Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It is. It is on.

It is. Okay. We're good. Has everyone had an opportunity to review the meeting or the minutes from the May meeting? And if so, is there a motion? I make the motion, Mr. Chairman.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Okay, minutes are approved.

Okay, we have speaker cards on every item on the agenda except for tabs nine and twelve. So are there any speakers that want to address tabs nine or 12? Okay. We'll entertain a motion on those two consent agenda items.

I'll make

the motion, mister chairman. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Items nine and twelve are approved. And we will go to tab one.

Actually, mister chairman, if we can do an just an agenda update, just wanted to let you know that the cases are in accordance with state statute. They've been legally advertised as shown on the screen. Also, in addition to the cards that you received for tabs five, six, and 11, you should have any RADA memo that has the opposition correspondence that's available for you in the dais. In addition for tab seven and eight, also have in addition to the opposition correspondence, you also have a revised concept plan. Basically, the public hearing documents were revised to include the latest concept plan, and that's for tab seven and eight, also known as the Alswell development program.

K.

And

I'll do a brief presentation on tab one. I just wanted to make no one in the public needed to speak. So for tab one itself, the ordinance is being updated to include, some revisions to the existing chapter 17, role conservation subdivision design standards to enhance some clarity and consistency with the application and interpretation of the standards itself. The ordinance also repeals the allowance in the density bonus for the rural rural conservation subdivisions itself. If it's at your pleasure, we can go through the changes, but you should have received a packet with the information, and I'll be happy to take any questions should you have any, or we can listen to what the public has to say and we can provide responses.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

We have a card on tab one from Cindy Newton.

Good morning. Cindy Newton, unincorporated district four, and welcome to our new at large board member. I am in support of this, ordinance. I do have some suggestions that if some clarity could be written in for definitions, before this goes before the BCC, I think it would help staff with their reviews and also development as they come forward with the conservation subdivisions. So I gave you each a copy.

It looks like you've got a lot of people here today, so if you just want to give that to the staff and let them look over it before the BCC meeting, that would be fine with me.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

And I I have to do a quick roll back here and ask for forgiveness here from the gentleman to my left. We have a new board member that we'd like to introduce and welcome to having accepted the sentence to this. Mr. Sean Leahy. Sean, would you like to introduce yourself?

Thank you all. I was given the great honor of being appointed to the board a few weeks ago. I've been a resident of Lake County for the last eighteen years, have raised four children and kept a wife happy up in North Lake and I look forward to being of service to community.

Okay, thank you. Tab two. I'm sorry. Oh, Do we have any further discussion on tab one?

No further discussion.

Okay. Anyone no one else from the audience wants to address tab one? Okay. And any discussion among the committee members? Then that case will entertain a motion.

What is what did we just get? Yeah.

So this appears to be a document submitted by miss Newton asking questions and or requesting changes be made to that ordinance. So again, you could go through this one by one if you want. You can move it forward and part of your motion would be for the staff to evaluate.

Okay. Very good. Thank you. Send back to Sam. Is

that your recommendation?

I make motion go ahead and send this back to the staff to review and bring back to Slater.

Second.

Alright. We have a motion second to send it to staff for their consideration.

And and for clarification, mister Bailey, is your motion for staff to review it and bring the case back to the PCB or before it goes to the BCC?

Back before.

Bring it back to the planning and zoning board or the board of county commissioners to evaluate the documents.

Planning and zoning board.

May I ask a question since I second it? You want it to come back to this board before it goes to the BCC? I thought that that wasn't what you meant. You want it to be reviewed by staff before it goes

Staff and they bring it back to this board.

This board. Okay. So that I'm sorry, go ahead.

Well,

just I second because I thought the intent was that staff would review and perhaps make the changes, and then it would go to have a problem with it other than some questions.

I would make a motion to approve tab one as written.

So for purposes of the clerk, we have a motion, we have a second. Are you withdrawing your second?

Yes.

Okay. So

I withdraw my motion.

Okay. And then now we have the new motion, if you could restate that for the record.

I make a motion to approve tab one as as written.

Do we have a second? I'll second that. We have a motion and a second. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. On to tab two.

Good morning. Again, for the record, Janie Burrow, planning manager, office of planning and zoning. So the second ordinance for tab two is to the several portions of the LDR. It's for section 7.0005. It's the general requirements within the Wekaiwa River regulations.

It's for section 6.12 o one. The connection requirements, it's for section 17 o four zero one entitled alternative options for the rural conservation subdivision, and it's also to amend chapter two entitled definitions. The purpose of the amendment for this ordinance is to enhance nutrient reducing on-site sewage and disposal systems or distributed waste treatment systems when regional sewer services are not available. Would you like to is there any any questions for staff for the ordinance itself, or would you like to go to public comment?

I think we can go to public comment. Miss Newton? Newton?

For the record, Cindy Newton, Unincorporated Lake County. I just have a couple of suggestions for this one, for your staff consideration. Under 6.12 o one, the connection requirements under a three, the construction of a single family dwelling unit on a parcel, not part of a subdivision, shall not be required to connect to a public water system if required to annex into the municipality. If the individual lots not part of a subdivision is less than one acre and on septic or a DWTS, I think it should be required to connect to public water if it's required to annex into a municipality. Most of the municipalities require that.

And if you've got a lot smaller than one acre, you have septic and water on the same lot, a lot of times you end up with some, contamination between the two. Then under letter c, for development not required to connect to a regional or central system under subsection b above, including individual lots of record, etcetera. I'm hoping that individual lots of record, not have septic tanks, should be allowed if the individual lots are less than one acre and no central water supply is provided. And that's basically for the same same reason. The septics and DWTU, do not remove anything.

They septic will reduce some of your pollutants as far as nutrients go. DWTU reduces nutrients, but it does not resume remove things such as, pharmaceuticals, forever chemicals, and things like that could contaminate. Most of the health department records only allow, the septic if it's half acre. So, again, under number two, the construction of a single family dwelling unit on a parcel, not part of a subdivision, shall not be required to connect to a regional subregional waste system if required to annex. I really don't understand that with so many of municipalities requiring now under Florida statutes with some issues with if you hook to city water or city city sewer, require an annexation.

I they could come here, I believe. Miss Marsh could answer this. They could come for a waiver. But, anyway, those were things that came to my mind when I read through it. Otherwise, I'm in support.

Okay. Thank you. Any other public comment? Anybody who did not submit a card for tab two? Bring it back to the committee for discussion. Any comments?

I'll make a motion to approve as written.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? None heard. Before we go to tab two, I have to admit to another rookie mistake. Are there is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak about an item not on today's agenda.

Yes, sir. Come to the podium, please state your name and address and we will be glad to hear your comments.

My name is James Bender. Address is 14720 Linds Drive to Varys, Florida. We've got all this development going on, and it continues to happen over and over and over and over again, taking ag land and turning ag land into residential I taking came here today thinking that a property right by me was gonna be discussed, but I realized it's not. The property stretching from 561 all the way to Deer Island along Lake Dora, part of Far Reach Ranch that is stretching through a whole bunch of wetlands. They've got a FWC is already planning on doing a bear hunt because of the woods they're gonna clear.

I have huge concerns over the fact that we're gonna have water displaced over by us now if they go in and they build there. So we're gonna have flooding issues. We're gonna have issues of more people on the roads than we need. And what I see is we keep having all this development, but nothing is being done about the infrastructure before the development happens. And we have so many multifaceted layers on it.

The animals, the people that are already living there that moved into an ag area and expected it to stay ag, we're not able to just change the rezoning. So why are developers? I have a huge major concerns about all the land in this area, hundreds and hundreds of acres just being turned into houses. And I don't think we can sustain all these people without a lot of change before that.

Mister chairman, if I can are you done with your comments, sir? So just to let you know, the property that you're talking about is under the jurisdiction of this board. It is the city of Tavares. It is in the city of Tavares, and they have a separate planning and zoning board and a separate city council meeting. So you probably need to contact the city and find out that date and present your comments to that board because neither this board or the board of county commissioners has any jurisdiction or control over how that property develops. So I just don't want you to miss your opportunity to go in front of the body that actually has control over that property because it's not here.

Interesting too because we're where we are at, we're county and this property stretches literally across the street from us and it's the woods that are across the street from us that are gonna just be annihilated.

Yes, sir. And that property was annexed into the city, I believe, about twelve years ago.

Okay. K? Mhmm. Thank you.

Any other comments on non agenda items before we proceed to tab three? Okay.

