, we couldn't get, you couldn't get unless the road is expanded. So I don't think the waiver and the increasing the number of events makes any sense. They don't jive. No.

Anything?

Just the echo of the sentiment that the road is very troubling. It says in the It says it's suggested that it should be paved. And so, again, then it would have to expand, be wider from the 30 feet that it is. That memo goes on further to say, you know, with stormwater management and so on, that's an issue as well. So if you've got cars trying to ingress, egress, even if you don't pave it, they're running into the, off of the easement into whatever's on either side of it. And if there's culverts there, I know that you said you had gone out to look at it. I haven't been out to look at the property. I just am troubled by it. I've been caught in a situation on a road like that when there was an emergency and emergency vehicles could not get in. or once they got in, trouble getting out. And I go to your exact statement. If something went south, and the property's beautiful, I love the pole barn, but if something went south, there's a greater issue of misfortune, so to speak. So I think the waiver is the hiccup on it.

Okay. I actually generally agree. I think if they want the waiver to the road, I think we have to limit the number of events. And I think we probably need to look at reducing the, well, I mean, the real issue is they could still have an assembly on the property with a special event. So I think if we're going to recommend approval for me, it's very difficult to get past the 15 events if we're going to waive the road condition. If we're not going to give the waiver to the road, then I'd be okay going up to 45 events because then the road would be in compliance, they would be making the improvements necessary to facilitate this being a very steadily functioning business operation on this private access road. So I'm kind of of the, it's one or the other. If you're not gonna do the road improvements and you want that waiver, then this is truly an accessory use. It's not a permanent use, it's not a primary function of the property, and it should be limited to 15 per year. If you are gonna do the road improvements, then by all means, let's increase that. So that's kind of where I'm at in it. So I don't know if that, I think that kind of covers some of the things that have been said, but it still would allow them to have events there, but it would be very limited so as not to damage the roadway excessively and create additional problems.

So, I'm sorry, would we then have to take a look at size? Because it was brought up, the 500, and you brought up, well, then 499 comes in under that. So you limit it to 15 events. One of those events is... 499 people you've still even if you approve the waiver on the road you've got an event where you've got 499 people traversing that part of the road to get to the event center but they can do those anyways under their agritourism function they don't need this conditional use permit thank you thanks for the clarity 99 person

square dancing event on the lawn. They could do that. This would be limited to the structure, correct?

So keep in mind under the agritourism statute, they can use it for ceremonial type uses. However, the county still has the right to regulate offsite impacts. And because the majority of this road is not on their property, and or the noise may exceed what neighbors would like to hear every night or multiple times a week, the county can still regulate it. So they could withdraw their CUP, they could operate under agritourism, but if we continue to have stacking on the road, we have noise complaints, then the county's option is to seek an injunction to make them stop because we can regulate those. So people get really caught up in the agritourism and I can do whatever I want on my property if I have an agricultural, Classification, but you can't impact your neighbors and I'm not sure I'm assuming this was probably a neighbor generated complaint because code enforcement typically is Complaint driven not I just drive by and hey, what are they doing out there?

So obviously somebody is has not been happy with what's been going on in this property in order to generate the complaint And just for clarification the fire department and the building department would both have to sign off on this structure to make sure that the structure itself is acceptable but then do they look at the like with the fire marshal then be looking or the fire inspector and plans reviewer then also be looking at the access to the property to say wait a minute this is not appropriate for an assembly structure because we can't get a fire truck down that road

I believe that they would, yes. And the agritourism statute also does make it very clear that any building that the public is going to be using is subject to building permits. So if they were to still have an event for 499 people and this is not approved, all 499 people would have to stay outside of that building because it does not have a CO as an assembly building.

So if we were to vote on it as written, limited to the 15... events with the waiver on the road, but then they were to go through and they rework their CUP, you know, okay, yes, we'll take on the maintenance of the road and the expansion and everything that goes along with it, and we want to increase the number of events. That's two separate things. We can vote on it as stands, but then have them go back and rework, you know, Because as written with 15 events, as long as the fire department signed off on the single rope, and that's a little over a month, I don't know how much that would negatively affect the neighbors. I mean, I've never been out there for an event, so I don't know.

So I think the question is probably more to the applicant's representative. If you vote today to deny this, it moves forward to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. If the Board of County Commissioners denies it, this property owner cannot seek another approval for a minimum of one year and must substantially change the application. It's a race judicata provision in our LDR. the applicant or the representative has the ability to request that the board withdraw its motion and postpone this to go back and talk to the property owner and come back next month if there are changes that the property owner's willing to make, maybe the property owner's willing to maintain the road. So because the property owner's not here, it's a difficult position for this board and for you because you need to communicate with them before it goes forward with what sounds like is gonna be a denial.

