Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. We'll go ahead and call to order this meeting of Lake County's Planning and Zoning Board. If you would all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance and remain standing for a moment of silence.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and

All right, let's be seated. The Lake County Planning and Zoning Board is an advisory board to 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 these applications to the Board of County Commissioners. The recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board are transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration at a scheduled hearing. And for the cases that are on our agenda today, that would be the October 6th Board of County Commission meeting at 9 a.m. At this time, is there any update to the agenda?

Good morning, Madam Chair. For the record, Janie Burrow, Planning Manager, CRA Coordinator with the Office of Planning and Zoning. I will be presenting the agenda to you this morning, which consists of seven cases. At this time, I'd also like to enter into the record that the cases have been totally noticed in accordance with state statute. And in addition, for agenda update, I would like to let you know that tab six, staff has continued that application to the October 7th, 2026 planning and zoning agenda meeting. And tab seven, a memo containing the correspondence regarding the case has been provided and is available in the dais for you. In that case will be moved to the regular agenda and staff will do a full presentation.

Okay, I also have, folks that have turned in speaker cards for tabs one, two, three, and four, which would leave tab five on the consent agenda with tab six postponed to our October meeting. Is that correct? Okay, so at this time, is there any other need for the board to make any changes to our agenda or the consent agenda? If you're wanting to speak on tab five, which is what's remaining on our consent agenda right now. Right, that's going to the regular agenda. We're only keeping tab five on the consent agenda, all other items except tab six. which is being postponed will be moved to our regular agenda. Does anyone have a need for tab five to be discussed or to have a full presentation on tab five? Okay, I would entertain a motion on the consent agenda.

Second. Second.

Oh, sorry, we jumped ahead, but that's okay. That's okay, we didn't really need a motion on it. But I think we can still vote on it, right? Yeah, okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Yeah, but tab six is postponed. Does everyone know that tab six has been postponed to the October hearing? Okay, anybody needed to speak on tab six, you would need to come to the October hearing. All right, at this point, we will move on to the minutes. Has everyone had an opportunity to review the minutes of August 7th? Are there any changes edits or revisions to the minutes of August of August 5th? If none, I'd entertain a motion on the August 5th. Got a motion. Is there second? Okay. We have a motion a second. Any further discussion? If not all in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed. Same sign. Okay. At this time, we'll allow for public comment on any item that is not already on our agenda for discussion today. So that would be for any topics not pertaining to the cases that are going to be heard today. Does anyone wish to speak on anything not currently on our agenda? Seeing none. All right. We will move on to our regular agenda now, which will begin with tab one, Sun Shower Estates.

Good morning. For the record, Leslie Regan, senior planner with the Office of Planning and Zoning. I'll be presenting top number one case number PZ 2025 to 74, otherwise known as Sun Shower Estates. The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 19.68 gross acres from agricultural to planned unit development to accommodate a 57 lot residential subdivision. The subject property is located on Rolling Acres Road and contains approximately 19.68 gross acres, 19.03 net. The subject property is currently designated with an urban low future land use category and zoned agricultural. The subject property is also located within the Economic Development Overlay District. The concept plan, as you can see on the screen, depicts 57 residential lots with a maximum density of three dwelling units per acre with a minimum of 65-foot lot widths. There are 3.3 acres of stormwater detention and 4.77 acres of open space, equating to the 25% that's required. Access to the subdivision is proposed off Rolling Acres Road with a potential future roadway connection at the rear subdivision to the north. Rolling Acres Road is a county maintained paved road. Stormwater detention areas will be enhanced with native tree planting and landscaping. Staff does find the rezone consistent with land development regulations and comprehensive plan. This concludes my presentation and I will stand for any questions. The applicant is here as well.

Thank you. Does anyone have questions for staff before we hear from the public?

I have a question. I'm not positive that for you, for the dope, uh, it says for temporarily it'll be, uh, there have essential sewage, but then once one's available, um, uh, to, to be switched over, is there a timeline as to when that's.

So the applicant is willing and actually wants to connect to Central Sewer. The town of Lady Lake does not have the capacity. They have given a utility notification that says at this time they do not have capacity. So what they're willing to do is they are going to do a community well water system, which is considered central, and then also a DWTS system.

But there's no timeline as to when they were thinking they'd...

I do believe in the utility attachment letter, it just states that...

I think it just says not before 2029 or 2030. Yes. So they would be doing a central internal system for water and sewer, but they would set that up so that it can be converted back over to the main system with Lady Lake once that capacity is available? If and when capacity becomes available, yes. Okay. Are there any other questions for staff before we hear from the public? Okay, thank you. All right, we just have one speaker request on this, and that is Morgan Sellers. For anyone wishing to speak today, please make sure that you state your name and address for the record, and everyone will have three minutes. You will hear a buzzer kind of bell go off whenever you hit that three minutes. If you could please wrap up at that point, that would be great. Thank you.

