Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Board of Lake County of 04/02/2025. We'll go ahead and start off the meeting if you are willing and able to stand for the

which it stands, one nation under the law, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you very much. We'll have a quick moment of silence. Okay. Thank you very much. So again good morning the lake county planning and zoning board is an advisory board of the board of county commissioners.

This board is responsible for reviewing proposed changes to the comprehensive plan zoning conditional uses mining site plans and making recommendations on all these applications to the board of county commissioners. So the recommendations that we make today are transmitted to the BCC for consideration at their meeting on 05/06/2025 at 10AM here in this room. So with that being said, do we have any changes on the agenda before we get started?

Good morning. For the record, Jeannie Barone, planning manager with the office of planning and zoning. I'll be presenting to you the rezoning agenda this morning. It's comprised of three cases. At this time, I would like to enter into the record that all the cases have been duly noticed and advertised in accordance with state statute. For tab number one, you should have a memo with a revised ordinance that includes a transportation condition. The case will remain on the consent agenda if there are no speaker cards or any oppositions to the request today. For tab two, there's a memo containing opposition correspondence that has been provided to you as well. And as a result, the case will need to be moved to the regular agenda and staff is ready to do a full presentation.

Okay. We do have speaker cards for all three tabs. So we will pull all three of them and hear them all in order. But before we get started on that, we need to approve the minutes from 03/05/2025. Has everybody had a chance to review the Motion carries unanimously.

So the next item on the agenda is the citizens question and comment period. So if there's anybody here to speak on any non agenda item, now's your chance to come up and talk. Otherwise, if you're forced, one of the three tabs, we'll call you up when that when that comes. So seeing nobody coming up, we'll close the public portion of that, and we'll move on to our what used to be our consent agenda is now our regular agenda. We'll go ahead and start right out the gate with the first case.

Thank you. Tab one will be presented by Sherry Holt, Planner two.

Thank you. Good

morning. For the record, Sherry Holt, Planner two at the Office of Planning and Zoning. I will be presenting tab number one, case number PZ2024Dash057, otherwise known as Calvary Chapel. The applicant is requesting to rezone subject property is currently designated with a rural future rural future land use category and zoned agriculture. And again, the proposed zoning is community facility district.

Staff finds that the request is consistent with the land development regulations and the comprehensive plan. That concludes my presentation. The applicant is available for questions.

Okay. Thank you, Sherry. Questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to make a presentation?

Morning. Morning, sir. Thank you for this opportunity for us to, present our feelings and thoughts. We're looking forward to the approval of this, this passage. Our plans are currently to open the facility up for the community for outreach programs, for bible studies, and church meetings, and such.

And that's why we're not looking at the whole 13 acres, just this smaller portion of it. And currently, we're meeting there. We did a lot of lot of restructuring and finishing up and cleaning up of the property and the house itself. And it's in a great location and it's the highest peak there. It's it's it's we're looking forward to being involved with the community more. As you all know, that's that's a great growth area right now. There's a lot of construction, a lot of houses and apartments being built up. So we look forward for our church to be open to community, have community outreach, and be able to present the gospel message to the neighbors.

Thank you. Okay.

Can you

please state your name and address?

Edward Tracy. Okay. I live in The Villages, 2452 Upton Street. Okay.

Thank you, sir.

You need phone number?

Yes, sir. Okay. No credit card numbers, nothing like that.

Oh,

good. Thanks. I don't have one.

Alright. Is there any questions for the applicant? No? Okay. You and you will have a chance to come back and and respond to the public if you wish to do so.

Thank you.

Okay. So we have, it looks like, three speakers. And just to remind everybody, if you want to speak, there are speaker cards in the back. If you haven't already filled one out, please do so. We will call up the speakers. You'll have three minutes to speak. And you'll hear a little buzzer when the when the time's up. And at that point, I'll ask you to wrap it up. The first speaker is Steven Penny.

Good morning. My is Steven Penny. I live at 3380 Wise Way in The Villages, is in the city of Fruitland Park. I was looking on the I am in favor of the rezoning. I am a member of the congregation that attends Calvary Chapel villages.

I was going through the census and the population of Fruitland Park in between 2020 and 2023 grew by 10%, which put the population at about 8,500 people. With the proposed construction and the construction that's going on in Fruitland Park between four sixty six and 466A is going to be an increase of 4,100 units, bringing in and almost doubling the population of Fruitland Park. With this in mind, I feel that the addition of a religious organization, Capri Cavalry Chapel, our proposed continued outreach for community and the services that we could help provide would be an asset for our area.

Thank you, sir. Next is mister Sean Duffy. Morning. Morning, sir.

My name is Sean Duffy. I own 220 Lake Ella Road, 204 Lake Ella Road, and the Village Hills Estate subdivision, all of which are adjacent to the property that's in question. The applicant has not been forthcoming whatsoever. What they have done is they seized a 13 acre par parcel on a residential cost basis. This type of organization should be more on a commercial strip.

If you look at their application, they're planning to rezone and have a master plan for the property to expand it. Already right now, we're in crisis with traffic. I'm I'm unable to pull out of my driveway. When they have their classes, it's not classes, it's mass, and there's 40 cars trying to get into a single car driveway that's 12 foot wide. They don't have fire exits.

They've remodeled the house. They've taken out the the bedrooms without any permits. There's no fire extinguishers maximum in occupancy. They have re upsized the air conditioner to accommodate a larger group of people. And this is a single family home, and they've done this without any permits except for the air conditioner.

There's been 40 cars parked on their front lawn. It it's unrealistic to add that concentration more in an area which we've just added the Hammock Oaks subdivision. Do they want to come out on Lake Ella Road also. It's two large entrances at the crest of the hill. If you're just looking at danger.

The roads can't handle the traffic, and the the applicant has not been forthcoming whatsoever as being receiving the community because I went over and introduced myself when they bought the property. And they promised me that it was gonna be for administrative offices. Then it grew into a sandwich board on the street advertising church services. Then became a sandwich board and orange cones putting out on the street so they could come in and come out. The street's not made for this.