So when I submitted this, the fire department had . Were there notes from the fire department on this?

I don't remember seeing any. So it's .

So for now, I think it would be best to withdraw and then speak with the landowners.

Okay, so what we could do then is we would withdraw our motion and that would allow you to postpone this to a future?

Yeah, if you withdraw the motion and the second withdraws, then my recommendation would be a motion to table it until next month's meeting.

Would next month be enough time or do we need to table further out than next month?

No, next month would be fine, but I do have some clarification on the roads. So would you require them to do what the original requirements were, or is this something like they would have to just expand the dirt?

I would strongly suggest that in this month you contact the fire department about what they are going to require of that road when they come out to inspect the building, because they're going to be looking at it from that perspective. And that you talk to our public works department about what would be required for that road to be brought up to a minimum standard for public use. The planning staff can help you with that and get you in contact with them so that you can communicate with them directly. But I think your best bet is to look into this situation with the road and figure out what you can do to make sure that the road is going to serve safely for this purpose. I think the largest concern amongst this board is that roadway in the event of an emergency while you're having an event. If there are cars stacked down that road, parked on the road, if the road is inadequate or substandard, if a fire truck can even maneuver back there. All of those are questions for us because you're going to have events inside a building and there are a whole host of things that could occur that would require emergency services coming to the property. So I think that's our biggest concern is fire and life safety standards and them being able to get in and out. I think that's probably your first step when you leave here, understanding everything that you heard from the board, which is our biggest concern is access so that emergency services can get in there in the event of an emergency. Hopefully that never happens, but in the event that it does, that they can get in there and that they can access the property.

Well, also to that point, the way I'm understanding the waiver, it's basically irrelevant, because they're just waiving, they're looking to waive the requirement to pave the road, but not to make the road any wider.

I thought they were looking to waive the entire requirement. It's both. It's bringing it up to standard is what they're asking.

I don't think it specifies one thing or the other. It's the entire thing.

Yeah, it'd be paving, widening, stormwater, all that to bring it up to county standard. But it's not a county road. It's a private road. So what would be the minimum that would be an acceptable standard to bring it up to for it to still function for these other purposes? That's where I think if you can work with county staff they can help you get there so that then we have a more comprehensive picture of exactly how those issues are being addressed in your application. Does that make sense? Yes.

And as a suggestion, I'm not giving you legal advice, but the property owner may want to look at the easement and have a private attorney look at it to make sure they're not exceeding the scope of the easement because you could go through this entire process and end up with an approval and spend a lot of money on this property and that road and then somebody challenges and wins that you can't have a commercial business off that easement. So they need to talk to a private attorney. Just a recommendation. They may want to look at how far they can use that easement.

I think that's probably a good idea. It's a little bit more research by the property owner to do their due diligence on what their rights are to use that. I fully agree. So I think if y'all can spend the next few weeks leading up to notice of our next meeting doing that, then that would have a lot more information for us so we can make a more informed decision.

And I'm not sure next month is going to give them enough time, to be honest with you. I think we should postpone it a couple more months.

Melanie, can we postpone date certain to March to give them more time? Since this has already been advertised, we don't have to read it.

You can do that. It would be March 4th. The other option, again, the applicant, if the applicant wants to do it this way, you could table it until the applicant requests to bring it back and then it would just be re-advertised. So either you can table it to a date certain or the applicant can utilize the ability to just bring it back when they're ready.

Do you have to re-advertise either way?

Date certain, no. But if we don't set a date today, then yes, it would have to be re-advertised.

I'm just trying to save advertising costs. But I don't remember in the county if the applicant reimburses advert, yeah. So you guys pay for your advertising costs. So tabling to a date certain saves you a little bit of money.

So why do you think that wouldn't be enough time? It would be.

If you need to talk to a lawyer and they need to do research and investigate this easement, that's going to take them time and you may not get a quick response on it. It may be something that who knows how deep they have to research this stuff. If we table it to a date certain you come back in February and we still don't have any information, we're more likely to just deny it then because we can't go forward.

Well, the easement issue isn't an issue for this board. No, correct. So that's really their responsibility. If they choose not to do it, then that's fine. I guess the question is whether or not they would have the information from Public Works and Fire and the property owner has made a decision to come back. And again, you're welcome to come back in February if that's what you choose to do. Yeah.

So if I... Otherwise we would just need to re-advertise it and that would just be an additional advertising cost for you all to carry.