hi good morning my name is morgan sellers and i live at 38139 rolling acres road in lady lake florida which is um the border of the northern part of the picture shown above my property is the one connecting to that and so um I'm here today to voice my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning for the 57 lot residential subdivision directly south of my property. My primary concerns are the safety and functionality of Rolling Acres Road and the town of Lady Lake in general. We all are aware that this corridor is already struggling to keep up with the current growth and there is already motions for three other developments around this specific property, um, to be developed. And so with the 900 plus houses that have already been approved and in the beginning stages of developing, um, approving another smaller subdivision will not only strain the infrastructure but also put a strain on our natural resources and town abilities like trash collection school capacity water concerns while i understand that the main traffic analysis has been reviewed and infrastructures like the two new single lane roundabouts that they added into rolling acres road are their way for improvements with the traffic flow the day-to-day reality of this is those two improvements so they call them hasn't really improved any function for rolling acres or like the influx of traffic that we're going to see and have seen lately it's turning simple tasks like taking my trash out getting the mail bus stop with my kids into dangerous situations that feel more like navigating a highway than just our local road um We need the town and county to hold developers accountable for localized traffic calming, clear pedestrian infrastructure, and strict boundary protections for the immediate neighbors who were here first. Growth is coming, but it should never come at the cost of residential safety, natural resources, strain, or complications. And I respectfully request, hold on, the rezoning as it's premature until the town of Lady Lake can prove that not only Rolling Acres Road can handle the load, and that our current infrastructure is capable of the density, but also our town resources, like I mentioned, like the schools could handle the influx of residents to our area as well. Because I know that Rolling Acres, the Villages Elementary School on Rolling Acres is already at max capacity of So we would also need plans for how they're gonna do that in the future.

Thank you. Okay, does anyone else wish to speak on this item before we move on?

Other, I mean, we're gonna bring the applicant up.

Just give me a second. Does anyone else from the public wish to speak on this before we move forward? Okay, thank you. Does anyone have questions for staff? based on what we heard from public comment. If not, I'll allow the applicant to come up and make any statement they wish to make. Okay. If the applicant's present, is there anything you'd like to say or add to the conversation at this point?

Mr. We do have a presentation that I can move through quickly that I think will help address some of the public concerns as well as provide you with a little additional information. My name is Craig Brazier. I'm a professional certified planner with NV5 representing the applicant. This is a rezoning application to PUD. I do want to point out that the future land use is already in place that supports this density. So what we're proposing is actually rectifying an inconsistency between the current zoning and the underlying land use. So the underlying land use currently allows, you know, up to about 80 units on the site. We are obviously not trying to maximize that we're capping it at 57. Because as you can see from this schedule here on the presentation, we made our submittal about a year ago. So we have put in a lot of time working with staff, meeting with the county's transportation engineering department. We've gone through a lot of changes to our plan to make sure that it was something that everybody could approve and that also worked for the applicant. So you can see here how it sits, you know, adjacent to the boundaries of the town of Lady Lake, which that was our first discussions and our first option was to try to annex. But as staff mentioned, they did not have the utility capacity at this time, nor could they promise it for some time in the future. So we had to come up with an alternative approach, which is what brought us here today. Here's an aerial of the site. And this is the land use that's currently in place that I was talking about. So urban low density already allows up to four units an acre. This PUD is consistent with that. Currently today there's ag zoning, which is not consistent with the underlying future land use. So this does rectify that inconsistency. The PUD is what we are proposing. And this is the PUD plan. Staff pointed out that we are proposing a minimum of 65 foot wide lots. There's a minimum of 25% open space. To the transportation concerns, we worked quite a bit with the county transportation department. So we are dedicating additional right of way along rolling acres for improvements. this project will be adding southbound right turn lane into the project as well as northbound left turn lane into the project we had to work very closely to make sure that all of those did so where we have our access point for this project is about the only place we can have it so that we're meeting some of the separation distance requirements from the roundabout that is to the south and from other uh transportation conditions to the north of us And it's also standing at the county has started the process of a PD and E project development and environment study for this corridor of rolling acres. So they will be looking at what's necessary holistically, as far as transportation improvements to improve traffic and traffic flow and capacity along this roadway segment over the next year or so. I'd also like to point out that the first concept plan that we submitted and when we started this process had 76 lots, had smaller lots, a higher number of lots. Through going through the review process and working with staff, we reduced the number of lots down to the 57, made them wider lots. and maintained the there's an access easement that runs along the southern boundary of this site. 15 feet of that are on this site. Another 15 feet or to the south so that access easement because folks do use it to the west will remain in place on the north and then some additional buffering will be provided along rolling acres and then should ever the connection to the north be desired in the future we have also laid this out to accommodate that should it ever be necessary but then this is the plan that we're moving forward with larger Lots less number the transportation improvements that we talked about so with that I'll have to be happy to answer any other questions that you may have thank you does anyone have questions for the applicant

Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff before we move on to motions? Okay. I'll entertain a motion on tab one, which is Sun Shower Estates rezoning.

I make a motion to approve.

I have a motion. Is there a second?

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Thank you all. We will now move on to tab two, which is the Vojtek property, future land use and rezoning. We have speaker cards on both tabs two and tab three. Are you gonna present tabs two and three together?

With your permission, yes.

Okay, yeah, that sounds great.

All right, good morning. For the record, Megan Bracioli, Planner 2 with the Office of Planning and Zoning. I will be presenting tabs number two and three, case number PZ2026-188, otherwise known as the Wojtek Property Future Land Use Amendment and Rezone. The applicant is requesting to amend the future land use map and rezone the subject parcel to planned unit development to facilitate a single lot residential subdivision. The subject property is located along Huff Road in the unincorporated Eustis area and contains approximately 4.45 net acres. The subject property is currently designated with a Wekiva River Protection Area A120 sending area future land use category and is zoned agriculture district. The subject property is located within the Wekiva River Protection Area and the Wekiva Study Area. The concept plan depicts the proposed future development consisting of a primary residence and a barn. All proposed development is located outside of the flood hazard area of the property. Staff finds the future land use amendment and rezone consistent with the land development regulations and comprehensive plan. This concludes my presentation. I will stand for questions and the applicant is present for questions as well.