Mister chair for tab three and four I would like to bring the applicant up. They would like to request a continuance to the next planning zoning board meeting.

Okay.

Good morning. Logan Opsahl, 215 North Yola Drive. Just wanna put on the record, we are requesting a continuance. My colleague, Tara Tedro, is the applicant on this ordinance, and, I think this is the first time, the county moved a little quicker than we were anticipating. So we gotta assemble the project team, and we've been working with staff so we can, come back for this body and discuss.

Are you requesting for a

To the July to to the July.

July. July 2.

Yeah. July 2.

So if you wanna make that recommendation, then we can postpone it to July.

Make a motion to approve. Second. Thank you.

Any discussion? All in favor of continuance the July 2 meeting for tabs three and four signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? None heard.

Tab five.

For the record, Jamie Barone, James Fry, planner two will be presenting

the

be

agenda

from voting. The agenda

Thank you Mister Bailey. The

Good morning. For the record, James Fry with the Office of Planning and Zoning. I first want to ask, I've got tab five and tab six, which are both lakes were preserved. Do you want me to go ahead and go through the slides for both, and then we'll come back and answer questions on each?

Yes, please.

I'll go ahead and do that. Alright. So the first one up, I'll be presenting tab number five, case number PZ2024-seventy4, otherwise known as Lakeshore Preserve. The applicant is requesting to amend the future land use map from the rural future land use category to planned unit development future land use category on approximately Lee ninety four point five six gross acres and amend associated comprehensive plan policies to incorporate the proposed development program for the Lakeshore Preserve plan unit development which will include 149 residential units. Additionally, the development is proposed to contain 40% open space for the future land use amendment.

The subject property is located South Of Lakeshore Drive in the unincorporated Claremont area. The subject parcels are currently designated with the rural future land use category and zoned urban residential r six. On the, slide there, I have the current future land use, proposed future land use of the PUD, and then the current zoning. The, concept plan depicts a 149 lot residential subdivision with associated open space and storm water areas. The concept plan provides for a maximum allowed impervious surface ratio of 60% with minimum open space of 40% within the entire PUD future land use category boundary.

The development will include varying lot sizes of 65 feet, 70 feet, and 120 feet. The proposed development remains outside of the Green Swamp area of critical state concern. Additionally, for the parcels located outside the proposed plan unit development, future land use category, open space and passive recreation are proposed on approximately 11.25 acres located within the Green Swamp Area Critical State Concern. This will be presented in the next tab. The concept plan also shows approximately 46.3 acres to be preserved as conservation area along with the 50 feet upland buffer for the area located within the Green Swamp area of critical state concern for the parcels identified by alternate key numbers one zero two five nine zero four seven and one three zero four five one two.

Staff finds the land use amendment consistent with the land development regulations and comprehensive plan. And I'll move on to presenting for tab number six.

Mr. Chairman?

Quick question question if on you can go back to the last slide quickly. The one right before that one. The what are the dimensions on the different colored lots? They're the only one I can make out are the lakefronts which seem to be the biggest. So which which are the 50 70 by one thirty six, which color is that?

Yep. Let me check real quick.

The dark green? Yes. Okay. Alright. That that's good. I'm good with thank you. Betty, that answers the question.

Yep. You're back on six. We're back on six. Chairman? On six, we'll declare conflict of interest and we'll abstain.

Thank you.

All right.

So tab number six, case number PZ2024-seventy4, also otherwise known as Lakeshore Preserve. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of parcels within the Urban Residential District R6 to plan unit development on approximately 154.34 gross acres to facilitate the proposed development program for the Lakeshore Preserve Plan unit development, a residential subdivision. The PUD request for the rezoning includes two waiver requests. One to LDR Section to allow new streets and roadways constructed within the development to utilize a design and construction standard of 50 feet of right of way in lieu of the required 66 feet of right of way and And two, to LDR Section 15.02.10A6 to allow elevation changes in topography to exceed 10 feet. The subject property is located South Of Lakeshore Drive in the unincorporated Claremont area.

Subject parcels are currently designated with the rural future land use category and Green Swamp Rural Conservation future land use category and zoned urban residential parcels designated with a rural future land use category is subject to the plan unit development future land use amendment that was previously presented. The two parcels that are located within the Green Swamp area of critical state concern would not be part of that PUD, just part of the I'm sorry, part of the PUD but not part of the future land use. And those are the ones that are shown at the bottom there, AKs 102, 5,907, and 134512. The concept plan depicts a 149 lot residential subdivision with associated open space and stormwater area. The concept plan provides a maximum allowed impervious surface ratio of 60% with a minimum open space of 50% within the entire PUD boundary.

The development includes varying lot sizes of 65 feet, 70 feet, and 120 feet. Proposed development all remains outside of the Green Swamp Area of Critical Concern. Open space and passive recreation are proposed on approximately 11.25 acres located within the Green Swamp Area Critical State Concern. The concept plan includes approximately 46.3 acres to be preserved as conservation area. Staff finds a rezoning consistent with and comprehensive plan. That concludes my presentation on these two tabs. The applicant is here available to answer questions and then if you have any questions for staff.

Okay. Thank you. The applicant like to make a presentation.

Should be just space. Easy enough to say anything else.

Before I sit down, this

is Steve out in front's new.

My name is Bill Ray with Ray and Associates Planning and Environmental Services. We're here in front

team. I'm sorry about that.

I feel more comfortable. Yes. My name is Bill Ray with Ray and Associates Planning and Environmental Services. We're here with the design team for the Lakeshore Preserve, PUD, bringing it forward for your review. The issue that we're dealing with here is that we have underlying zoning of R6, and we have a existing future land use of rural, and then we have surrounding development that occurred with that R6 zoning.

So we're proposing to use the unique future land use that we have in the, you know, in our comprehensive plan, which is the PUD future land use that allows us to tailor a future land use to the demands of the market and also environmental sensitivity of the site that we're working with. Projects on South Lakesward Drive, below the, yeah, below city of Claremont of course. It fronts on the, Lake Nelly, Lake Chain Of Lakes, if you will. It does actually connect to Lake Louisa. But the, the project, we're not proposing any development along, the lakeshore.

That area is within the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. We've included that within the development and within the PUD to assure its perpetual protection, which we're doing with the conservation easement. Moving forward, we have the PUD future land use, which requires 40% net open space for the area that is to be encumbered with that land use. And so what we're taking is the area of that and proposing the the PD future land use to overlay and replace the existing rural zoning, which is one unit per five acres. The area within the green swamp area critical state concern which no development is proposed we've excluded from that future land use.

It will remain the same as it is exist with the with the green swamp designation. Now we move forward with existing case here of the R6 underlying zoning and we're proposing a PUD. The Lake County Comp Plan gives us the break between rural at one per five, rural transition allowing up to one per one in a conservation subdivision. And then you jump to four units per acre with the urban low. With the surrounding development patterns and with the underlying zoning of the R6, we found that the and working with staff that the PUD land use would be the appropriate land use moving forward with that.

Now we come forward with the actual design of the project, which is is where all the excitement begins. This project's been envisioned and and strongly guided by the rural conservation subdivision design practices. We're 50% net open space. We're proposing a 149 units, which is approximately one unit per, you know, one unit per 4.6 acres. So we're still a low density subdivision, but we're in we're implementing clustering.

Clustering is what allows us to protect more environmental lands, and still accommodate the demands for the surrounding area and the residential demands of the community moving forward. We also highly recognized the Lakeshore Drive corridor and the issues with that. Having grown up in the area and having known it forever, Lakeshore Drive has been an issue. Growing up, it was a racetrack. How quick could you get around Lake Minnehaha?

It's not there. You come forward down to Lakeshore Drive and where Lakeshore Drive intersects 561, affectionately referred to as the, Intersection Of Death, that has that's just been notorious. When you're first learning to drive, you learn to be aware of that intersection. We're proposing two massive transportation improvements to address both the projects impacts, but also address the existing underlying and background impacts within that that we'll get into later. But moving forward in the design, I'd like to introduce our member from our engineering group with it, and we'll be able to get into further details that are as they become questions rise.

Luke Klassen with eighteen twenty eight Engineering. So as Bill indicated, I I wonder and for reiterate the fact that this project's starting out. There's green swamp on the southern side, the Southern tube parcels. We're not proposing any impacts to the green swamp area. In addition, the existing zoning is r six, allowing up to six dwellings per acre.