If I set it for February and I feel like I might need to move it to March, can I put in an application or a request to move it to March or I have to stick to February?

So if they set it for February 4th as a date certain, you would have to appear here and request an additional extension and at that point we would probably advertise it again.

Okay, let's go ahead and set it for February.

Okay, so the applicant has requested that we postpone and table this item to a future date. We already have a motion and a second. Is the second willing to withdraw their motion? Is this the proper process for them withdrawing? I'm just making sure I'm following steps with the second. I withdraw my second.

I withdraw my motion. Okay. I'll enter a new motion now that we table this and bring it back at our February meeting to discuss once again, hopefully giving the applicant and the owners the opportunity to flesh out everything they need to do to make it a little bit more palatable to this board.

Okay. I have a motion. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Oh, I have two. Okay. And to clarify for the record, that would be February 4th. Thank you.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to table to February 4th to give the applicant more time to resolve outstanding issues. Real quick question.

As they're operating, are they doing so out of compliance?

Yes. I mean, there is a special master order that required them to get permits within 180 days. They're already outside of that as well because that was in June.

So they shouldn't be operating?

They should not be operating, no.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

I just want to dovetail on that if I could ask.

Hold on, wait just a second. We're crisscrossing each other. Okay. The issue of them doing any operation outside of the special magistrate order is for code enforcement to resolve and deal with. That is not a topic for the Planning and Zoning Board to resolve. Correct. That's step one. Step two, yes, staff.

I have one more question. Will improvement of the easement require multiple power approval?

What's multiple power? Property owners that are adjoining.

It depends on the easement, the way it's worded and who has rights under it. That's a private question, not a county question.

Okay. Yes, ma'am. It's probably out of order, but my question was to the applicant. Are there already events booked

It doesn't matter. That's for code enforcement to resolve. Yep. Code enforcement will deal with that and the whole operational thing. I assume code enforcement is aware of this situation and has already put them on notice that they should be ceasing all operations. If they are in violation of that, then code enforcement will deal with that issue under their purview. Okay. So we have a motion and a second to table to the February 4th meeting so that the applicant has adequate time to resolve the outstanding issues to be brought back in front of this board. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Moving on to tab two. Okay. And we are going to hear from Leslie. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning.

For the record, Leslie Regan, Senior Planner with the Office of Planning and Zoning. I will be presenting tab two, case number PZ202518, otherwise known as the Schofield PUD Rezone. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from agricultural to planned unit development district to facilitate a residential subdivision containing 78 single family lots and to add a new lot type to amend and restate the current Schofield PUD. The subject property is located south of Schofield Road and west of Cook Road in unincorporated Claremont area and contains approximately 47.71 acres. Again, the proposal from the applicant is to add this subject property to the current approved Schofield planned unit development. The subject property is currently designated with the neighborhood future land use category and is zoned agricultural. The concept plan depicts 78 residential lots, two areas of open space, and a stormwater area. I'd just like to point out that the area that we're looking at is the little area to the side. As you can see, it is surrounded on three sides by the current approved Schofield PUD. All we are looking at is that smaller area, and the arrow shows where the additional site area would be for development. So the two major things that the applicant is requesting to change in the current Schofield PUD would be, of course, to add the new lots, the new 78 lots. Also, they would be asking to add a new lot type with a minimum size of 50 by 70. The typical in the current PUD is 50 by 120, so the length would be much shorter. The impervious surface ratio, the open space, the density will all remain the same that is in the current approved PUD. By adding the new acreage, the non-residential acreage requirement in the PUD will raise to $344,000 approximately from the $326,000 that's already approved. Water and wastewater services will be provided by Sunshine Utilities and staff does find this consistent with the current LDRs and comprehensive plan. And I'll stand for any questions. The applicant is also here to answer any questions you may have.

Okay. Does anyone have questions for staff before we hear from the applicant? I have one question. Sure. is this within the wellness way sector plan area this is inside wellness way and specifically the neighborhood uh future land use okay and so these 47 acres previously they were not part i'm i'm a little confused on were they not part of the wellness way plan or were they just not part of this pud um

Neither, either. So there's a little mismatching with the future land use and the agricultural zoning. So in order to be developed, those have to match. So currently the future land use allows the 3.6 dwelling units per acre, which is what they're asking for here. The agricultural zoning, of course, has a little bit different density with one per five. So the applicant, the zoning would have to be consistent with that future land use in order to develop. That's what the applicant is suggesting to do here.