Okay, before we hear from the public, does anyone have questions for staff?

Specifically, what exactly does sending area mean?

Within the Wekiva River Protection Area, we have sending and receiving areas, and it has to do with the transfer of density from the sending area to receiving area. What can be transferred? Transferred.

And I just have a question about why we're doing this as a PD. I understand that the, the ag zoning or ag district standard requires 20 acres for us for a unit. Is that correct?

The ag requires the five, the Waukega river, a one 20 requires 20 acres.

So right now they have no ability to develop their land other than agricultural use, correct? That is correct.

It is not a lot of record as it is.

Okay. And because they're in the PD standard, I'm trying to figure out why we can't just zone it residential, I guess, instead of doing a PD for one unit.

Can you pull up the aerial, please? and see if I can answer the questions. So the property that's highlighted in yellow is what's subject to your application today. The three parcels to the south of that are all owned by the same owner. The parcel in yellow was owned by the person that owns the three properties to the south. So the four properties made up one single lot of record. About 10 years ago, the property owner who owned the entire four parcels came in to do a family density exception. So that's why you now see four separate parcels, because they divided it off, which was supposed to be sold only to relatives. So about a year after that was approved, the county notified the owner that they were in default, because they did not pull a permit for each of the properties to put a single family home, and they did not maintain the agricultural exemption. So that property owner at that time was notified that their family density exception was voided. We recorded that in the public records. We made several attempts to notify the property owner that this was no longer to be considered for separate properties. Fast forward 10 years in advance, these individuals purchased the one property that you can see there. So it's not a recognized lot. It does not meet the future land use of A120. The only way to correct this is for them to apply for the plan unit development future land use and the plan unit development zoning. Those are the only options that we have in the code short of them selling it back to the previous property owner or pursuing some type of other civil remedy We do not recognize it as a buildable lot So if you if this is denied If you recommend denial and the Board of County Commissioners denies it then no they would not be able to build on this single property

As of right now, when we look at this in the tax role, are these still four separate properties on the tax role?

I believe they are, but the tax role is not zoning. It's a completely separate entity. People can have separate tax bills even though we only recognize a property as buildable with a certain amount of acreage.

Okay, and so this has already been, you know, the family density standard, that was already voided in the record. Ten years ago. Ten years ago. Of record. And so the person that purchased this property, that would have been part of their due diligence process. They would have come across that, like, as part of a title search or something like that. Correct. Okay. Okay.

People don't pay attention to title searches on residential like they do commercial guys. Most people don't even look at anything.

Well, I assume they got a loan for it. But we'll bring that back to discussion if we need to discuss amongst the board. Is there anything else we need to be aware of on this property? Any other questions for staff? Okay, we'll go ahead and hear from the public and then we'll come back if we have additional conversations. I do have two speaker cards on this. The first one I have is Lee Musselman.

Lee Musselman, I'm 44 in Cashion. Number one, this thing here, you say it's one per 20. When I read the Wekiva River Protection Act, it's within a mile of Blackwater Creek. It's one per 40. You, if not y'all or county commission, have denied numerous other five, eight, 12-acre tracks in this area. The yard signs, are they supposed to be placed? There were two yard signs on the property. Both of them were in the driveway entrance. where you could not really see them good driving down the road. Like I said, many others in the area have been denied. One, literally two lots over from this years ago was denied. One of the reasons, and I don't know if you were here, when they first did the Wekiva River Protection Act A lot of people in this area were upset because of the zoning restrictions. And what y'all said at that time was because of them, in the future, your land values will go up because people will want to get into that area. If you approve this, the values are starting to go up because people realize to get there, they have to have either 20 or 40 acres or be more than a mile and a half away from Blackwater Creek. Like I said, three people that I know were denied that probably did what these people did. They said, ooh, five acres. It's cheap. They bought it. Then they found out they can't build on it, and they've had to sell it to adjacent property owners. So, I mean, I think the precedence there has been set that you can't build there. They're very close to Blackwater Creek. Another one got turned down for, y'all said something about the septic in the downhill to the creek. I don't know if that's still is in play. That's about all I got to say.

Thank you. Cindy Newton.

Good morning, 17 Newton district four. I'm also here to oppose the future land use change from the Wakai river protection area, a one 20 sending area. to plan unit development to accommodate a single residential subdivision. I'm not opposed to the property owner building a home. I'm opposed to this process being used to accomplish it. If a single family resident would otherwise be permitted on five acres, and this is just under that, a variance should have been approved. This is a very complicated case where family lot division went wrong. More importantly, the WARPA sending area is not interchangeable with the WARPA receiving area. The sending and receiving areas were essential to the Recover River Protection Area's low density protection strategy and also to the Transferred Development Rights Program. The purpose of the sending area is to preserve the royal land and limit development pressure, not create a pathway for individual partials to obtain a different future land use designation. The staff report states that the higher density allowed within Warpa is 5.5 dwelling units per acre. That is misleading because that is not allowed in this sending area. There's also an important precedent that could be set here. In 2023, the staff proposed a change that would specifically allow PUD future land use change in our rural protection areas and in Warpa. that proposal was not adopted. So one question I have is if PUD future land use was allowed at that time, why was this even proposed as a change for an amendment to the comp plan? Approving this request could effectively accomplish through a single case what the county previously chose not to establish as policy. This is not about whether one house will significantly impact the environment. It's about whether we maintain the integrity of the Wekiva River sending area and the rules that govern it. Please deny the future land use map amendment with PUD designation. If the county determines relief is legally available, then that would be the avenue to pursue. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

And Madam Chairman, just to correct what I said earlier, I went back and looked at the staff report. The family density exception was revoked in 2006. I just looked at that. So it was 20 years ago. 20 years ago. Yes, ma'am.