I I would very much ask the council to reject this application. This size church and it's not a congregation. This is a corporation. They have churches in Boca Boynton Beach, Boca Raton, North Lauderdale, Fort Lauderdale, two in Fort Lauderdale, and Coconut Creek. What they do is they take residential property and they seize it, rezone it, and then build a megachurch. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. Okay. Miss Cindy Newton.

Oh, can I address that quickly?

Oh, absolutely.

I just wanted to address that on page three of your staff report, the application was provided to transportation. And they provided a review of that. And the application was approved as a project as de minimis. I did want to clarify that any current structures on the property or proposed structures will have to go through the development process and be permitted at that time. Okay. Okay?

Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, Cindy.

Good morning, Cindy Newton, district four. Excuse me. I think some of my questions have been answered. When I first read through this, I thought it was just a house being changed over to a church for basic, you know, home office meetings and some prayer, things like that. But then I noticed that in the future, they're gonna build a church building, and it wasn't clear whether that was gonna be on this property.

So that's concerned me with the change of zoning because you're going from ag, which is one dwelling unit per per five acres, to a maximum far of one. And the far under ag is only 10 point 10. So we're looking at a huge change from ISR, maximum ISR is 10, future land use ISR is 20%. This will go up to 80%. So, not only are we losing agricultural land, we're losing recharge in an area that is starting to get more dense development.

So, it also would have changed the height requirement for 40 to 50. So, I'm in opposition to this change. Thank you.

Thank you, Cindy. That was the last speaker card I have. Is anybody else in the audience that just has not filled out their card or brought it up here? Okay. Seeing none, we're gonna close the public hearing. We'll bring it back to the applicant if they would like to address any of the comments they've heard.

Thank you for the opportunity to redress. Some of the comments that were made as far as what we're currently using this property for, I think they've been misinformed. We never had cones out in the street. We never had a placard. We never hold church service. The most people we've had there were maybe forty, forty five because the facility is only a 3,000 square foot house. The only modification that we did to the house other than putting in fire exit signs, which we are directed to, is we painted and cleaned and trimmed the property and everything else so it's more presentable. We mow the lawn all the time. We see a number let the grass grow. So the property presents itself very well.

Our current plans are to continue using it just as we are today where we have our meetings. We have our women's ministry, men's ministry. We have our office meetings because currently we're meeting holding service in a Jewish temple. And we all have the opportunity to do fellowship there or to have meetings there. We just can have our service, and then we have to leave. So the house will never the house itself will never be a church. It's a meeting place. We hope that down the road, we can open it up to the community for outreach programs. But again, we would we would comply to the current future limitations of occupancy and everything else. And we look at continually improving the structure.

So thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Any any questions for the applicant?

I I actually have a quick question. The if there were fire exit signs put in, did the the fire department set a capacity or an occupancy standard for the structure that says how many people can be in it at a given time?

I'm not sure if that was addressed at the time. All I know is the gentleman that was maintaining the house for the church, was instructed to put, fire exits in there because, that's all I know about that.

Okay.

Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, sir. Any questions for staff?

I have questions for staff.

Okay.

So the I just want to make sure I understand. The property's already being used for this purpose? That's correct. Okay. So they're already doing all these things that we'd be rezoning to allow them to do, correct? I believe so. Do they have any type of authorization to be operating these? No. Not that I'm

aware of. No. That's the purpose of the rezoning.

Okay. I'm actually a bit concerned about safety issues. If the property is already being used for this purpose, if there were an emergency or something like that, how many people are they to have in that structure? I mean, I understand what they're asking for, but I'm just a little concerned about life safety converting a single family residential structure to a commercial structure if that conversion hasn't been officially conducted, and they're just using the building without actually converting all of the functions of the building over before using it?

Correct. Well, upon approval by the BCC, it would have to go through that development process. So it would be reviewed by the building department, fire safety, and so forth. So it would have to

come into compliance for the use. So when does that process begin? Because they're already doing all those things right now. I'm not sure

if they're utilizing all of these uses now. I really don't know. I haven't completed a site visit on this project. But I do believe that they were using it for some of their administrative processes. So that would be a code compliance issue. However, all that would be addressed in the development process upon approval by the BCC.

So for purposes of your question, once they get the zoning, if they get the zoning, then they have to go through what we call the change of use process, and then they will be completely evaluated by building and fire and all of those other departments, and they will have to bring it into compliance at that point. If they do not get the zoning, then theoretically they're going to cease this use, and it would go back to a residential use.

So shouldn't they be ceasing the use right now? Because they don't have any authorization to be using the property as anything other than a residential structure.

That's up to them. Mean, short of us going and getting an injunction, which we typically don't do, there's people all over the county that use property for what they shouldn't use it for. I mean, theoretically, yes, they should not use it until they get the zoning. But I don't know why they're here. I don't know if they were cited by code enforcement. I don't know if they came forward voluntarily realizing they didn't have the right zoning. If they were cited by code enforcement and they don't get the zoning, it will move through the code enforcement process.

Okay.

And that was going to be my question, if there was any code enforcement complaints as well.

Just to follow-up, they did apply because they wanted to use it for this use. They were not cited by code compliance.

But to

be clear, their current use is a code enforcement issue at this point. That's all it comes down to.

That's my concern. If they've got 40 people in this house, that's a life safety issue.

But that's a code enforcement issue.

And it needs to be commercially sprinkled, all that stuff before they're doing stuff in this building.

That's not really what we're here for.

It's not what we're here for, but I'm just being clear. There should not be this use going on there at the moment. And it sounds to me like it is definitely going on there. And even the applicant just stated they've had 45 people there. That's a lot of people in a 3,000 square foot home.

Respectfully, under RLUPA, the Religious Freedom Act that we have federally and in the state, you have to be really careful about telling them they cannot use it because if it was a single family home and you wanted to have a birthday party and you have 45 people there, we're not going to tell you that you have to bring your house up to commercial uses. So they voluntarily come in. If they get this rezoning, they will go through that process and then they will have to meet whatever fire codes and building codes would apply to that particular use. But I don't that we can tell them you cannot use this to have 45 of your best friends come over and visit you at this property regardless of what they're doing, birthday parties, social, whatever. So we have to be very careful about that.

And again, that is not an issue for this board.

Okay. I did want to

make one clarification about the impervious surface ratio. It is not 80%. It would be 35% maximum for the civic use that they're proposing.