We're really implementing a PUD that would do a restriction on that at limiting us to roughly one and a half dwellings per acre on the two northern parcels. So it's really almost a down zone or restriction that we're proposing on this area to match the suburban rural feel of that area, and that was our intent. And with what he said with the proposed right of way improvements and the proposed roadway improvements, there's two areas that are really of concern. There's the intersection of 561 as well as the curve in front of our project. That's a roughly a 90 degree turn, but it just has a big curve radius on it. So we have our transportation consultant, Ayman, with TMC, who I'd like to introduce. Good

morning. I'm Ezzaidi, traffic and mobility consultant, 3101 Maguire Drive, Suite 265. We are the traffic consultants that the traffic study for the project and along with some safety analysis and speed studies and whatnot. I'll go through that. I'm going to skip to the slides for the traffic, and we'll come back to the so as Luc mentioned, we so this is some pictures of the current Lakeshore Drive.

That's the you see the intersection there at 561. With the very difficult angle there connecting, there's a very hard or difficult sight distance issue along with the again, with the curvature, a lot of speeding issues. And when we did the speed studies, you could see some cars over the went over the road and hit those signs. Same thing with the curve that Luke mentioned, with the almost 90 degree curve at people coming through those curves at high speeds. And when we did the crash analysis that you see on the screen here, you'll see those dark red areas, those are what we call hotspots, which is basically the majority of the crashes that happened.

This is just looking at a five year window. There were a couple of fatalities. One of the fatalities was actually at the curve just in front of where project is planned. So obviously, and historically, as Bill said, there has been an issue with this corridor as a whole with safety related issues. There has been a lot of things happening in addition to this project further to the north.

There has been other projects coming on board that are proposing some improvements to the road, adding some turn lanes, shoulders. There is a roundabout planned further north on Lakeshore Drive, here is trying to address those safety issues. And this is a picture showing the results of the SPEED studies. We did some data collection on the left side of the screen where it says current conditions.

A

couple of spots where we recorded actual speeds of drivers. Average speed was over 50 miles an hour, meaning actually, it's called eighty fifth percentile, basically 85% of the people driving were driving at 55 or just over 50 miles an hour with posted speed limit on the north side of the road is 40 miles an hour and heading southbound is 45 miles an hour. So we had recorded speeds as high as 65 and above on that corridor throughout the entire corridor. So the speed study results recommends lowering the speed limit to 40 miles an hour throughout the entire corridor on both sides. And And then the major improvement that's going to help with safety, looking at the first location just in front of the entrance of the project, where that 90 degree curve is.

So we are proposing to realign the road, as you see on the map, and proposing a roundabout that will serve as a main entrance to the development. What you see on the screen is one of the options as to how to address the there are six or seven homes along that curve with driveways directly on Lakeshore Drive. With this improvement, that will actually improve the safety of those driveways and the homes along that curve by taking all the traffic that's nonrelated to those homes out of that area there, the dark gray area, and then creating that roundabout, which serves as an entrance to the subdivision, to the Lakeshore Drive Lakeshore Reserve project. And on the north side, it connects to that roadway that will serve those six or seven I think it was six or seven residential homes there. Having the roundabout will do many improvements to safety.

One, roundabout by default is a traffic calming tool. When compared to two way stops or traffic signals, they're actually been proven to be safer than traffic signals because the roundabout to enter the roundabout, have to slow down to almost 15 miles an hour. It's designed for 15 miles an hour to navigate the roundabout. So it reduces traffic. It is actually improves the delay because if there's no one on the road, you don't have to come to a complete stop.

So it improves delay. It reduces the number crashes. And then it also eliminates the specifically that location at the curve where I mentioned earlier, there was one of the fatalities was just north of that curve. Having that roundabout there will also again reduce the traffic approaching the roundabout from all directions, but mainly on Lakeshore Drive. So this is one of the two improvements.

The second one is It's not working. I'm not sure why it stopped working. Can you? Thank you. The second location at County Road 561 and Lakeshore Drive, that's the difficult angle connection that we talked about earlier.

The Lake County has already designed the roundabout for this intersection to replace current two way stop sign intersections that are out there today. The roundabout has been designed, but there is no funding by the county to build the roundabout. The developer of this project is proposing proposing to carry forward the construction of this roundabout. So that so we'll have two roundabouts basically, this one and the one at the entrance. The roundabout, as you see here, will also have the same kind of effect as the other one with improving safety, specifically here on the side distance issue that's out there today.

That's going to eliminate that problem that's by as you see, the road has been shifted the roundabout has been shifted down, which will help again reducing the speed of traffic as you enter the roundabout. It will also help with reduce the number of crashes as well as improve the delay and the level of service of the intersection. The roundabout also will provide better flow and also more efficient traffic flow during the off peak hours where there's not a lot of cars on the road. Even on the environmental level, it actually helps. It's more efficient with noise reduction and it's lower emissions as well when compared to stop signs or traffic traffic signals.

Think that is and then yes, that's all I have on the traffic. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Not advancing.

With the neighborhood identity, recognizing the uniqueness of the site and the proximity to a a fabulous ecological resource with the green swamp and Lake Louise's State Park. This is a and where communities are moving, what we're recognizing we have to do is getting people outside of the houses, walking, enjoying the natural environment, have a safe, secure community where people can raise their kids. And then also Paramount is protecting the underlying environment. Community designed with utilizing, advanced on-site treatment, which the ordinance that you, you know, we talked about earlier. This is a we're, using that for our wastewater treatment, and then it'll be served by central, central water from a local utility with that.

Again, the housing product that we're bringing forward, we have a variation of the house products within there. These are not your standard cookie cutter houses that we see, traditionally throughout Central Florida being built today. We recognize this as a higher end market that we're looking to reach. With the roundabouts and calming traffic, we feel that we're helping brand the area as a premier place in Southlake County to live. Go for it.

Again, with the walks and trails, the photo that you're looking in the existing farm road, that would be maintained as a stabilized trail for footpath and multi modal transportation that's existing along the shoreline of the Lake Louise South, I mean, excuse me, Lake Nelly to the South and the Green Swamp area of critical state concern. When we talk about recreation, this is what we're talking about, is maintaining this type of activity. We've talked before of we listened to the residents in the area. We understand the sensitivity of Lake Nelly. We are providing some of the highest level of nutrient removal for our waste disposal that's occurring in that area.

So we're confident with that and our storm water management system that we're looking to utilize LID, low impact development techniques, which allows the sequestration of nutrients from the storm water flow and vegetation to treat and uptake, the pollutants that are that are water born. Those opens those storm water management facilities will be landscaped and incorporated into the open space. We all recognize that in in Florida, the storm water ponds are basically wet for a short period of time after the rainfall event and then dry up very quickly. We are not proposing to have large open areas of sod that are maintained as blank spaces within the community. These will be water facilities will be landscaped as well.

We have an interconnected trail system that creates several miles of trails with extensive buffers around the property. And again, so that there is activity on-site that the people will arrive in a destination of their house, either be able to go inside their car or preferably go out into the community and enjoy a healthy lifestyle. The project that we have before you, of course, we're asking for approval to move forward to the BCC for a hearing. We feel that the project's compatible with the surrounding development. We have no development proposed in the Green Swamp.

We are locate we're using advanced waste disposal techniques that are approved by Lake County. We're on central utilities. We're not proposing any lowering of the level of service for existing stands standards that are out there that are adopted by the county. And, we have the design team here, and now we'll listen to comments from the public and then answer any of your questions that you have.

We

had a couple of slides that we skipped over. We want to make sure we cover those. As far as buffering from adjacent neighbors, we do have a 50 foot buffer that surrounds our property on both the east, west, and south side. So we're buffering from all our neighbors, trying to be cognizant of the agricultural overall nature of the the area. So we're buffering from them, trying to preserve as many trees as possible, as well as enhance tree plantings to help provide that that natural buffer that they expected to maintain their way of life and that we can do to create this kind of rural subdivision feel.

In addition, from Lakeshore, the realignment of Lakeshore while we're pushing to the south to create that roundabout to fix kinda help with the traffic safety in that area, we're providing a 200 foot buffer. The closest we are is a little over 200 feet from that proposed realigned Lakeshore Road. And so we provide a significant setback from there to allow that corridor to remain that rural nature that you have, the field that you have right now today. It's still not working. Thank you so much. Thank you. For the PUD master plan, one of the things I wanted to emphasize was we the open space. So it's a little bit confusing. We kinda because you're looking at two different agenda items right now, the future land you says there's a minimum of 40% open space, and that is accurate. The PUD being proposed has a 50% open space requirement.