All right. Is the applicant present? Would the applicant like to come up and make any statements about their proposal?

Yes. Hi, my name is Jay Bloater. I'm an attorney at American Eagle PA. I'm here on behalf of Mark and Jill Wojtek. First, I just want to tell you about the Wojtek and kind of their story. When they went to purchase this property, they bought it from, or they researched it through one of those, you know, like land lot search engines, one of those online portals, and it was marketed to them as a buildable lot. When they did the research on the property appraiser's website, it said that it was buildable. So everything pointed towards it being a buildable lot. The tax collector, indeed, as we've already pointed out, is recognized as a lot of record for over 20 years now. And Trilogy Homes, which is their preferred builder, had some conversations with the county at some points in talking about setbacks and other pre-built processes. And it wasn't brought to their attention then that it was not a lot that that could be built on either. This narrative maybe that they didn't do their due diligence I think is a little misguided. They're not realtors nor are they attorneys. So to them it was totally buildable and they're in a pretty bad circumstance now where they've taken out loans and have incurred an incredible amount of cost to try and get this bill done. We're now over a year past where their build was supposed to start trying to get this done. As you can see in our staff report, our application here has checked every single box. We talk about the environmental integrity, and I do respect, obviously, the process here. Um, but our environmental reports were over a half a mile away from, from any wetlands. Um, hydrologically speaking, we're, we have no connection to the wetlands at all. Uh, every, every species that the WRPA is meant to protect is not on this lot. Not, not, I think the closest bald eagle nest is, is a mile away. There's a few potential gopher tortoise burrows that weren't there. Weren't even noted that there were tortoises on site, but. The environmental engineer recommended that we didn't even need a permit to build, even with those boroughs on site. So, like I said, we've checked every box here from our perspective, and all we're asking for the board here is to recognize that we're attempting to align this lot with the character of all the lots that surround it. I think Megan had on her PowerPoint, there's a GIS photo of the lot. There's like 40 residential lots surrounding this one that are all homes. I'm kicking myself because I made a PowerPoint. I didn't think y'all had the capability to do one, but I had a GIS photo that I pulled up that, you know, there's, like I said, 30 to 40 residential homes surrounding the Voitex property. So, you know, they're not large-scale developers. This isn't a subdivision. It isn't a self-storage area. It isn't a big commercial park. You know, this is just a single residential owner trying to build a home and, like I said, bring the slot into character with the lots that surround it. Um, I think recommendation or a recommendation of denial here calls into question, honestly, the nature of all these presidential properties. And also, um, you know, there's the sibling properties from the lot split that are all, that are all beneath it. There's one, two, three. I think it's like, there's, there's four properties. Ours is the farthest one, one, two, three, and four. Um, like I said, those are all recognized in tax as individual lots. Um, so I think it calls into question those. And I just want to reiterate that the boy ticks are not large scale commercial developers, this is a small scale residential build, and what we're aiming to do here is just bring this lot into character and align it with those surrounding it. I can take any questions if y'all have any.

Anyone have questions for the applicant?

Was the property, was there a material misrepresentation by the seller?

That's our position. I mean, when the Voight-Tix went to purchase the property, the seller marketed the property as a buildable lot from the get-go. So they were put on notice that it was a buildable lot when they initiated the purchase of it. So, and, you know, the Voight-Tix weren't aware of the provocation until about five or six months after they purchased and started this process. It was on the title search in the exceptions area. of that search, but even, it was under a pretty innocuous title. It didn't come up as a revocation of law split, it was like a notice. So, like I said, they aren't attorneys, they aren't realtors, they wouldn't have, that wouldn't have glared out to them as an issue to flag and seek more advice on. So, a long way of answering yes. It was marketed to them as a buildable law and they thought so.

Okay. Any other questions for the applicant?

Well, it sounds like the remedy would be more since, well, wait a minute.

Do you have a question for the applicant? Cause we can move into discussion. Does anyone have anything else for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. We'll let you know if we have anything additional and is there anything further for staff?

Yes. I just wanted to add to the record briefly. Um, if we go to a policy, I dash, 3.3.2 to clarify the limit of density and intensity.

Are you pulling that up on the screen so we can see it?

Thank you. We're right here. Just to clarify this policy, just say that land within the Wekibe River protection area must comply with the density and open space requirements of the WRPA future land use categories. In general, it does not differentiate between the sending and receiving areas or the higher density main streets.

Okay. Are there any other questions for staff before we discuss or move into a motion? Melanie, anything?

I just want to clarify for purposes of the board that Mr. Bloater made a comment about the property was recognized by the tax collector as a lot of record. Just to make sure everybody understands, the tax collector does not determine buildability of a lot. They are there simply to issue a tax bill. Any property owner can go into the property appraiser or tax collector's office and ask for their property to be subdivided for taxing purposes, in which case they will be issued a separate number. So tax collector never looks at zoning, does not look at whether you can actually build on that lot. So just make sure everybody understands that. Understood. Thank you.