And we heard that there's a proposal to build more on this site in the future. Is that I don't that's not in my packet or noted anywhere.

I'm not aware of any future development. I just have the concept plan about what is currently existing. Any proposed development would need to go through that development process. So if they would like to add additional structures, it would all have to go through the development process.

Okay. And the ordinance you gave us puts the new stipulations in place that they have to put in a commercial driveway?

Correct. Correct. That's addressed in Section one g.

Any other questions for staff? No? Okay. Thank you. With that, we'll bring it back up to the board for any discussion or in motion.

I move to approve.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Okay. Hearing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Okay. Next item on the agenda is tab two, the TSL Lake Estates.

It looks like Sherry, you presenting this one as well? Alright.

Good morning. For the record, again, Sherry Holt, Planner two at the Office of Planning and Zoning. I will be presenting tab number two. Case number PZ2024Dash08 otherwise known as TSL Lake Estates. The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 6.24 acres from agriculture and community commercial district to rural residential facilitate the creation of three parcels through the preliminary plat process.

The subject property is located North Of Fletcher Road and East Of State Road 19 in Umatilla. The subject property is currently designated with an urban low density future land use category, and again, it's zoned agriculture and community commercial district. Staff does find that the rezoning request is consistent with the land development regulations and the comprehensive plan. That concludes my presentation. I believe the applicant was out of town, and they sent a representative. So they're available for questions. He's also provided a rebuttal response in your memo packet.

Okay. Any questions for staff?

I have a quick question. How is this property accessed? It doesn't attach to a right of way. They did do a corrective deed easement, and they do have access to State Road 19. Is it through another parcel?

It accesses through the parcel to the north, the easement, and then through to State Road 19 over the old railroad right away there. Okay.

Okay. Anything else? All right. The applicant, would they like to make a presentation or the applicant's representative?

What she had earlier a map.

Are you. Yeah you're to put it on the screen is that.

Okay. My name is Robert Williams. I live on 18115 Tuckaway Lane, Umatilla, which my property is adjacent to this being discussed. I am in favor. Tommy Locke is my brother-in-law, my my wife's brother.

So he asked me to read a letter for him. So let me begin by expressing my sincere respect for mister and miss Boggess who have been valued members of the Umatilla community for more than twenty seven years. Long standing residents like them and like my sister Patty and brother-in-law Robert who have owned land and operated a business in Umatilla for decades, are the foundation of what makes this town special. Their commitment to preserving the rural character of North Lake County is admirable and closely aligned with the values I was raised with right here in Umatilla. Today, as adults, our sons and daughters, along with our nieces and nephews, represent the future of this community.

We hope to offer them the same connection to the land and values and help shape our own lives. This request is, in fact, a lot split, a family lot split solely for our family. We will sell the middle parcel to my niece, Jackie, and her husband, Cody Kennan. We're excited to build a home and raise their family in Umatilla. The Western parcel will reserve the future use by another family member, and the Eastern will be held by my wife Susan and me, eventually build over our forever home.

That we will will not return immediately as our youngest daughter is still completing high school in California. This is not a development project. It's a continuation of our family's deep relationship with the place that shaped us. It is an opportunity to give the next generation, our own niece and nephew, a chance to raise their children on land that held meeting to our family for generations. As noted in this staff report, the two lot creation is considered a minimal impact that has been assessed and not adversely affect public services or infrastructure.

Our family is fully committed to following all regulations when building on each parcel. I sincerely thank the board for your time, transparency, and commitment to a fair process. This reflect this request reflects a desire to invest in the next generation, preserve a meaningful connection to the land, reinforce the values that make this community so special. Thank you for your consideration.

My

property is this piece here.

This

is my property here. This is what's being asked to be rezoned. Down by this portion by the lake would be for Tommy, the middle one for my daughter Jackie, and the one on the East for her future family. Lot next to me off at Tuckaway Lane is a cousin of Tommy and Patty's. So that would be all family family right right there. There.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Did anybody have any questions for Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams, and you are representing the applicants today? Yes. Okay. I saw you had you had a speaker card as well, so I'm assuming that's what that was about. Okay. Alright. Thank you, sir. We'll go ahead and open it at the public hearing, and then we'll call you back for any rebuttal if you would like. The first speaker is Robert Bogus?

Bogus.

Bogus? Sorry, sir.

Okay.

This one? Is that what

you like? Yeah. That's fine. Oops. It

switched over to the projector. We

need the PowerPoint back on, please.

Good morning. For the record, my name is Paul Bryan, and I am the adjacent property owner to the North. And and like the applicant, applicant, I I have have about six acres on Lake Gibson. It's also vacant. And and let me first say that I know the applicant's family very well, and and it really pains me to be here in opposition opposition because, I mean, they're good folks. Robert and I are good friends. And he knows it's not personal, but, you know, I'm here just to protect my interest. But, like I said, they're good folks, and they'd make good neighbors. The the the whole issue is that I should only have one neighbor to the south and not three. Whether they're good or bad, I should only have one.

And let me just give you a really quick history. When I first acquired the property, it was a it was a 12 acre block, on Lake Gibson, which blush down to the lake. Beautiful piece of property. And, this was back in the nineties, and I was intending on building on it, but I didn't really wanna build on 12 acres. So I decided to split it in half.

And I don't recall the circumstances, but I I had to have a I did a I was at a public hearing to split it, and I I'm not sure why I had to be at the public hearing, but there were a couple residents on the lake that they weren't opposed to me splitting it, but they were opposed to there being multiple home sites on there because they didn't wanna impact the lake. So I recall, you know, standing in front of that board and those residents, and I told them, I'm gonna split this into, you know, two properties only, two lots only, and that's it. And I tell you that because that was the intent from day one. I mean, I owned it. I split it.

That was the that was the intent from day one. And it conformed with with the area. If you look on that to the north, doctor Boggess, he opposes this. He is on a large large tract, one house. He couldn't be here.

He has patients. His wife is here. If you go further north, you got Robert Boggess. Similar situation, situation, large large acreage acreage on the lake, and it all conforms with large lakefront estate type lots. So, if you all were to grant this request, and the applicant was successful in creating three lots to the south of me, I would then have three neighbors where the intent was to have one.