So it's a self imposed requirement that we're doing with that PUD negotiated zoning. So the 50% would rule. It's just that the you you may have seen the two different numbers that just to clarify that issue. The 40¢ related to the future land use, but the rezoning would take effect. The 50% would be in a place.

In addition, we'd restrict ourselves to the 149 units, so limiting that development from the art of the current zoning of R six to basically down zoning or putting the restriction on itself to closer to one and a half dwelling units per acre of the whole thing. And then next. And lastly, we wanted to clarify as staff indicated, this isn't the Claremont JPA. It's unincorporated Lake County, but it's in the JPA area. For the J P one of the requests we're doing is to change from the JPA requirement of the 75 foot by a 100 foot lots. Our lots, based on our market analysis, what we'd like to do is provide larger backyards and usable for

this to the buyers.

And so we're proposing the 65, 70, and a 120 foot wide lots. Each one of those lots would be deeper in nature to provide larger backyards that are usable to the future residents and the buyers. So each one of them is significantly larger than the actual lot requirements of the JPA. The only one the only two that are a little bit smaller in width are sixty five and seventy, but they're much deeper. They're a 136 feet deep.

It's roughly for the 65 foot compared to the 65 by one thirty six compared to the 75 by one foot a 100 foot lot required in the JPA. It's roughly a 20% increase, and then it's a little more than 20% for the 70 foot by one thirty six lot. And then the 120 foot by 160 foot lots, we came about those by looking at the average size lots on Little Lake Nelly to the north, and we just tried to match the existing lot sizes so that we're not imposing anything that's not already there. We're trying to mimic what's on that on that, lake already. So, again, as Bill indicated, we're here for any questions. We'd like to reserve our rights to respond to any comments by the public.

Quick question. On that slide whoop.

You went away from Go back to

the left.

There we go. A little too

quick. Fast on the trigger.

Which is the front setback? The 25 or the 30?

The 30. On the left, the Claremont JPA requires a 25 foot front setback. We're proposing a 30 in our development standards.

Okay. And that's the same for the 120 foot lots?

All across across the board. The 65, seventies, and 120 would all have a minimum of 30 foot front setback. Correct.

Okay. Thanks. No problem. Okay. We'll open it to public comment.

And our our process will be, anyone who would like to speak on this is welcome to do so. You'll come up to the podium. Please state your name and address and be reminded that you are limited to three minutes at a time. So when you hear a little chime go off, please plan to wrap up your comments in a sentence or two. Welcome, miss Newton, to the podium.

Getting a lot of exercise today. Cindy Newton, unincorporated Eustace. The The city doesn't support this project. I have a problem with that, with them coming to the county when it's in the JPA. Also, in this sensitive area, it is better to have sewer.

I think it'd be better to wait until for this property to be developed until sewer is available. Also, there's an increase in the impervious surface ratio. They're going from point two to point six in some areas and, point five five to point six in others. So that's a really big change in the ISR. And changing in the elevation to exceed 10 feet in a sensitive area is not a good idea.

With the flooding issues we have, with the potent great potential of recharge in this area, changing the landscape that much is very concerning to me. So thank you for your

time. Okay. I have a tab from a mister Allen Hayes on tab six, so we'll take that along with this one. Okay. I have no other cards. Are there any other comments from the public on five and six? If not, would the would the applicant like to do a rebuttal?

Thank you for the time. Just to reiterate, with the wastewater conditions, as Bill indicated, we're going to with the ordinances before you today that you're recommending you recommended for approval to go to county commission, we're looking to that advanced treatment system, which is has new requirements for the Department of Health and helps with wastewater. So we'll be implementing that, but that's our intent right now. For the ISR, I think there might be some confusion. It's just the ISR is an overall impervious surface ratio. We're asking for just the individual lots. Again, we're giving greater than 50% open space. That would have minimal to none, no impervious area. We're just asking for the individual lots to be increased because you're taking the large parcels as they are today and just subdividing them into small parcels. But the rest of the open space would still have zero to no real impervius area.

So just to clarify that.

Okay. One of the questions I had, and and miss Newton also brought it up, was there's there seems to be some some pretty significant grading in in here. Could you just address how how you how you plan to how that will impact drainage overall on the site?

Sure. So on the site, there's basically a a ridge or a hill that's kind of in the middle of the area. So it it raises up from Lakeshore and then drops back down to, Lake Nelly to the south. Our intention is just to and this isn't a Lake County requirement. It's it's in the JPA with with City Clermont, which was adopted by Lake County. So we submitted an an exhibit showing exactly where we'd like to adjust the grades more than 10 feet. And so it's less than 10% of the project that we're actually doing that adjustment. We're not going to clear the slate or change everything. It's just with the natural topography in order to get the road ways to to kinda be at a drivable or good alignment, we're gonna take the some of the top of the area off a little bit is all we're looking to do.

Okay. So you have plenty of dirt then?

Yeah. We're not looking to We have plenty of dirt.

Question.

It's really just there's a hill or a ridge in the middle of the property. We're looking to take that middle area down. If it doesn't affect the outskirts where we're doing the buffering, we're not looking to change those grades. We wanna we're looking to do as much tree preservation as possible.

Not a situation where you're bringing a bunch of fill?

No. That's not actually we're looking to balance the site. It's preferable. Does that answer your question? Sorry. I

have a question. In both tabs five and six, respectively, you note attachment H and K, letters from the Planning Department of the School Board, where we informed you that there is a deficit of seats available in that area, and at that time, you elected not to proceed with proportionate share mitigation. I'm assuming I just need to check. But I'm assuming that's something you plan to do in the future as you move forward?

I believe that's something we'll do once we get past the few these two ordinances. The developer, if you wanna talk. Sure.

Yeah. So we're just planning to defer it at this time. They have a restriction of, I think, final plat within a year of getting those credits. So we just wanna give ourselves enough time and not.

We need your name for the record, No, I'm Malaya Storm,

and I'm with Pulte.

Thank you. Thank you.

I have one last question. On the traffic, it says the property will be subject to an enforceable development agreement with regards to the road improvements. Is that correct?

That's correct. That's typically brought to the BCC as a separate document.

At site plan?

Sometimes we do it before site plan. We may do it after. If they get final zoning approval, then we may do it then.

And you can make it a condition of zoning is what we're asking. We're not looking to avoid it. We're looking to add that requirement for both the roundabout. And then we're still working with county staff on some of the reimbursement for the 561 roundabout that county staff has already designed.

Okay.

Anything? Any other questions for the applicant? Any discussion from board members? Comments?

I make a motion to approve.

Are are we are we taking these separately? Five and then six? Or are we allowed to do them together?

You can do it in one motion.

I'll make a

motion to approve tabs five and six.

Second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

I'm k. I'm saying here.

You abstain.

I abstain.

Yes. Okay. Seven and eight. Let's give us about two minute break for mister Teitro to return.

Oh, there, Janie.

Okay. Please proceed.

Senior planner with the office of zoning. With your permission, I would like to present tab seven and eight together.

Please do.

The applicant is requesting to amend the future land use plan, in case number PZ2024Dash329, otherwise known as Oswalt Clermont, to amend the future land use plan from rural transition to a planned unit development and to rezone the property from urban residential district to a planned unit development to facilitate for a residential subdivision. The subject property is located West Of Oswalt Road in North Of Grand Hill Boulevard in the unincorporated area of Claremont. The subject property is currently designated with the rural transition land use category and zoned urban residential r six. The applicant has provided a statement, which proposes, the program is not anticipated to impact levels of service. The concept plan shown on the screen depicts a residential subdivision with 19 lots.

Additionally, the concept plan identifies 36.2 of the development site as open space as well as an impervious surface ratio of 65%. Staff does find the rezone and the future land use amendment request consistent with the land use development regulations and the comprehensive plan. This concludes my presentation. The applicant is present as well.

Okay. Any questions for staff at this point? Would the applicant like to make a presentation?

Morning. Again. Logan Opsall, 215 North Eula Drive. Thank you to staff for the overview. I'll be efficient with your time. This project's been around for a little while. We've had some applications in back in December. There's, been some changes, to allow for, consistent future land use, the PUD, to match what's being requested. There's also a decrease in lots that you see on the concept plan before you. Previously was being proposed was 21 single family homes.

And before you today is is 19. So that comes out to about, two point zero compatible of analysis as you can find in a staff report, and it includes other subdivisions in the area and a breakdown of their densities as well. So the average lot width is about 84 feet by a 120. And as you noted on the on the aerial, and you can you can also see what's before you in the screen, This is a vacant piece. It's very much a hole in a doughnut in a series of neighborhoods.