Okay. If there's no further questions for staff, I would entertain a motion before we move into discussion. And just as a reminder, we are looking at both tab two and three as the same under the same review, make a motion to approve. I have a motion. Is there a second second? All right. We have a motion in a second. Um, is there any discussion? I believe the answer to that is yes. So you had something you wanted to reflect upon or discuss.

Yeah, I mean, as far as the, how does this affect precedent for anyone else? Because what occurred is this was the misrepresentation Was it the permit was voided? And then they sold it representing that it still was buildable. So it sounds that remedy would be more about suit against the seller for misrepresentation. But how a lot of, I mean, who else could take a, say, well, you know, we were just told incorrectly.

Is that to your point, Melanie, that there's several remedies for this?

there could be civil remedies yes as far as setting precedent all of your cases are based on their specific facts so it does not set precedent for any other case coming in because again they would have to show the same criteria that you have to review in order to get an approval does anyone else have any topics they want to discuss sorry looking at page 23

and then page 25. And above it, it shows on there, there's properties built if you look at the lot above it. So with all of the concerns about the location and so on, those were allowed to be built at some point under what provision?

Can we go back to your chart? So the staff did go through, and I'm assuming these are directly adjacent properties. Okay.

But some are near, right? Correct.

So if you look at the year that those properties were developed, you've got 86, 89, 90, 82, and 65. The Wekiva River Protection Area went into the comp plan in 1991. So those would have been pre-existing developments.

Thank you. Appreciate the clarification.

Thank you. Any other discussion topics? For me, I'm reluctant to do anything that creates a situation that may, though it does not set precedents, may entice others to do things like this. There are, of course, I understand that people buy land all the time without doing full due diligence on it. But they do so at their own risk, essentially. If you want to buy land for cash and only do part of the due diligence on it so that you can move forward with the transaction, that's a choice that you make. So for me, it's more of a, this is not a lot of record. And by creating it as a planned development, we're basically creating something that doesn't fit with everything else around it because there's no other PDs out here. This would be changing the land use and the zoning to plan development for a 4.9 acre parcel. It was never intended to be done that way. It was intended to be like a subdivision of families that were all gonna reside, parts of the same family, that were all gonna reside on family land. So the fact that the owners knew that this had been voided them of their own volition went off and marketed these properties differently not the current owners the prior owners that they purchased from of course that they misled or misrepresented the developability of this site i i feel like that's a civil situation that doesn't fall upon us to correct It feels to me like this is something that they need to work out in the court system through all of the legal remedies that they have. Now, in the event that that's not fruitful, they could still sell the land for agricultural use, or they could use it for agricultural use. They just wouldn't be able to build on it. That's kind of where I'm at.

I mean, I think it's consistent with what's already there, even though Melanie explained that it's prior to 1991. So I don't have a problem with it. Okay.

Yeah. My only concern is that's why we put the, what kind of SF in place was to make sure that we didn't have some of these impacts going forward. And so things were changed to accommodate the issues of what I have a river protection. So it's not like nothing changed and we just decided to do it. It's because we have environmental concerns in that area.

Madam chair, I tend to see it the same as you. I think when rules change and we have to adhere to those rules, And unfortunately for the current owners, I feel bad for them, because I don't think it's through any fault of their own, but if there's a civil remedy, I think they need to utilize that avenue.

How long ago did they buy it?

I think he said about a year, because he said they've been in this process for about five months or six months. So I think he said they found out this was a problem about five months after acquisition, because Trilogy Homes is who was going to build the house there for them. So, I mean, I, I certainly appreciate their situation. That's, that's neither here nor there. I think what was done to them is improper. It should not have happened, but I don't think it's our responsibility to remedy it. They do have other remedies that could resolve this for them without it requiring us to change zoning and land use conditions in an area where we've decided we're not going to do that. And we've set these parameters in place, especially since this isn't even technically a zoning lot of record. Any other thoughts, discussion, questions? All right. I guess we'll entertain a motion for a tab or sorry, we're already in motion. So we have a motion in a second if there's no further discussion. All those in favor of rezoning and future land use amendment? Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign? Aye. Oh, sorry. I meant to say, let's redo that. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye. Aye.

All opposed, same sign. Aye. Aye. Can we get a show of hands on opposed? Yeah. All right, so two to four. Thank you. And just for the record, folks, I'm very sorry about that situation. I'm sorry that this is something you're going through, and I imagine there may be other parts of the county that stuff like this may occur in as well. I don't know, but I'm very sorry about your situation, and I hope that you can resolve it through other means.

Madam Chair, just to clarify, are you sending it forward to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial? Yes, that's what we're doing. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. We are now moving on to tab seven. Oh, sorry. Four. My bad. We kept four because we had a, but I think the speaker, you gave me your card back as the applicant, correct? yes was if that was the only card okay um does anyone want to hear a full presentation on tab four if not we can just we can just go forward with motion if no one from the public wishes to speak on it does anyone want to hear a full presentation of tab four okay is anyone from the public wishing to speak on tab four okay do we want to just go straight into a motion on four then

We have a motion to approve.

We have a motion to approve tab four. Is there a second?

Second.

A motion and a second. Is there any discussion? What's up, Melanie?

So we pulled it for regular agenda. Did you not have a card?