And that's what's happening in all of those properties that are within Wellness Way, correct? That have that mismatched, yes. The ones that are not yet designed, they're all sitting with that neighborhood land use that allows 3.61, but most of them are sitting with ag zoning because they don't have a development plan.

If that is their future land use, yes, ma'am.

Okay, I'm just making sure I'm following the hierarchy out here because it's a little unique. So this particular 47 acres... was not included in the original PUD and they're bringing it into this PUD. What is the PUD total size? Is that all of Wellness Ways? No, ma'am. This is just their particular PUD? Yes, ma'am. Not all of Wellness Ways. Just making sure I follow.

The current PUD allows for around 1,488 residential units and then they're asking to add the 78, bringing it up to about 1,566.

but these units were all already contemplated because of the density allowed under the future land use, correct? Yes, ma'am. I'm just making sure we're not exceeding our Wellness Way sector plan density numbers.

No, they are remaining within the 3.6 dwelling units per acre. They're not asking to change any of that. They are meeting all of the Wellness Way as well as the school-filled PUD regulations.

Okay. Does anyone else have questions for staff?

I have a question and it's about the floodplain. This is being built around a lake and it looks like it's pretty much in the 100-year floodplain. Am I misreading that? Am I misreading that map?

So the only, yeah, the only site area, as you can see in what's on the screen right now, The only site area is that area that the blue arrow is pointing to. They will still have to follow and maintain all of the setback regulations from wetlands, and that'll happen more likely at preliminary plat. As you can see, they don't have a layout of the lots yet at this stage, that would happen at preliminary plat. They still would be required to follow all of those regulations for setbacks from wetlands and jurisdictional water lines.

So they'll still need to buffer against that lake? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Any other questions for staff before we hear from the applicant?

I just want to make sure, the map is confusing, so I'm trying to. It is, because there's an existing PD in play. Yes, so really, the only thing that we're looking at, if I'm looking at the outlined area, is the southernmost part of this lot, the southeastern part, am I reading that correctly?

No, ma'am, so if you are looking at the smaller picture on the side, And just that outlined area is the subject parcel.

Correct, and that's the subject parcel that we're referring to today. So that bottom portion is the only part that is going to be part of the neighboring. This rezoning, yes.

Everything surrounding it is, and I'm sorry for the concept plan, I just wanted to try to show that it's almost completely surrounded currently by the current school field PUD. The only, of course to the east there's another parcel that is not part of the Schofield PUD, but where the arrow is pointing is only the site area that they will be building on within that subject parcel. Perfect, thank you.

And the 4.02 acre open space little island up there on Island Lake, that's not included in what's being resolved, correct? It is not, no. Just making sure. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Um, if the applicant is present and would like to come up to make any statements, presentations, or offer any information on the project before we hear from the public.

Hi, good morning. Elisa Sal was shuts and bow and 300 South orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida, 3, 2, 8 0 1. We're here to answer any questions. I did just want to clarify that this is part of the Wellness Way area plan, as Leslie had mentioned. It is not currently part of the Schofield PUD because it is zoned ag. But per the Wellness Way area plan, you are required to rezone as a PUD. So we're bringing it into the existing Schofield PUD. We've been working with county staff on this overall project for quite some time. This small little piece was contemplated to be brought in. Over the course of time, we just had to work with the seller in terms of timing. So I wanted to clarify that. And with respect to floodplain, there are no wetland impacts on this little small piece, and we will still have to maintain the 50-foot wetland buffer. And most of this parcel is simply open space in the lake.

Thank you. Any questions for the applicant before we hear from the public? Okay. Thank you. All right. I have a speaker card for Laura Parker. Could you just state your name and address for the record, please?