And so what's before you today is a recommendation to the commission based on compatibility and consistency. And we are appreciative of staff's analysis and an agreement that the proposed development is compatible and consistent with your comprehensive plan. With that, I will yield my time. I'll just reserve a few. I think there might be some folks here today to discuss. I'd love to be able to respond to them and answer any questions if you'd allow. And appreciate your time. Happy to answer any of your specific questions.

Yeah. And our typical format is after public comment, you have ten minutes rebuttal time. So we'll be glad to have you back. Sir. We do have two cards. And the first one is mister Gordon Gibson.

My name is Gordon Gibson. Address is 11503 Nelly Oaks Bend, Clare Mont. It appears that what I just saw up on the screen clears up what my issues were. The staff report I printed offline yesterday actually had the 21 lots, which decreased the amount of open space that y'all were approving. The 19, I believe, gets to the 35% with both the rezoning and the PUD showed as a requirement. So I believe what was presented just now clears up the issues I had.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Oh, Cindy Newton.

Y'all are keeping me busy today. Cindy Newton district four. We are trying very hard in Lake County right now to keep our agricultural land, our rural land, and our rural transition land to the density that is in the future land use. This is doubling density in the rural transition. Also, sewer, again, is not available.

They are gonna be getting water from Sunshine Water Services. Claremont is currently, working with Saint John's to increase their conceptional use permit for water because they're using more stepping in to try to help with the situation. One of the issues with that is that the central this is in the Central Florida Water Initiative area, And, the minimum flows and levels, reevaluation that's going through Saint John's and also Central Florida Water Initiative right now is due to the fact that we're over pumping. The yield right now from the Florida aquifer is 760,000,000 gallons per day, and the groundwater withdraw withdrawals exceeding that results in the Requiva River, Requiva Springs not meeting their current minimum flow levels. This affects our tourism.

This affects the viability of many of our vital and outstanding water systems. So just because this is coming from an alternate source of water, it's still coming from our Florida aquifer system and still causing issues that one of the reasons we're trying to keep the density as it is and not increase more withdrawals with the greater density. So thank you for your time.

Applicant, like to rebut.

Thank you. Appreciate the comments. Appreciate your time and understand general concern towards water and public supply. I just want to note again because I didn't at my first presentation that this is an existing R6 zoning designation. So we're moving to to PUD, which, again, will, require a development substantially consistent with the concept plan before you.

Again, that comes out to two, units per acre. So, we have adequate, supply of utilities, and, of course, we have to go through all of those permitting and requirements at the development stage. But this is one that is I have the luxury of having a a highly compatible project that allows virtually identical development program with the neighborhoods. So happy to answer any specific questions you have.

Could you address the the water and sewer issue that was in question?

Sure. It was a little more broad in nature, but there there is adequate water in the area. Decentralized system will be likely required per code. So both of those provisions of utilities would be available, for the 19 home site.

Any other discussion or questions from the board?

Questions?

I do have one more comment. When I looked at the ordinance that you have on tab eight, there's a typographical mistake on section one a point one, it reads nineteen twenty one as far as the number of homes. That's what I got offline yesterday. I'm not sure if the one in front of you has been corrected, but it that was the issue I had was the 19 number residents versus the 21 residents. And I don't know if that ordinance

The staff will correct before it goes to the Board of County Commission.

Just wanna bring it to your attention.

Okay. Do we have a motion?

I have a motion to approve. Second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? None heard.

Thank you for your time.

On to number 10.

All right. Good morning. For the record, Megan Brachiale, planner with the Office of Planning and Zoning. I will be presenting tab number 10, case p z 2024 Dash291, otherwise known as the Strange property. The request before the board is to rezone approximately point one nine acres from neighborhood commercial to urban residential districts to facilitate a single family dwelling unit.

Waiver to LDR section six point one two point zero one b and comp plan policy eleven three point one point two is also requested as central sewer services are not available to serve this subject property identified by alternate key number 1409616 is located on Fournier Avenue in the unincorporated Mount Dora area of Lake County. As shown on the screen, the subject property is currently designated with an urban high density future land use category and is zoned planned commercial district. The subject property is currently zoned neighborhood commercial district, and the proposed zoning is urban residential district. The subject property is also located within the Mount Dora joint planning agreement area. The subject property is currently vacant, flanked by a vacant parcel to the east, single family residences to the north and west, and faces commercially developed parcels that front County Road 19 A.

The current development pattern is illustrated on the screen. The blue color represents commercial development. The green color represents developed single family residences, all of which were constructed between 1947 and 1973 according to their property record cards. And this concludes concludes my presentation. I'm available to answer any questions.

Questions for staff? The applicant like to make a presentation?

The applicant was not able able to be here today.

Okay. Then we'll come back to excuse me come back to the board for discussion and or motion.

We need to open it for public comment.

Oh, sorry. Anyone who didn't submit a card or actually I'm sorry we do have a card. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Miss Taylor?

Hi. My name is Claudia Taylor. I live at 1455 Channel Drive in Mount Dora. I have some signed written letters, that I'm going to read to you if you'd like to read along along and, also, we, have a signed petition, within our neighborhood. We are looking to oppose this rezoning.

Okay. We, Michael and Claudia Russell, they are the owners of Claudia's Pearl Florist, and Michael and I, Claudia Taylor, 1455 Channel Drive, we would like to address the easement that would be affected by the proposed rezoning of the land behind our properties, which also includes the Central Christian Church in their parking lot. The easement is located in the middle of where our property lines meet. The easement ends at the back of the Central Christian Church parking lot in the back line of our properties. The easement has been maintained by us solely for twenty years.

Because of the use of trash trucks and residents, there are surface stabilization and drainage issues. We have brought in gravel, sand, and rock, over the years due to the con constant use of the easement. There are currently two residents located behind the multiple businesses off of 19 A, which use the easement as a driveway. But the easement stops and dead ends into the church parking lot. The concern we have is that if the proposed rezoning of the properties is accepted accepted and building is allowed, the easement would not be able to withstand the traffic of construction vehicles and materials that would be needed to build.

The easement is the only route for the vehicles to reach those properties and also adding or also, yeah, adding more residents to use the easement as a driveway would create more damage to what currently exists. Through the years of being residents in this neighborhood, we have encountered many properties surrounding us that have been condemned and torn down. Some properties were purchased with the hopes of building a single family home and or placing mobile home, on these properties, but they were denied due to the codes and setbacks of our zoned area. Another factor of concern is the endangered and protected gopher tortoises, tunnels, and burrows that are located all around our neighborhood and properties. We were pre previously advised by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to report any disturbance to the surrounding land due to active gopher tortoise tunnels and burrows.

We reported to the FWC conservation and code enforcement at the time of the non permitted clearing of this property and or land that was being considered for rezoning. The non permitted clearing was already completed by the time FWC and code enforcement were able to follow-up, on our reporting, and a fine was issued to the owner. So we ask that these factors be taken into consideration, for the re zoning request being made by mister Timothy Lee Strange. Also, I have a few pictures. I have a few pictures kinda showing the easement, and where kinda the property lines are. So I didn't know if how I could submit those

You can do that quickly. That's fine.

Okay. How

do I do that?

What? Right here.

Oh, okay. I gotcha. So this shows kind of where our property is, where the church parking easement starts here. Go ahead and put the other picture down. This is Channel Drive, and this is where Fournier Avenue a self maintained road. Yeah, it's an easement. And this is going down our property line, continuing down the road. And this is where I said it dead ends into the church parking lot. So the residents that are behind here have to go into the church parking lot. This is the property that he cleared without permits.

And so it it basically kinda just sits there because he I don't think he can go any further. So we're just asking that, you know, that this be oppose we are opposing this. So and, also, I I have a petition signed by residents. We have 25 homes. We weren't able to get all of them due to them being snowbirds or renters with

not being

able vacant homes too that Yeah. Have been vacant for decades.

Chairman, and, respectfully to you, the easement issue is not something this board can make a determine based upon. Looking at the particular map, it looks like that is their legal access. So I guess I'm curious and, know, I'm just your lawyer, but I'm just gonna ask the question anyways. Would you rather it be commercial? Because you can't stop them from building on it and then you're going to have commercial traffic coming back here.