We had a card, but it was the applicant who had filled it out. Oh, okay. So that was the only speaker card that we had. Okay. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Okay. We will move on to tab seven.

Good morning, for the record, Eddie Montanus, Planner One with the Office of Planning and Zoning. I'll be presenting tab seven, otherwise known as the Dreamcatcher Horse Ranch and Rescue CUP. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit I'm sorry, the applicant is requesting conditional use permit approval for approximately 10 acres for a 199-foot monopole telecommunications tower with a waiver to LDR section 3.13.09 to allow the proposed telecommunications tower to be constructed off-center within the boundaries of the parent parcel within the agriculture district. The subject property is located at 10637 Toad Road and contains approximately 10 gross acres. The subject property is currently designated with the rural future land use category and zoned agriculture. The concept plan depicts the proposed monopole telecommunications tower within a 100 by 100 foot lease area, the engineered 50 foot fall zone, 30 foot wide access and utility easement connecting to Toad Road, the geometric center of the parcel, site data, tower setbacks, and the distance from nearest residential structures. Staff finds the CUP consistent with the LDR and comprehensive plan. This concludes my presentation. The applicant is present and available for questions as well.

Okay. Does anyone have questions for staff before we hear from the public? okay um we will we um we have four speaker cards on this so if you do wish to speak on it and haven't submitted one yet please do so we'll go ahead and start with maureen smith

Maureen Smith, 18520 West Apshule Road. I'm here to speak against the cell tower. I own land to the left, to the right, and in back of Dreamcatcher. So I'm boarded three ways by this property. And I certainly do not want a cell tower. I have agricultural exemption. I have cattle and horses and do not wish to have this looming over my property. Thank you.

Thank you. Jean McKee.

Good morning. My name is Jean McKee. I live at 18130 West Apshua Road across the street from the proposed cell tower. I was completely unaware of this until last night. I returned home from being out of town and my husband said we needed to attend today. So to be clear, I oppose the zoning change for the proposed cell tower. Zoning is out of my expertise, so I'll have to rely on you, the zoning committee's expertise and analysis for help. I understand that you cannot address directly some of our concerns, as you, like me, do not specialize in health risk assessment, property appraisals, and or neighborhood aesthetics however it is my understanding that you do specialize in property usage specifically property in lake county and for lake county residents i am curious as to whose request this zoning change is being considered and who the applicant is because honestly i can tell you we have not had time to dig into this we haven't had time to fully um understand all of the situation. But as, as we know from talking to our neighbors, it is our understanding that the person that entered into the contract to allow a cell phone tower to be constructed on her property no longer lives on that property. She sold it to a neighbor that is caring for her, her parents. and that the current location of where the property is or where the cell phone tower is to be proposed was coerced, they were coerced into thinking that they had to build it on their property in order for the new owner to take over this residence. So I'm curious as to who the applicant is because the applicant that originally entered into a contract does not live there. This property and the surrounding area is 100% residential and rural. The person that requested change, likely for personal financial gain, doesn't live here. Therefore, this should not even be considered. I noticed that this was listed as a consent and a non-confrontational item. Had we been given proper notice, you would have known that this would have been opposed. But we were sent a little card about this big in the mail during political season. So we actually had to fish ours out of the trash because a neighbor alerted us to the fact just a few days ago. I would ask for your denial of this proposed tower. and or at the very least you put this on hold. Verizon and its consultants have had a year to plan this and we need equal time in order to consult our county commissioner Anthony Sabatini and our property appraiser Mark Jordan. We would also need time to adequately research health concerns as well as consult with our own attorneys and the legality and the process moving forward. Unlike the Verizon rep here, he does not live on the street. I don't know that he lives in Lake County and this is his full-time job. We do not do this fully. We've been given a day or two just to assess the situation and it is regarding our homes. and where our children live, our property, and it does not fit. So I thank you for your consideration, and I trust that you'll make the best decision for the people on Apshua Road.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Arthur McKee?

If I have pictures to show, do I still want that side?

Yes. You can stand over here if you want to use the projector. Thank you. You will need to leave copies of the photos with the clerk.

I was going to email everything this year, but I haven't. Do I set it like that?

Okay. Oh, okay.

So I'm not quite ready for that yet, but.

All right, so here we go.

My name is Arthur McKee. I live at 18130 West Apshaw Road across with my wife who spoke before me. I have issue with the staff report and I have evidence that it's misleading and inaccurate. The staff report, according to the documents provided by Mr. Ossley, who represents the applicant, there are currently four cell towers within a three mile radius of us. That is completely false. There are in fact six cell towers within a three mile radius. And if you look at the coverage service maps for Verizon, we, including Verizon, we have full coverage with very fast cell service already. This does nothing to help community communications, which is one of the proposed things that says this is supposed to be helping the community in order to make the change. We don't have a need for more cell service. We already have six towers. In addition, one of the towers that was left off is the actual closest tower to our house and to this property. It's less than one mile away. It's .83 miles away. It's at the jail. Additionally, another misrepresentation in the staff report is that this fits within the development of the community. The current six cell towers that are within the three mile radius, none of them, and I repeat, none of them, are surrounded by residential properties. They're all on industrial, commercial, or in between what I call the tweener one, in between Highway 27 and the Turnpike. And I have pictures of those towers and of what they look like to show the staff, and also a picture of the coverage map. So while Mr. Ossie doesn't live here, he works for Verizon, and I will also say that these proceedings, we literally are scrambling, and they've had a year to get ready. And if nothing else, if you don't deny it today, at least give us the same amount of time that they've had to prepare in secret. So with that, I'm going to go to the pictures here. I want to see if this can show up on the screen. This is the jail cell tower, what I call the jail cell, because it's located at Lake County Jail, which is, that's the one that's .83 miles away. That's the second picture. I went to the jail... parking lot and took that picture that one is not in the staff report yet it's completely visible and some of the pictures that they took this was just to the right of the picture taker and they still omitted it I have a I could make a whole case on how this is misrepresentation on purpose there's this is the Sullivan roads cell tower again this one's on a power substation no residences anywhere close the second picture of that one This is the one I call the tweener. It's at Wilson Lake Road and US Highway 27. It's located in between Highway 27 and the Turnpike. No residents around. Another picture of that one. This one right here is on the Turnpike southbound entrance at Highway 27.