And logistically, it doesn't really lend itself to doing that because, I mean, if you look at that aerial, typically, you'd have one nice home down on the lake, and then they're gonna create two other lots, and I guess those houses would probably, don't think they'd look at the backyard of the house in the lake, so they're gonna face my property so what I have is instead of having you know going down on the property to the lake instead of having one nice home in the lake I might have three homes and you know it there is a negative impact. Is substantial? I I don't know. It it does affect the desirability of my property. And like I said, the intent from the very beginning was to to always be one large lot.

The second reason I oppose it and and and you brought this up, that property has no road frontage. None whatsoever. The only access is for an easement that I granted onto that property. So, they come on to my property which they have legal access to an easement and that's their only access. I don't know how you can create, I mean, you know, I'm not gonna call this.

You can call it a subdivision or three lot split. I don't know how you create that off off an easement to begin with. It has no road frontage. It just doesn't make sense. I know that there's there's a method to do family lot splits which apparently they either don't meet the requirements for a family lot split or they they don't want to meet the requirements for a family lot split and they're kind of circumventing it by doing the r one zoning, regardless, because of the impact of the value and because of the, easement, you know, I oppose it.

And like I said, all along, it was intended to be one large, you know, lakefront estate. Urge Okay. You all to send a denial to BCC based on that.

Okay. Thank you, sir. I believe that's the last speaker card we have for this.

I have a question for mister Bryan.

Okay. We we have a question for you, sir.

Oh, yes.

Mister Bryan?

Yes. When you when you sold this piece, did you put any deed restrictions?

No. If I'd you know, on me. No. I didn't. But I I couldn't imagine that you could split it off an easement, so I didn't.

And one more. When did the split occur? When did you actually

Back in the nineties. Think sometime in the nineties.

Okay. I'm just curious.

Where is the easement? Can you show us on the map where it is?

Yes. I think there's a map in it that shows it. But it I front on I front on 19. So it comes on my property. It's a 50 foot easement on my property. It across the front of my property on 19 side. It parallels 19 onto the property.

That small strip in that southwest corner? Is that

correct? Yes.

Okay.

So there would have to be a second easement for these other two

properties they in there. To create access to the new lots, which, like I said, would probably be down my property border. Probably would have been.

So the easement was originally granted with the intent of one home.

I did it. Yeah. And that's, I mean, that's why you're hearing from the horse's mouth that intent was always one lot. I don't I don't think that

How wide was the easement?

I think it's 50 feet. Okay. I think that's what was required back in the day. And I had to put a I put a concrete apron out on because you had to put an apron on the highway. But there but the easement is unimproved.

Okay. Any other questions? No. No? Okay. Mister Boggess, would you like to come up now? Okay.

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm Robert Boggess. I live at 41220 State Road 19. My property is three properties north of the subject property. And I would like to echo Paul's words. It's a very fine family, the Locke family and the Williams family. I don't know a lot of them personally. My wife does, and and they're certainly well known within the community. So it it isn't personal.

This is strictly looking out for the interests of our rural Lake County in that area. As mentioned before, you know, in order to to do this, it's not a family lot split as I understand it. Family lot splits go vertical, up or down, not sideways, and there's an intention for nieces and nephews here. So moving beyond that, the easement discussion is certainly a very valid one. What I see in the paperwork,

and I'm not a not

a land use attorney and not a surveyor, but the way I interpret it, the initial easement allows access to the subject property, but then there's also going to need to be an an additional easement requiring 50 feet down the north property line going east and west to provide access to all three lots if this is granted. The way it reads to me is that easement goes all the way to Lake Gibson, which would allow lake access to the two westernmost properties, that really haven't paid the price for waterfront property, which that's Lake Gibson is is really about. It's a private lake, large lots and large pieces of acreage that adjoin that lake. It's a spring fed lake. It doesn't dry like a lot of our other areas here in Lake County, so it is a very desirable place to live.

And that is what we love about Lake County. My father moved here in 1959. We've all raised kids here too. My brother has lived on his property for for twenty seven years. My wife and I have only been there for nine. The piece of property we bought has an orange grove on it. I currently take care of 400 orange trees. I'm one of the last last orange grove owners in in Northern Lake County. I'm very proud of that. We we picked a box trailer load of fruit this year.

Very happy about that. It's a tough market. But with that said, this easement providing providing access access to to the the lake for two additional properties if it's subdivided, and I'll call it a subdivision because that's really in essence what it will be, puts a 50 foot wide right of way, 50 foot easement all the way down, which is gonna be needed for power to support those. That line comes off of State Road 19. The lot as it exists right now, my my estimations is 75 yards wide, 225 feet.

Subtract the 50 foot easement out of that, 175 feet. If you're gonna build a decent sized home there commensurate with the area, you're gonna be a minimum of 2,400 square feet. And that house oriented facing north as the first two lots would normally be. 40 by 60 on a house, 40 feet out of a 175 leaves you about 50 feet on the front and back, that doesn't include porches, lanai's, pools, or carports and driveways. Now it's a long lot, two acres, you know, going north or east to west.

But at the same time, it really compacts the the area a fair amount. The density requirement changes because, you know, the rezoning in r two is is allows you to be on two acres versus five in the in the agricultural piece.

We're gonna need need you to wrap it up in thirty seconds.

Thirty seconds?

Yes, sir.

Fire rescue is challenged. It's two track unless somebody really puts a road in there. And the last thing is is I don't really agree with rezoning commercial, and that's what they wanna do with the eastern end or the western end of the property. We all have commercial right away there. If you wanna give up commercial taxing pieces, that's fine. Be be prepared for a rezoning request from the rest of the folks on that side that also have commercial commercial right away. So thank you for your time and consideration.

Any questions? No? Okay. Would the applicant like to come back or the applicant's representative representative like to come back and respond to any of the comments you heard?

Okay. First of all, as mister Bryan said that he originally split the lot, He is the one who granted access. Knowing that you selling the other piece of property, you cannot control what they are going to do with their property. But he granted the easement across to sell that property. And as far as the easement, once you get on the property, does not necessarily have to go all the way to the lake to give access to the other two.

The easement, it stopped at the beginning of the Far East portion of the property.

Thank you.

I have a question.