What are the setbacks right now? Because I mean, I've right now we have a lot across from us that was denied because of setbacks. It's the same size property lot or same size lot. So we're kind of confused at first how he's even able to build a home when other homes have So been

those are two different issues. This board here is only concerned with zoning and that's the use. Whether or not the lot can actually be built on on by meeting setbacks and all of the other things in the lane development regulations, that comes later. So and that's the same issue. If it's not down zoned to residential, they have the legal entitlement right now to use that as commercial property. And then whatever their legal access is gets determined by a title company. The county has no say in what their legal access is. So if that easement is their legal access, regardless of whether it's commercial or residential, you can't stop them from using it. We're not

using that. It's just the drainage issue of the road

construction traffic.

And all of the drainage issues they have to deal with if they are going to build a house.

Because it's on our property. The front of that road is our property.

But again, if there's an easement and there's legal access through that easement, that's a civil issue. The county does not and cannot deny a rezoning or a building permit based on a dispute between neighbors over what legal access is. So this request today is to down zone to be a single family home versus a commercial business.

And that's what the petition is. Nobody really wants it to be rezoned for any purpose. It's been that way for one hundred years. So I don't think anybody really wants any change. And that's what the petition was for, just for a collective everyone in the neighborhood saying just leave it how it

And the petition you can give to the staff, and they'll put that in the file. But unless the board has any questions for me on that issue.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Board

discussion? Yep. And is I only had one card. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to address this issue? Okay. Board discussion and or motion?

Motion to approve. Second. We have

a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Okay. Eleven.

Good morning. For the record, Sherry Holt, Planner two with the Office of Planning and Zoning. I will be presenting tab number 11, case number PZ2024Dash105, otherwise known as Oaks Grove. The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 16 o six acres from agriculture to medium suburban residential district to facilitate the development of a residential subdivision with a maximum of 49 single family lots. The subject property is located at 26515 State Road 19 in unincorporated Howie In The Hills.

It's also located in the Howie In The Hills ISBN. As a point of clarification, the rezoning request and supporting documentation were provided to Howie in the Hills for review on 06/18/2024. On 06/03/2025, the Howie And The Hills town manager provided a letter of opposition to staff. The staff report will be revised prior to sending it to the board of county commissioners meeting to reflect this communication. K.

The subject property is currently designated with an urban low density future land use category and is currently zoned agriculture. The app the request proposes a maximum of 49 single family dwelling units, a maximum impervious surface ratio of 55% and minimum open space of 25%. Staff does find that the rezoning request is consistent with the land development regulations and the comprehensive plan. That concludes my presentation. Do you have any questions for staff? The applicant is also available for questions.

Okay. The applicant like to make a presentation?

Good morning. Margaret Brock, 1095 Harbor Island Road, Orlando, Florida, and 26515, State Road 19, Howling Hills. The subject property actually lived there, part time. I don't have a presentation. I simply want to, just to share that we have worked with staff to follow protocol and to work through this, and this is simply from a zoning perspective.

We don't have a site plan to share, and and we look forward to moving forward with certainly the community members and our neighbors to take a look at what it is we wanna do. As as partners, three partners in this development, we are looking to live there. So we are looking to enhance this and and and beautify this and really create an elevated opportunity, in this beautiful piece of land. I have resided in Lake County, part time and full time since 2018, having lived in Tavares and now in Howey and The Hills. So, again, this is near and dear to us, and and we look forward to moving this forward.

I believe there may be some questions for me as we move forward through this today, but I just wanted to share that that's where we are in this process. So we are we are looking, and have worked with staff and certainly are in compliance with what the future land use is. We're not looking for any exemptions, and we look forward to working with you all towards an approval. Thank you.

Any questions for the applicant from the board? Public comment. I have seven cards here. So first up, it looks like Eric, first name, is it Fox?

Eric Fox would like to defer to me. Is Wayne Sullivan. Can you start with me, if it's possible, because my letter that will be presented will take three people to read through the letter.

We can do that.

So we have Aaron Fox and Tammy Bean will be presenting these

oh, sorry.

Before I get started, before the clock starts ticking, I would like to present the letter that was given last night. And there's a screen or something that I can use? Is there Yes. Okay, great.

Just a second. Before you get started, you said three people are going to basically present a This letter. Okay. So you're first. Is Eric Fox second?

Aaron Fox is third, and Tammy Beam will be the closer.

Okay.

So my time's already okay.

That's okay.

Go. William Sullivan, 26336 State Road 19, Howie In The Hills, Florida 34737. We are in property the directly across the street from the applicant. We own the 18 acres across the as a which is a horse farm directly across the property. We object to Lake County rezoning from a to r four to forty eight nine single family lots for the following reasons.

R four zoning would allow 50 foot wide lots on Lake Harris and Little Lake Harris. The county has not approved Euclidean zoning classification of R four, which is what the classification they're requesting, or higher. And the former category was R10.1, or higher frontage with Lake Ferris in over fifty years, since 1973. There's not been a rezoning request of this higher density that's not a PD. According to the research that's attached, and that's in the back exhibits, and I can pull those out.

Hopefully I have time. There's the map. So you can see the maps in the back, and they go through them all. But let me keep going down. So according to the research, the the county has allowed smaller lots with more protective PD zoning districts.

Most recently, the approval on Lake Harris was Drakes Point PD with smaller lots in the interior and 75 foot wide by 150 foot or 11,250 square foot lots on Lake Harris. The PD provides greater protections for the lake and flexibility with wider lots and setbacks. The next page is the zoning classification. The presentation states that there's forty nine fifty foot lots according to the LDC code, R4 permits two family dwelling units and multifamily dwelling units. And so I don't know how the code would work on that, and I'll defer till after the to the thing.

The next I want to bring up is narrow setbacks. Let me put this on the on the screen. Right now, the narrow setbacks would allow 20 a five foot rear yard setback, but 25 feet from the road, which is from from is this there we go. 25 feet from the road, which is we give you to you know, would get you the 25 feet would get you literally, that's what it looks like on '48 with the 25 foot setback from the road. So that's terrible looking with a five foot rear yard setback in R4.

The next I want to show you is that there are no properties with less than 50 foot setback from SR19 all the way up three miles north from where we are. And Publix is going to be to the south of us, and that's not going to that's going to be we'll have a setback of more than 50 feet. So there's nothing within 50 feet, and that's kind of where I am on my presentation. What I do want to also state is that the we create village style housing housing in that. And so that's it's a bit of a problem.

It's just the PD PUD zoning is the direct way to go with this. This p they they requested to just do the r you know, they do the r zoning, you know, just do the the zoning for straight zoning. There's not been a straight zoning or Euclidean zoning on the lake since 1973 approved by the board of county commissioners. So this was an that you'll be setting the precedence has not been ever set in the last fifty years. In doing so, it would be a very dangerous precedent to set. I'll turn over now to Aaron.

Thank

you. Hello. I'm Erin Fox, Howie and The Hills resident. The surrounding and adjacent zone

Your address, please.

Sorry. 508 North Florida Avenue, Howie in The Hills. The surrounding and adjacent zoned properties in the county are a to r two. R 4 is not compatible with the adjacent zoned properties. You have Cypress Point East across SR19 zoned R2 platted with half acre lots over 20,000 square feet.

Portofino Bay, South East across SR19 zoned R1 platted with acre lots. Directly to the south zoned agriculture that used to be a Mission Resort Marina directly to the east is also Mission Equestrian zoned R1 presently and the equestrian facility. Possible lot size, the existing was 43,560 foot square lots and then the proposed zoning for R4 is 5,000 square foot. So as you can see in the transportation, according to the staff report, the standard level of service for the SR19 is D, with capacity of eight eighty eight trips. The project will generate forty six peak hour trips.

How is the applicant able to proceed without a full tier one traffic study? This small project may be over the limit for S R 19 with staff showing the peak capacity of S R 19 estimated at 93% with the 49 units. Present capacity cannot be determined without a traffic study. Additionally, our four zoning classification does not stipulate where the entrance will be placed. The applicant submitted an exhibit of a road plan on Exhibit F with entrance road lining up with the Savage Circle.

There are no guarantees in permitting FDOT will permit the entrance to be in this location. With a PUD plan, the applicant should would have met the FDOT prior to submittal to determine the best location for the entrance.

Good morning. My name is Tammy Bean. I'm a Lake County resident of Howie In The Hills, 11128 Savage Court, Howie In The Hills, Florida 34737. My issue is with the utilities. The Lake County staff report shows no availability of sewer or water.