If you could please wrap up, sir.

OK. This is one for CF Industries properties. It's way back there on CF Commercial. That one is on there. This one is not another one that's not on there. This is the one at the sewage center, or at the sewage treatment plant off Scrub J and the Turnpike. This is Verizon's coverage map. Where's the gap? What's the purpose? Another cell tower? And I could speak to the purpose on another time, because there's more. This is my house. I'm within 1,400 feet of that tower. to the house, not to the rest of my property, but to the house.

I need you to wrap up, though.

And this does not look like any industrial site.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we have Robert Hubbard.

I'm Robert Hubbard. I live next to Art. I'm within 500 meters of the proposed tower. My primary concern today focuses on health risk. There's plenty of information on the internet about health risks. But I will tell you this, that even the insurance companies who write insurance for the telecommunications industry, they allow for risk excluding coverage for health damages from RF radiation, and that's the concern we have about the health risks. and they actually compare RF radiation issue to asbestos, and repeatedly rate cell towers, FG, 5G, and RF radiation as high risk. Within the documents from, since we're talking about Verizon, in their annual report, they state the following. Our wireless business also faces personal injury, wrongful death, lawsuits relating to alleged health effects, and so on and so forth. Most of the wireless companies will acknowledge that this is, they call it pollution, and they have to acknowledge it to their shareholders, that there's risk involved because of these health concerns. Primarily what I want to do today, though, is present to you a letter, and I won't read the whole thing because I don't think I have enough time. It's from the property owner, Allison Wheatley, with the proposed towers to go, and I'll try to summarize this quickly. She owns 10 Acres, Dream Catchers, where she rescues horses. She has 50 horses on that property. She has 60 volunteers that come out there all the time. The reason she can't be here today is because she's at our oncologist office. because she has cancer. She's had two major cancer surgeries. She's extremely concerned now. And it was alluded to earlier that the person who actually entered into the contract is no longer living in the property. Actually, Allison's daughter bought the property where the cell tower was originally to go, adjacent to her own property. and subsequently the tower was to be moved to Allison's property. She had no idea of the health risks, and now she has cancer. And I'm just gonna read this most important thing in her letter, and I'll leave you a copy of it. She says, I no longer consent to having a cell tower constructed and operated on my property. The decision I made previously was made without fully understanding the implications and circumstances that exist today. I believe I have a legitimate and compelling reason to reconsider the decision. And she's requesting that you deny the application. And I'll leave a copy of this with your staff. You can read the entire thing if you like.

is there anything else sir no okay just you can leave that with our clerk so that he has it for the record all right does anyone else wish to speak on this matter before we bring it back to staff the board and the applicant yes please yes please well if it's stuff that you presented here yes it needs to go to him thank you If you could just email them to him so he has them for the record, that would be helpful. Is there anything else? Anyone else from the public that wish to speak on this before we bring it back? Just give it all to the clerk. Thank you. All right. I'm trying to figure out how to proceed because he's got a letter from the applicant saying they withdraw consent. But that wasn't presented to county staff, so.

Correct. So we do have an affidavit in our file from this Allison Wheatley that was signed and notarized dated November 15th of 2025, authorizing RBW Services Group to file this application. If she is withdrawing her consent and no longer wants to pursue it, then she'll need to provide us a signed affidavit stating the same. I'm not sure how that's going to work with RBW services. I'm assuming they have a contract with her, but that will be a civil issue that she'll have to deal with. So until we have that signed notarized document specifically withdrawing her application, you would just move forward and make your decision based on what you've heard today.

Okay. So is the applicant here? Are you the applicant? You're the applicant. Okay. Is there anything that you would like to state before we... Yes, please feel free to come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Sir, were you? Okay, sorry. We've already closed to public comment, but you can give anything that you need to to the clerk.