And I'll do with due respect to mister Robert Boggess. These houses will not affect any of his orange groves. So and I was saying, here where I live, is this this piece of property, there's six lots adjacent to that piece of property. And mister Bryan, he owned these this property and split it six ways adjacent to his own property before splitting or before before selling. So there are six lots adjacent one side.

They're only proposing to do three lots on that one.

Okay. Well, thank you. And I think there's a few questions for you.

On the specific to the easement to the third property on the three properties running east and west, where where is the proposed ment going to access those additional properties if split? Do you know if they're putting it on the north or the south side of the parcel?

I actually have some more information.

Oh, okay, good. We'll defer to staff.

There we go.

Don't know if they can zoom in a little bit, but are you able to see

that? Okay.

So you have this is the subject parcel, the parcel to the north. And then you have this 50 foot easement that allows access to State Road 19.

Was there a discussion about putting it on the south side? Is there that's just what they proposed, is the north side.

Is that easement in existence? Yes. The whole all of the stuff in yellow is This

easement is in existence. This is their proposed easement for their future proposed preliminary

The yellow is proposed or existing?

It's granted. This

yeah, this is existing.

Okay. Because there's a yellow strip along the north. Didn't know if that was

That's the proposed easement, right? The yellow strip along the north side of the property not connecting to 19? Yeah.

For the record, Janie Burrow, Planning Manager, Office of Planning and Zoning. So here, you can see that the existing easement here it's what we're calling easement A. This is the actual boundaries of it and it goes on to 19 through the north parcel itself. Now keep in mind that this is a design that could potentially be the preliminary plat may not be. But yes, based on a document staff received, this portion here is the proposed access to the other two lots itself.

Itself. But what's in question right now is what's in the process. It's this easement here and it begins the right on the actual boundaries of the existing property through the north boundary parcels into State Road 19.

And your question was could it be on the south side?

Yeah. If we approve it, could we require it be on the South Side rather than on the North Side?

What are they rezoning to?

And then be advised that this is a straight zoning district, so it cannot contain conditions.

Okay. Thank you.

Any further questions for staff?

I have questions, but we'll I want to finish with the applicant's questions, and then I'll have questions for staff.

Any other questions for the applicant's representative? Okay. Questions for staff?

As they said.

I'm give Janie her exercise today.

Yes.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you, So

Janie, I need to understand what exactly the plan here is. I see that they've already submitted their preliminary plat to subdivide the property into three parcels. Correct?

Well, they haven't. So here's what happens. An application comes in. They did a rezoning. There was conversations about the easement at the time that we were doing the public hearing application. That documentation was provided as part as providing staff with information as to the existing easement. Because, of course, when you do an application, we want to ensure that there's access to the parcel itself and that information was provided to staff. The preliminary flat, if I'm correct, has not been submitted. Correct. Because the rezoning to the r one is required before they can move forward.

Okay. So if they were so they I just wanna be clear on kinda how the whole thing goes from here in order to get them three lots on this property because they can't do a lot split. Correct? But because that would require it would prevent them from creating the third lot.

Well, correct. There's a couple factors. Application comes in for the rezoning so that they're able to create a preliminary plat. They are within the urban future line use series, which means a family density exceptions not allowed within that future line use series. And then in order for them to move forward, you're correct. They cannot create a third lot through the lot split process itself. So should the rezoning be approved by the BCC at the future meeting date, then their next step would be to submit a development application for a preliminary plat application. After that's completed, then they would go to public works for construction and or final plat depending on what the process is for public works itself.

But they would have to do an actual subdivision for this?

That is correct. It would be a preliminary plat application to create the three lots.

Is does our code permit a subdivision to be developed where the property itself has no frontage on a right of way and where all service connectivity and access to the property is through an easement? I would have to divert to

Seth Lynch with Public Works, and he'll be more than happy to address those questions.

Thank you. You're welcome. Seth

Lynch, on public works. If this falls a subdivision process, it has to have a paved access and see their 66 feet for current swale section road or it's 50 feet for a curb and gutter with a retention pond. And they would have to have a cul de sac for a turnaround, meaning the fire department's requirements.

And this would have to be a right of way, correct, not just an easement?

Right. They would have to be it's typically a right away. If it's converted to private, we might need to get with the attorney's office on how that's processed.

Okay. Thank you. That addresses my questions.

Any other questions for staff?

Was this filed as a family lot split?

No, because it's got three

It wasn't.

They're not allowed to do a family under this density standard, right?

No, this application for rezoning.

They would

not be allowed to do a family lot split in the urban low density future land use.

Because I heard family lot split from one of the people speaking.

No, that's not allowed in this future land use category.

Okay, any other questions? Okay, hearing none, we'll bring it back up to the board for discussion and or recommendation.

I move to approve.

We have a motion. Do we have a second?

I'll second just to move into discussion.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. Go ahead and discuss.

Any comments? Thoughts? Well, I would love to read the verbiage on the easement itself in detail to see what it granted, future and otherwise. Regardless, the family lot split, it's two acres of land. It's going to be the same family.

There's smaller lots out there without access to the lake. That's not really what's in front of us today. There might be issues between lot owners about the easement, you know, and the intent onto '19, but that's not our battle to fight. I think the impact is remarkably minimal in this regard. And if they can come to terms with putting that easement through to the properties on a different side to make all parties happy, that's also outside of our purview, but certainly would be encouraged.

Any other comments?

I'm reluctant to recommend rezoning of something that feasibly probably cannot be developed as they've described. Their intent here is to create three parcels. That means that they do have to go through, as we just heard, the preliminary plat process. They have to build it as a subdivision. That easement, whether or not it can be used for that purpose, is a whole other question.

The easement was granted by on the adjacent parcel. They would have to convert that easement into a right of way in order for this to become a subdivision. They would have to then put a right of way through the property. That right of way would then reduce the size of each of the parcels created within it. That right of way would create their new setback standard for all of the structures built.

I do not know that a rezoning for this makes sense in that I'm not sure that what they're asking to do is practical or feasible. And it sounds to me like they have a lot of other barriers to get there. So I'm a little reluctant to recommend rezoning property to something if in fact what they're trying to do with the rezoning is probably not feasible or may become impractical or otherwise not supportable in this location simply by the constraints that the property already has. If it were the property to the north it'd be a completely different conversation because they're connected directly to 19, they have direct right of way frontage, that's all very different. We're dealing all in easements and that's what we just heard from Public Works.