How can the county approve a new development that doesn't meet the basic utility requirements found in the comprehensive plan policy I x two point two point two and I x three point three point one, which requires new development exceeding one unit per net acre to have secured the water and sewer capacity. How can this be approved without that capacity for sewer and water? There's been no community outreach. I understand that they may have reached out to Howie in the Hills, but we're a community directly across the street from them where they're gonna, you know, plan it on building. The applicant and its members made no attempt to reach out to any adjacent owners, including that of my own community, Cypress Pointe.

And we are in this we are right directly across is no one has heard from them. We are not made we were not made aware of the standard Lake County rezoning until the standard Lake County rezoning signs February on 02/20/2025. No mention of this application was found on the Lake County Planning and Zoning Development near remap until mister Sullivan brought this to our attention and to Lake County staff on May 27. We request the plating and zoning board make a recommendation to the b b BOCC of p z twenty twenty four dash one zero five for denial, and the BOCC commissioner deny this rezoning request. We do not want this request postponed and we ask that it be denied because for the R four zoning, it is not the proper zoning on Lake Harris and they cannot make the changes within this request.

Thank you for your time.

Okay. I have some other cards here. So we'll kinda take them in the order that they were handed to me. Mario Fernandez?

Good morning for the record Mario Fernandez. 26512 Savage Circle, Howie In The Hills, Florida. In 2018, I moved from Miami Dade County looking for a better place to live and I found the small town of Howey In The Hills. Since 2018, the old bridge that was there was knocked down and I had to endure pounding and my house vibrating and shaking as the new bridge went in. The bridge actually ends about 30 feet from the entrance to my home.

The county, the state, I not really sure, made absolutely no attempt to give us a proper ingress and egress to our community. So when we're going over the when I'm going over the bridge I have to put on my signal light halfway through the bridge, slow down so that when I get to the first entrance so I can make it home, there's absolutely no time because I have to stop all the traffic on the bridge, there's semi trucks, all kinds of traffics going north and south and it just makes it really difficult to get into my home. Many, many times I hear screeching and trucks swerving and coming and going. I've been hit almost five times, so as I put my blinker and I wait to go into my home peacefully, I pray that I'm not going to get rebounded and and and killed. There is absolutely no way with the amount of traffic that exists on State Road 19, people trying to get to work in the morning, going towards the Turnpike or going towards Mount Door, there's absolutely no way to get in and out of our community.

We are like locked locked in there. So I don't understand. Right now there are three communities that have been approved in Howie and The Hills. We're getting a new Publix, 750 homes, another community of seven fifty homes on Revels Road, another community of three fifty homes right just right over the hill, and now a proposed 49 more homes. How is it possible that all of this is happening without no infrastructure?

Just don't understand how the infrastructure is just not there to support this amount of homes. I just don't understand. So I think that there needs to be investigated, some sort of study of traffic to see how we we have been told that there's a second bridge going in that the new bridge the bridge that was put in would be going southbound, the new bridge will be going northbound and the area would actually be expanded to four lanes. So I highly suggest that before this crazy development goes into place in addition to everything that's already been proved that you please deny this so that we can ingress and egress out of our community. Thank you so much for your time.

I appreciate it. Thank you.

Laurie Bender? Lori Bender? James Bender? Bendy. It says tab 11 on their card.

David Miles?

Thank you. My name is David Miles. I live at 500 East Camellia Way in Howie In The Hills. I'm a member of the town council of Howie In The Hills. We found out when I say we, I'm talking about the town council of this particular request at our last council meeting which was two Mondays ago.

Unfortunately, your staff burrowed down to so deeply into our staff that it didn't surface to a person of enough responsibility to come talk to you until just now. We are very much opposed to this. In fact, if you could show the map, let me see if I can put the map that they had here. Is that display?

Are you trying to show a map on a piece of paper?

Yes. Right here? Sure. Okay. Where

What do you want?

There. This? This. Oh, it has to be up. Yeah. Okay. If you look at this map, the colored areas are two enclaves within boundary of Howey and The Hills. They are bounded on two sides by Little Lake Harris. The State Route 19 right away is actually in Howey in the Hills. Savage Drive that these individuals mentioned before is in one of the two unincorporated enclaves.

So those residents are not within the town of Howie but they are our neighbors and we do support them. Our police patrol State Route 19. The area meets the requirements under state law for involuntary annexation in Dahoe. There are two enclaves,

one on

each side of the road. And in fact, our town manager within the last year has discussed with the owner of this property the possibility of annexing. Within the last two years, actually I've been on the council two and a half years, we have spent literally hundreds of hours redoing the comprehensive plan and the zoning regulations. And now strangely enough, normally you find people going into a city to get more dense zoning. But here we find in Howie, people are going to the county to obtain more dense zoning from the county than they would get from the city.

Drake Point that the gentleman mentioned before was the first example of that and interestingly enough Howie just in the month is service. There are a couple

I'm gonna call them

half to wrap it up quickly.

I can't wrap it up quickly. You there's information you need to know that's not provided in this application that the town of Howey can provide to you and it will take me just maybe two I'm asking for two extra minutes in order to go over this. I represent a unit of government that has asked these people to annex the property so it could be developed within the town and this property would not get the density in the town of Howey that they're requesting here. And you can see their neighbors in the county do not want that density. Density.

There is a large property called Thompson Groves across the street from this property that's also zoned in the the town of Howie for two units an acre, acre. That's half acre lots. The size of this property would actually with them giving 25% of the land for open space, the other 75% would be developed at roughly six units to an acre. There are several other half truths in here. We are building a $10,000,000 plus water plant, it's not within a thousand feet of the property, but it's within 2,000 feet of the property.

It's up at the stoplight at the corner of State Route 1919 And 48. Water Plant Number 3 is currently under construction.

Okay. Mister Miles, we really need to move on to the next speaker.

Okay. Thank you very much. Also, the development that we've approved next to it provides wastewater service capacity for both of these enclaves. You need to know those things when you make your decisions. Are there's information that's not been provided. Do have a format we need to follow. I know. Thank you. Tim Everline.

Good morning. Tim Everline, 1012 North Lakeshore Boulevard in Howey. I, like Mr. Miles, am also a Town Council member in Howie In The Hills. And I'm opposed to this development for a number of reasons, including a lot of them that have already been discussed. One of the things that states in the proposal is that that's

very And

foot side setbacks. That's not a quarter acre, it's not even close. So that didn't make any sense to me. The project also proposes septic. I don't think it's good to have septic right along the lake.

I don't think the state would be too thrilled with that either. The other thing that concerns me is, and one of the gentlemen addressed addressed this, is if you have a development of 49 homes there and let's say they want to go into Tavares, they're going to have to go across 19 to turn left. That traffic is so bad there and these developments that have already been approved and are now being mass graded, that doesn't even include the traffic that that's going to add. So that's going to be extremely, extremely dangerous. If If you look at the long range transportation plans of Florida Department of Transportation, you will not find another bridge going across there in the next twenty five years.

So we're stuck with that the bridge as it is now. The traffic is just going to be terrible. I know Florida Department of Transportation is looking at it right now. But to me, to approve this would just not be in the best interest of the county. You can see, and again it's been mentioned, but across the Cypress Point, those are all half acre lots. It's a nice development there. To have as many units as they're talking about an acre would not be good. So please think about these when you consider it and I definitely am opposed to it. Thank you.

Margaret Brock. There are. It didn't have Okay. It wasn't marked whether it was opposition or it was just tabbed or marked. Linda Modica?

Yeah. Have to

share. Don't mind.

They're not great copies. Try yours off. Turn Turn yours Turn

Turn off.

Okay.

Good morning. Or is it afternoon already? My name is Linda Motica. I live at 26424 Savage Circle, that Cypress Point

subdivision that we're talking about, they say that a picture's worth a thousand words, and I want to give you a new perspective. You've heard all the testimony so far. This is my view, standing at the edge of the bridge, looking toward Cypress

Cypress Point, headed toward Howey. I'm in the I'm in the middle of the lane. Right? Let's visualize me as a car, and I'm doing 55 miles an hour coming over the bridge. If I look to the left and I see that there's no car coming out of Cypress Point, the first entrance, I think, okay, can keep my speed. If I see there's no car at the other entrance, I can keep my speed, and I'm doing 55 miles an hour around that curve. Do you know where that property line is for this property that we're talking about? It's behind that sign, further up. You can't see it. You cannot see the entrance, the very boundary of their property from where I'm standing.