I'm Laura Parker, 307 Country Lake Circle in Groveland, Florida. I just wanted to speak as a resident of Lake County. I drive on Schofield Road twice a day, just about every day, to commute to and from work. The development that is happening in the area is a lot, and I understand that the Wellness Way plan has been enacted for approximately 10 years now, I believe. When I drive it, though, I notice that there are still currently multiple developments in THE WORKS HERE THAT ARE NOT YET AT FULL FRUITION. THERE'S AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, MULTIPLE HOUSING UNITS WORKING ON AS WELL. ALREADY WE'RE SEEING TRAFFIC INCREASES. THERE'S ALSO BEEN A LOT OF INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF WILDLIFE THAT IS BEING INJURED OR KILLED ON THE ROADWAY, SPECIFICALLY THREATENED SPECIES. EVERY TIME NEW CONSTRUCTION STARTS THE WILDLIFE DEATHS INCREASE ON THIS ROAD. Additionally, it's just, quite frankly, it's hard as a Lake County resident to see. I've lived in Florida about 10 years now. I came originally from Texas, lived up north for a bit, and then I just really missed the south. And I noticed on the Lake County, Florida sign, we say real Florida, real close, and I just have a hard time seeing that all these houses that are currently in the way as being part of Real Florida, especially when it's surrounded by, yes, I understand the PUD that is in place that this would kind of be expanding on it. I just don't think I particularly see the need to expand on something when we already have multiple lots in the works that are not yet We're really seeing the full impact of that. Lake Louisa State Park is nearby as are Southern Hill Farms, which are really staples of our community. And to see the impact that these developments are having, it just doesn't feel like something that is particularly beneficial to Lake County residents. As of, I believe, 2023, the county income was roughly $35,000 per individual was the average. The houses in this area are selling for closer to half a million dollars. That is just not something that we're seeing. Lake County residents, at least I'm not seeing many of my neighbors and coworkers and colleagues being able to afford any time soon. And that's basically why I came today was I know that I'm very fortunate to have a Wednesday off of work. That is not the case for everybody that I know who would be here if they could. Yeah, I mean, we see the impact of this on our roadways. The traffic congestion has been intense, especially in Claremont, Florida, and getting to and from work or just going to the grocery store, it's taking a lot more time. It's a lot harder. And I feel that bringing in an additional 80 or so houses is just not necessary at this time.

Thank you. And also, if you do have neighbors who cannot be present because they have work or something like that, they can email comments to the planning department staff, and they will include those in our packet. or they'll send them out to us via email if the packet's already gone out. Since this item would be going forward to the February 3rd Board of County Commissioners meeting, which is at nine o'clock in the morning, The same would be true there. So if you have neighbors, colleagues, friends who do want to submit comments, they still have an opportunity to do that before the BCC meeting occurs. Fantastic.

Do you know what that email address is?

If you get with Janie or with Leslie, they'll get it for you. Thank you.

May I, just for a moment? I've spent the last two decades in real estate, and the affordability issue is a major concern. In order to address affordability, we have to build houses. And if we don't build that house, you won't ever be able to afford to buy a house. And I know it feels icky when you're driving through and you see house and rooftops left and right. But if we were to stop building today, you would never be able to buy a house. So there's a balance between... looking at our environment thinking we need to build the most beautiful developments that we possibly can that respects the land that's there, the nature that's there. And that's why we respect the wetlands. We make sure that we still kind of contain that ecosystem that is really, really important to our environment. So there's a balance there. And I appreciate you being involved in your community and coming here. I think it's really, really important that you bring your voice to this table and speak up. So thank you for coming today.

Can I ask towards that? In doing some research for this, I saw that Florida is, depending on what survey you're looking at, anywhere from number one to number five in vacant homes in the United States. Is that something that we're...

Hold on, Jess, just a second. We're drifting off topic. We do have a housing advisory, an affordable housing advisory committee within Lake County. If that's something that you're interested in getting more information from, I strongly recommend that you look at their information that they have available on the county's website. They also convene and meet regularly to look at affordable housing conditions within the county. But I would really suggest that you look there for that type of information. But really, our purview is dealing with land development regulations, comprehensive plan consistency, and conditional uses, variances, stuff like that. But it's kind of outside of our purview to then look at those other topics. Thank you so much for your time today. Thank you. Okay, does anyone else from the public wish to speak on this matter before we hear from the applicant? Seeing none, would the applicant like to add anything? Okay, does anyone have any additional comments or questions for the applicant before we go back for staff? Okay. Does anyone have any questions for staff, public works, any of those fun folks before we move into a motion? Okie dokie. I would now entertain a motion on tab two. Move to approve. We have a motion, is there a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on this topic before we move to a vote? Anyone? Okay. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed, same sign. Motion carries unanimously. And we will now move on to our final item, which is the schedule of meetings, which is under our other business items. So that's just a correction that our April meeting will actually be April 1st, not April 8th. Is that correct, Janie?

That is correct. Thank you.

I want to make sure there wasn't an April Fool's Day joke when you emailed it out before. I was like, wait a minute. You're going to get me here on April 1st and be the only one there. Okay. So we're going to be moving our April 8th meeting date to April 1st. Is there any issue with that? Everybody good? Feel consensus-y? We don't need to vote on that, correct? Or do we need to vote to accept the schedule? Okay. Can I get a motion?

Moved.

Second, anyone?

Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries. All right, and that is the remaining item on our agenda, and we are complete for the day. Thank you. Thank you. We're adjourned. Thank you.