They would have to build around I mean, there's got to be a cul de sac put in here for fire service to get in. There's a whole lot to be done, and that's just not a very big piece of property to smash all that into.

But we're only one hurdle in the long process anyway. So developers frequently come to this board for rezoning issues only to have to go to another body for further approval. So why would we set a private property owner up for failure by saying, No, sorry, you've got a long gauntlet, we're the first step. We'll just stop you now and save you the trouble. Our job is, number one, can it be rezoned? It's their job to go through the rest of the hurdles.

There's no justification to rezone it if what they want to do there is not permitted permitted by by code. Code?

Can we ask Seth to come back up?

Do they have an opportunity for a variance to that code?

Will they be creating their own hardship? Variances are usually prohibitive if you're creating your own hardship.

Well, question for Sherry and Seth. I know they haven't submitted the preliminary plat yet officially. When this application came in for the rezoning, they did submit a graphic. Did you at all review it in any context of would this be feasible subdivision?

I wouldn't be reviewing it for the feasibility of a preliminary plat without all that supporting documentation so I would wait for that application to come through. I'm I'm strictly looking at its consistency with surrounding areas and the future land use so the future land use is four dwelling four dwelling units per acre so they're asking for one dwelling unit per two acres if they're able to complete their preliminary plat process, you know, I would review that at that particular time for

So as a as a rezoning application, you're looking at it for consistency and compatibility?

Correct.

And it meets those?

Correct.

Okay.

Seth, did you look it all in any respect for whether the easement can be created to the right of way?

I was not aware it

was a Okay. Pulmonary plat.

I didn't see that plan till now.

Okay.

So I thought it was a lot split.

If it if it goes to a private road, can the right of way be reduced?

No. Our minimum is 50 foot for curb and gutter.

Okay. Private or no?

And maybe they could get a swale section down to that with some variants, but the engineer will have to get on board that they hire and show that it works and meets both the water management district's requirements and Lake County's. Okay.

And they need to do retention on-site. Correct?

Well, if they do sway yes. It's either in the what would be the right of way or a pond.

So it would either be the the narrower right of way with curb and gutter in a pond or the wider right of way with swales. Correct?

Correct. If the swales can handle it, that that all comes through with engineering of the site.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Any other discussion? Okay. Well, hearing and we have a motion and a second for approval. So all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Aye. So we have three three-three it looks like. So in that case, the motion fails, and we need a new motion or another motion.

Can we go back into discussion for a second? Or do I need to make a motion first?

Let's make the motion and second for discussion.

Okay. I would move to deny the request for rezoning of the subject property.

Second. We have a motion to deny and a second. Okay. Let's go back to discussion.

So one of the things that staff mentioned was that the density is consistent and compliant. But once that they do the right of ways and the ponds and all that stuff, is the density compliant? Because it's net density, not gross. So that land comes out of the mix. And if the net density doesn't comply, we won't know what that net density is going to be until they submit some sort of a conceptual plan that breaks that out.

I know they're not required to do a development plan at the rezoning stage, but we do typically see at least a concept. And so what we have right now is just a straight request for rezoning. And that's fine and that's acceptable. It's just know what the intent is because we know exactly what the applicant wants to do next. And I just that's my concern, is rezoning land for something that isn't compatible or may not be feasible seems like it's putting the cart before the horse kind of situation, maybe it would be more appropriate to table the rezoning request until they can have a preliminary conceptual drawing done by an engineer to determine the extent to which they may or may not be able to comply with development regulations under our subdivision standards.

And that would then, if they can at least give us a concept that shows it works preliminarily, preliminarily, then we could move forward based on that justification.

Okay. So my thoughts are that the application we have in front of us is for a straight rezoning, and that's what we're here to look at. We're not looking necessarily at can they do it. That's gonna be something that they have to resolve. If they can't, then they'll either have to come back and rezone it or go down to two lots, if that's the case. But from what I'm hearing from staff, based on what we're here to decide on, it's consistent consistent and compatible with the surrounding area of the future land use. So for that reason, I personally will be supporting this one. Any other comments? Okay. So we've got a motion and a second to deny. All in favor, aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye.

Nay. Alright. So we're back to three and three. Board of County Commissioners is gonna want some recommendation from us.

I recommend that the Board of County Commissioners decide because we're at a stalemate.

Well, we are at a stalemate. They have appointed us all to bring them with recommendations and not kick it to them if if at all possible. It may be that it's not possible at

this point.

I'm in favor of deciding what's in front of us, not what's next. That's not our job. Next is not our job. I do that in my career today. We're deciding this it meets meets the requirements period. Full stop. It meets the requirements.

Except that the staff evaluation clearly states the intent of the proposed rezoning is to facilitate the creation of three parcels at a density of one dwelling unit per acre. The entire development program is part of the justification of compliance with comp plan and land development regulations. The staff report documents extensively exactly what they are trying to do next as justification for what they are doing now. If this is justification for rezoning and it's not feasible, that takes it all backwards again.

Janie

Actually, again, Janie Barone, planning manager for the office of planning and zoning. If I may make a suggestion and it's up to the chairman and the board if you would like to make a motion, staff would feel comfortable taking back reevaluating the application to allow the other departments that reviewed it for a lot split versus a preliminary plat, an opportunity to review it and bring it back. And we can allow the applicant to weigh in should he desire to table it whether it's for thirty days, sixty days, we can make it a day turn or we can re advertise it. Whatever would be the pleasure to the board, but staff wouldn't be in opposition. You know, it it it it'll be more concise then at that point there'll be a clear recommendation to the board of county commissioners for their consideration.

Why don't we table this to the next meeting? Nobody's breaking ground tomorrow. And that way it gives everybody an opportunity. The applicant can be here themselves. They can make some plans to be here. We'll get more information from staff.

Okay. Before we do, is the applicant's representative agreeable to a tabling? Okay. Then do we hear do I hear a motion to

the I I move the table.

I have a question, maybe for miss Marsha. What is the absolute downside of granting the rezoning and then having the applicant determine through his research that his plan isn't feasible?