Right? So I'd like you to keep that in mind when you make your decision. Have you driven that section of Highway 19? There are no turn lanes. There's no there's not a single turn lane from the bridge all the way up to

the

light. And I'm glad that Mario Fernandez talked about the stress of trying to turn into our subdivision. I was rear ended there in 2018, trying to turn into that first entrance. And I'm not the only resident that that's happened to in Cypress Point. If I have to make a left hand turn, I do the same thing he does. I'm I'm pumping my brakes. I've got my turn signal on, I'm halfway across the bridge. And as I come up, I can see that the first entrance, I'm not gonna make it to that one. It's not gonna happen. So I'm slowing down, I'm pumping, I get to the second entrance, I have to stop because traffic is coming, and it's just full.

There's no spot to get through, and I'm a pretty fast driver. Just saying. Behind me, I've got cars and trucks that are trying to go around. The first one gets around me. The second one has to apply his brakes in a very loud fashion, as Mario mentioned, so that he doesn't run into me. It's a scary thing. And the problem is that this whole property, the rezoning, doesn't just affect Cypress Point. It affects Royal Harbor, and it affects people in Howey. It affects people even farther afield than that. This is a main corridor.

And I have, in the space of two days, 111 signatures on a petition. And they all say, do the infrastructure first. Do the right thing. You know, make sure the roads are safe before you add any more cars. It's just the right thing to do. Thank you.

Sandy Newton.

I think you're seeing a pattern here. Cindy Newton, unincorporated Eustace. My opposition to this, a lot of it is already brought up with the water and the sewer. The impervious surface ratio on this is going from 10% to 55%. That's a huge increase.

Under agricultural zoning, only three dwelling units be could be put on this property. They're asking to go up to a possibility of 49. This is an agricultural zoning that's looking to increase dramatically. So thank you for your time.

Okay. Would the applicant like to rebut comments? Hold it. Wait a minute. Actually, we do that, is there is there anyone who wants to speak on this that hasn't turned in a card? Okay.

Good afternoon. For the record, Janie Varone, planning manager, office of planning and zoning. Just wanted to clear up a couple of things that came out.

Janie, just before you do, there was one more person that I Sorry. Wanted to

You're fine.

That's okay. Just state your name and address for the record, please.

My name is Alan Hayes, 111 Island Drive, Howie In The Hills. I'm not here to request no growth and say, I wanna be the last one here, so close the door behind me. That's not the point. We collectively have all found this beautiful part of Florida before the newest residents and future arrivals. Our greatest natural resource here in Central Florida is not our theme parks, it's not the space force complex, it's not our agriculture and it's not oranges, it's the pristine lakes and waterfronts.

We've all been here long enough to see what happens when we don't protect it. It turns into Lake Apopka. It has and will take decades to correct the mismanagement of growth around that lake. If we look at satellite photos, you can see how different and damaged that lake is compared to Harris and the Claremont chains. We're not the only ones who realize how special this area is.

Bassmasters comes here several times a year with all different levels of nationally televised tournaments. Just walk around Tavares, Leesburg, Eustis or Mount Dora and you'll see all the anglers wearing their tournament shirts and spending lots of money. That revenue stream must be protected for our small visitors, our small businesses and residents for years to come. We as residents also have a vested interest and obligation to enjoy, nurture and protect protect the natural beauty we have all moved here to enjoy. Many of us go to the FWC meetings right here at the community center in Tavares.

FWC does their part to inform us and manage this fragile ecosystem, and we help. We do shoreline cleanups, boat ramp cleanups, reporting and encouraging people to do the right thing whenever they're near the water or on the water. We cannot jeopardize this amazing benefit we have been entrusted with. It's your job as board members to mindfully manage growth and collectively protect what we have all built. I would kindly ask the board to send this proposal back for rework to achieve the protections we all need.

To my untrained eye, the developers have several options to achieve what we all need. They can conform to predominantly existing lot sizes along the shoreline. Typically, except for mobile home parks, that's a 100 foot width and 100 to 300 in-depth. They could also reposition their lakefront lots and move them back away from the immediate shoreline and create a park like buffer that all their residents or possibly the public could use. We need that space to adequately filter the normal irrigation water, fertilizers, etcetera that flow into the lake.

Or create a shoreline road with houses on the lake side of the road and that bicyclists and golf carts and runners could use to enjoy the the lake views and put the houses beyond that. In summary, there are many ways to mitigate potential damage to the lakes, and I beg the board to send this back and have them apply for a different type of zoning that will protect these natural resources we all need and enjoy. Thank you for for your time.

Good afternoon. Again, Janie Barone, planning manager for the office of planning and zoning. Just wanted to kinda put something on the record because there was some comments regarding the notice, procedures and the procedures for governing public hearings. And the notices that stated at agenda update were duly noticed in accordance with the LDR's Florida statues. So the notice procedures were handed out and completed in accordance with LDR section 14 o o o five, which is a minimum of ten days priors, which, the residents kinda confirmed that the case was posted twelve days prior.

And then regarding LDR section 14 o o o six, procedures for governing public hearings, the case doesn't get posted on the development near me. The public hearing documents and agenda are posted within our board meeting's web page, and they're they were posted in accordance with the LDRs five days prior to the meeting. So I just wanted to put that on the record.

K.

Thank you.

Applicant rebuttal.

So there is much that I don't disagree with in terms of the special nature of this property and certainly the location. With regards to FDOT and and certainly the traffic, we see the same concerns. I pull out of the property also, and I see it. We had shared there was an exhibit that shared where we're realigning our entrance to that of Cypress Point. That would be something that would be required of us, and it opens up the opportunity for potential of a controlled access, which we would certainly benefit from, which everyone would also from a safety perspective.

So, again, this is not us coming in errantly and making recommendations. We are looking towards that. With regards to the zoning and, again, that is what we are we are we are here for today. There we understand at our next round when we present the site plan to you all that that is when we have to overlay any restrictions on the property with regards to sewer and water and so on, and you will see the density, and you will see the land uses. You will see those lot lines, and you'll see the site plan reflect that.

We have no interest of putting 50 foot wide lots on the lake. That is not the intention at all. But that is for the next stage when we come before you when we start to show that. This is simply for a rezoning that's allowed within with which certainly is within our right as owners, and it aligns with what what Lake County is showing. But the second when we follow-up and we bring those site plans to you, we certainly wanna talk to our neighbors.

We want them to see what it is. We're looking at the land buffers and the the vegetative buffers as you approach the property. We don't want a tunnel effect. We don't want to we we want to enter into Howey and and really be a good guardian guardian of this location. Again, I am a property owner in the town of Howey.

I have houses and property, and I have been a good steward of that. I have a history of being in this community and wanting to continue that. So we're excited about moving forward. We are simply asking by by means of rezoning that we're allowed to move forward to the next stage so that we then can present what this community will be. I really do appreciate your your time and your listening, and certainly your your consideration for our request. Thank you.

Okay. Back to the board for discussion. Comments, motions?

Have a question for staff. Water and sewer. I understand that what they would do is if they got the zoning approved, they would deal with water and sewer when they go to site plan approval? Correct? And there'd have to be an agreement in place and all that good stuff.

Yes. If water and sewer aren't available, there are alternatives, but they will have to meet the comprehensive

That would be at site plan?

That's part of the development, yes.

Actually, I think, isn't that a CDD?

We have a utility notification letter that said otherwise. I don't know if that's been Okay.

Yeah, I think it's a CDD.

The same question would apply to traffic, ingress, egress and every other element that's actually been brought up in the opposition.

That would be reviewed and taken care of during the development process. If you wanted to look at attachment e, that would be the utility notification letter that was provided. Did you have any other questions for me?

I'd make a motion to approve.

I second. We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Tab 12 has already been approved on the consent agenda.

Can you give me just a moment? If

you'll give me

just a moment, I'll be right with you.

Any staff comments in closing?

I do. I just wanted a quick reminder that we do have the comprehensive plan workshop on June 10 from two to four in the Agricultural Center in Tavares. It's jointly with the Lake County Board of County Commissioners for the growth management workshop, Sherri's. I mentioned it in the last meeting, so just wanted to provide a reminder.

Okay. And we're invited to that?

You are invited, and it's strongly encouraged that participation.

Great.

Okay.

Do we have a motion for adjournment?

I have a question. Oh.

Would you

repeat the location for me?

Yes, ma'am. The comprehensive plan workshop is gonna be at the Agricultural Center in Tavares, June 10, two to 4PM.

Thank

you. You're welcome.

Okay.

Thank you.

Now, do we have a motion To for adjourn. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. We're adjourned. See you next month.