To the county, there is no downside. It's an applicant risk that they take, that they go through this process, and then ultimately they cannot do what they would like to do. If you change it and the board changes it, BCC changes it to R1 and they can't get three lots, maybe they get two lots, which they still, I don't believe, can get with an ag zoning, correct?

That's correct.

So you could go to R1 and maybe they only end up with two lots based on when they go through site plan and preliminary plat. The R1 zoning, if you look at your map, there is other R1 zoning in the area. So, R1 would not be inconsistent. The property owners directly to the south are R2. You can see 1 over on the right side of the map. So, I mean, those are issues that you can certainly take into account that, again, if you were to change it recommend changing it to R1 and they cannot do three lots, they could still do two potentially.

Okay. So basically, if we were to deny this on the basis of what might not happen in the future, we're basically protecting applicant from himself, and he fully has the right to fail.

Is correct. It is I mean, to my understanding, it's the applicant's right to apply for anything that they want to apply for. My concern is when we are voting based on the justification of why it's being rezoned.

Well, it's being rezoned because he wants three lots for his family. Doesn't qualify for a family lot split because of the land use. So this is the only avenue he has to go to create a family lot split.

It's not a family lot split. Correct. This is

itself But the intent is

a family lot

a split.

Development decision. Is not a lot split. Is not a family lot split. This is not in the rural area. This is in the urban area. This is a residential subdivision. We can call it a lot of different things, but that is how it fits into the county code. It is a residential subdivision. Whether or not that works on 6.24 acres in this configuration is the basis for why staff is recommending approval. They're saying the density works because he only wants to do three lots. Mhmm. There's okay. So the if we take all that out, then what's the justification for rezoning? We take away everything in the staff report.

Any other thoughts? Okay. I I still think that, personally, that this is their risk doing. And if they wanna take that risk, they may end up with only two lots. They may end up with only one lot. They may end up with three. But that's their risk, and and they're they're asking for the rezoning, the straight rezoning. Oftentimes, we wouldn't get any preliminary layout to look out. It's just a straight zoning. So I have no problem with this. I know it's the applicant's risk, and they may not get what they want. But that's that's the game that they're they're playing.

And the concept plan, again, was an illustration just because there was a question about the easement. It wasn't to present the concept plan as this is what their preliminary subdivision is going to look like. It was strictly to identify the easement that was in question that we had the opposition party mentioned. So it was for an illustration for the purpose of the existing easement.

Once we rezone it to R 1, it's R 1 forever until somebody changes it. And the way that the C 2 runs along 19, I can't envision we would get another request that would that we would even know how to consider another request that comes forward that asks to put it back to where the commercial was there before because it slices through the corner of the property.

So, I

mean, keep in mind, when we change things on a map, it stays that way until somebody asks to change it. That's a commercial corridor.

But C1 to residential is a downgrade anyway. And if somebody chooses to live in a commercial corridor, they choose to live in a commercial corridor. I mean, there's urban densities because and people live above commercial corridors. I don't think that's really relevant issue. It Are changes on

that we removing commercial zoning from a commercial corridor?

We're not removing the entire corridor. We're removing from one particular parcel. And it's a downgrade.

It is a downgrade.

They're not asking for that third lot to be rezoned to commercial and putting commercial in between those properties.

At the moment, all that we're asking for is rezoning it from ag to r one since we're not able to consider the fact that they want to do a three lot subdivision there.

But if they decide to do two two lots, they can if we rezone it. So that's why we're saying it. This is not we're deciding based on this one particular hurdle, not what they decide to do down the road. If it's

our Can do a lot split in the urban land use?

Can do they a what? I'm sorry.

Can they do a lot split in the urban land use category?

They could potentially do a minor lot split if it meets the criteria for it. However, family densities are not permitted within the urban land use future land use series. But again, as stated previously, you're looking they're going from a low density zoning district ag one dwelling unit per five acres to one dwelling unit for dwelling one dwelling unit per acre to try to be compatible with that future land use that's currently in place. So could they do a minor loss with the answer right now to you would be no. Why? Because they do not have 10 acres. It's a total of 6.24 plus or minus acres. Without getting a variance. Mhmm.

Could they could they apply for a variance if that's what

You can't do a variance to a

use. So

this the zoning if approved would allow them at least two lots? It If they can make it work.

It depends on what again, you know, this is a rezoning. The next step is should it be considered by BCC would be the preliminary plat at that point. The DRS team would provide comments and state whether or not it's consistently in compliance with the land development regulations, the comprehensive plan, the codification, zoning ordinances to ensure that it's in compliant with it. Will it be? We don't know until we get to that step and that was the purpose of the suggestion to table it so that staff can answer the questions that are coming that are being raised today at public hearing and we can table it but again it's up to the desire to the board.

Without the review of the preliminary plat theoretically they could still probably get two lots in there if

I wouldn't be able to answer that.

How many acres do you need to do a lot split Jamie?

Right now they have ag and they have a let me see. They have agriculture and urban low, so they would need five acres per site.

And if it was r one, how many acres do they need to do a lot split?

One per one. One acre. How many acres of total? There wouldn't be there's that future land use category doesn't state you have to have so many acres to plot it. So as long as they meet the density for both the zoning and future land use, then they can proceed with it. And of course, they meet the other caveats, access management, utilities, all that comes to play.

Because if it's one to one, they go into a different level of utility provision as well.

That's correct. That is correct.

Where now they can't do septic and well.

There's there's a criteria, a mandatory water and sewer connection criteria within the comprehensive plan for the urban future land use series. Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Is there any other motion, recommendation, or is it the pleasure of the board to table this?

Unless anybody's changed their mind Yeah, on their

my recommendation would be to table it and ask the applicant to provide something that staff can review conceptually. Because at the moment, there's just no justification to rezone the property other than it's what they want to do. We don't typically just rezone for fun. Usually, we look for justification.

So is that a motion to table?

That's my recommendation. I don't know if I can make a motion to table.

I don't think the applicant has to.

The applicant's already agreed to it. So

I would move that we table this rezoning to a date certain so we don't have to re advertise it, which would add burden back on to the applicant again. But, Janie, do you think to next month makes sense? Or that we should give sixty days since you would have to prep everything for the meeting and all that ahead of time, and thirty days may not be enough?

The concern would come as if we table it when the reviewers we send out the review again. We can provide a review of expedited review. My concern is if any reviewer requests any additional data from the applicant, I'm not sure we could meet that thirty day caveat because we also once we do that, we have to send it back to legal sufficiency to ensure everything's closure with the with the packet.

And mister chairman, just to add to that, if the idea is for the applicant to come back with more specific of a plan similar to a preliminary plat, that's going to be an expense. That's going to be an engineer they're going to have to hire upfront. And I don't know really what time frames engineers are going on right now. I don't know that they're gonna get an engineer, because I'm sure they're gonna wanna talk to several, they're gonna wanna get to quotes, that they're gonna be able to bring that back in thirty days.

Could we move it to the August meeting? That would give them plenty of time.

That would be August 6. I mean, really I guess that's a question for the applicant's representative as to what their timeline was, how quickly there was mention in here that there is one family that is ready to build and move forward. So I don't know what their living situation is and whether August would

But if we put it out to August 6, we could always bring up the topic at another meeting and move it closer if we needed to.

No, because if you're going to do time certain, we're not going to re advertise.

So we wouldn't necessarily need a fully engineered preliminary plow. We just need a conceptual plan. And they could have a land planner or anyone like that sketch something like that up with basic dimensions as a concept to go along with this. We don't typically get fully engineered drawings as concepts. We usually get rough dimensional concepts.

Even for large scale subdivisions, they're usually rough dimensional concepts. And given the size of the property, I would think that would be a pretty straightforward endeavor. So maybe we date certain ninety days. I'm just trying not to push this so far down the road that they can't move forward if they can figure out a way to justify what they're asking for and if staff then can get the time to review it and determine whether or not what they're requesting is practical or feasible.

So your time frames right now is you have May 7, you have June 4, you have July 2, assuming there's going to be a meeting that day. We typically cancel the July meeting, and then you're, again, you're back out to August 6.

We can move it to the June meeting. And then if they're still not ready, then table it again to another date certain.

That's the discretion of the board.

I guess it's really a question for the applicant. And I know we have a representative of the applicant present, but I know the applicant's out of town. So I'm just a little we'd like to avoid having to re advertise the effort because that's added cost. And of course, we don't wanna add unnecessary cost where

Unfortunately, I'm I'm not able to answer that for him without speaking with him. I mean, I'm sure the tabling is fine with gives him time to restructure whatever he's gonna do. But as far as the other, I cannot answer for him.

Okay. Okay. So given that we typically cancel July, I think it probably makes more sense to table to a date certain in June because then we can table again in June if we need to, correct? Correct.

So is that a motion?

Yes. I would move that we table the rezoning request so that the applicant can work with staff on a conceptual plan with a date certain of the June Planning and Zoning Board meeting.

June 4.

June 4? June 4.

Okay. Is there a second on that?

I'll second it.

Okay. Any discussion? I'm gonna vote against the motion because I think we could get to a decision today. But I I can count the votes so I know that I'm gonna lose this one anyway. So all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. Motion carries five one. All right, on to tab three, Mansfield Landscaping.

This one should be easy.

Good afternoon. For the record, Megan Brachelli, planner with the office of planning and zoning. I will present in, tab three, case number PZ2024Dash165, otherwise known as Mansfield Landscaping. The subject property identified by alternate key number 1241952 is located off County Road 48 in the unincorporated Yalaha area of Lake County. The request before the board is to rezone approximately 1.14 gross acres from a state residential district to agriculture district to facilitate a plant nursery.

As shown on the screen, the subject property is currently designated with a rural transition future land use category and is zoned a state residential district. The subject property is currently vacant land. This concludes my presentation. Myself and the applicant are available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to make any comments? You don't have to if you don't want to, but you're welcome to.

You don't have to

if you don't want to. Okay.

Alright.

Well, I'll tell you what. If if after the public hearing, if you wanna come up and speak, you can do that as well. Okay. So we have one speaker card from Cindy Newton.

Good morning again. Cindy Newton, District 4. And I am in favor of this downsizing or down zoning. I was just wanting a little more information about what they were gonna be growing on it. So thank you.

Okay. Alright. That was the last speaker card we had. So we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. You're welcome to address that publicly, or you can talk to Cindy privately afterwards. It's completely up to you. Okay. And we'll go ahead and bring it back to the board for a motion.

Motion to approve. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

It might to be clear that we had a speaker card that was in favor of this, and we held the applicant until an hour after the meeting started?

That is correct.

And it

could have been done in consent?

It could have the speaker card didn't say whether they're in opposition or in favor.

Got Thank you.

So we didn't. But I like the way you think.

Well, it's unfair to the applicant, you know. So I move to approve.

We get paid by

the hour hour here. Here.

Right, so we have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, motion carries unanimously. Thank you. You. Sorry. Alright. So other business. So this is my last meeting with the PNC. I resigned from the PNC. I have taken another employment opportunity opportunity that conflicts me out of this board. So with that being said, we're gonna need to elect a new chair and or maybe vice chair, depending on how the vote goes.

Did we ever create a vice chair after you began?

We did. We did. Okay. Lovely vice vice chair here.

I was gonna nominate her anyway.

I was gonna nominate you, Carol.

Do you make the notion? Well, yeah, we just need a nomination. Is that official nomination?

I nominate Laura Jones Smith.

I'll second. Okay. Any other nominations?

No. Carol took all my fun away.

Okay. I guess we have to vote on it. Okay, all in favor say aye. Aye. Okay, then we need a new vice chair. Who would like to do the job of vice chair?

I nominate Carol.

Second. Right, we have a motion and a second. Any more nominations? Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Alright. Well, congratulations, new chair and vice chair. I wanna say that it's been great working with all of you guys, and I'm probably gonna miss this.

It was

heavily weighed my decision to take the job or not, but I do I have enjoyed it, and this is a very good professional board. I think the county's in a good position, especially with the staff and leading us.

Congratulations on your next endeavor.

Thank Yes. Congratulations on the next endeavor and an expression of gratitude for everything you do for the Planning and Zoning Board. It's greatly appreciated.

Thank you. It's been fun. So alright. Well, with that, we're adjourned.