Good morning. My name is Dan Osley. My address is 1003 Washington Street, Tallahassee, Florida. I thought I was the agent for the applicant. The applicant is the owner. We've been working with them for some time and others in the area to try and find a site. A lot of times it's difficult to find a willing landowner. We actually were working on the property next door. We had a contract almost ready and then Allison and her daughter were decided to buy that property and so we moved it from that which was formerly the English property to where it is now. So this request for conditional permit to allow 195 foot wireless communication monopole for Verizon at 10627 Toad Road. We know there's some opposition to that and I'd like to address those. On health, federal law says a local government may not regulate wireless facility on the basis of RF emissions where it complies with FCC limits. Florida law separately limits your review to land development and zoning issues. In your own code, section 3.13.04 makes FCC compliance the only radiation standard. Verizon's RF engineer has certified compliance, and that's in your record. On the property values, the neighbors have submitted two advocacy web pages. We went and read the actual studies that those pages cite. The most relevant one was done by their own lead author in Orange County, Florida, next door. About 2% and negligible past 656 feet. Their exhibit leaks that study itself. The largest effect and study can support is at 1400 feet, about a 2.5% on average, not the 20% the web page has advertised. On the photo simulations, those four viewpoints were selected by your staff, not by us, and three of the four disclosed the tower as visible. We're not claiming you won't see it. We meet every objective and standard 3.13.00 at nearly twice the required separation from homes with a certified 50 foot fall rate is entirely. And on the landowner, again, I had no knowledge. I've been speaking to her on a fairly regular basis. I know she's had some health issues and been trying to speak with her daughter. I have not spoken with them the last three or four weeks. They have not returned a phone call and was not aware of their position. But again, that's something we'll have to take up with them. But I'd like to move through the slides I've got here. This is the application before you. It's a 195-foot monopole, 199 feet to the highest upper tenants at 10627 Toad Road. It's for Vertical Bridge, which is the actual tower owner developer through their entity, the Towers LLC, being built for Verizon. Project overview. It's an overall site plan. Parent parcel is roughly 10 acres. It's owned agriculture with a rural future land use. The facility sits on a 100-foot by 100-foot leased area with controlled access. It's unmanned, generates minimal traffic, and the structure is designed to accommodate up to four wireless carriers. So this is a co-location opportunity, not just a single carrier builds. Two notes on the sheet for the record that I mentioned earlier. The engineering drawing still carries the prior owner's name. from the adjoining parcel. The current ownership is Allison and Loran Wheatley, which is reflected currently in our filing. Second, the sheet notes proposed impervious surface ratio of 4.33% after recalculating off the final values at 6.71. Both numbers clear the 10% gap, and it stays in compliance either way. Let's see. This is a map of Verizon's existing coverage in the project area. The red areas show unreliable service. Verizon's engineering identifies this as a coverage and capacity gap, and the requested height is what the RF team says is the minimum needed to close it and provide seamless coverage in the area. Side by side, you can see the before and after. The red gap on the left largely resolved to the green on the right once the site is on the air. That's service improvement this facility is designed to deliver. This is the compound layout. Same civil sheet as the overview, so the ownership label correction applies that I gave a moment ago. The compound sits off center of the parcel, which is where the waiver comes in. The Lake County ordinance requires that a tower be centered in the exact center of the property. In this case, that's not possible due to barns and other structures. The landscaping plan adds an evergreen buffer around the compound on top of existing vegetation already on the property. Combined with the fencing shown there It is a screening package the staff will be evaluating under the aesthetic impact standard. And these are the photo simulations. The four viewpoints were selected by county staff. I'd ask staff to confirm that for the record if it's helpful. Three are marked visible. One is not. Here are the existing and proposed conditions from the two residential viewpoints. We're not going to tell you the tower won't be seen. The simulation on the right shows it. What it also shows is the separation in the existing streetscape within. The remaining two viewpoints are along Apshoa Road itself, again visible in these frames. We're documenting actual conditions. The standard your code applies in it, whether it's visible, it's whether it's a substantial adverse aesthetic impact. The tower's been certified by BT Engineering as having a 50-foot fall radius. It's entirely within the lease tract. In the highly unlikely catastrophic failure, the design intent is for it to fail at the upper section and fall down upon itself rather than the full height. Verizon's RF Engineering evaluated the proposed configuration across all the operating bands, 700 to 3,700 megahertz. at both ground level and any accessible areas using FCC accepted methodology. The conclusion is that exposure does not exceed the FCC's general population limits. It said at the outset, this is also the only radiation standard your own code allows you to apply. CUP findings. Consistency with a comprehensive plan and local code. This is agriculture zoning. Rural future land use and wireless communications facility is an express rural support use. On effect and adjacent properties, the large agriculture parcel, existing vegetation, and proposed landscaping all reduce visual effects and unmanned operation means negligible routine traffic. On the speaker's point earlier about they're usually an industrial and commercial, that is the case a lot of times, but there's also a need for service in the rural areas. And so sometimes we can't always put them in the best locations. We have to take what we have. On undue adverse effects, minimal traffic and noise, the fall radius contained on the lease property, certified FCC compliance, and photo simulations that document actual anticipated visibility. On compatibility with the area, the monopole design minimizes structural bulk more than a lattice or guide tower. The small ground footprint lets the property stay in residential and agricultural use, and the structure is built to support co-location by additional carriers. On minimization of impacts, the monopole form, the landscaping and fencing design, ground disturbance limited to the designated facility area, and no tower lighting unless the AFA requires it, which in this case they do not. On non-interference with neighboring property, everything is contained on the subject property. There is no public or customer traffic. no water or sewer demand, and neighboring properties remain fully available for development under their own district regulations. This is the record that satisfies section 14.05.03, parens B of your code, impacts minimize, neighboring development non-impeded. The last two findings, adequacy of public facilities, an unmanned site doesn't need water or sewer, the impact on police, fire, and emergency service that already serve the area, adequacy of fire protection, emergency access via towed road. The applicant will comply with all applicant fire and emergency access requirements and final site plan and building permit review and remaining technical requirements. To summarize the documented wireless service need a facility that meets improved service request, requested height tied to Verizon stated RF objectives and engineered and certified fall radius. FCC compliance documented by Verizon RF engineer, visual effects evaluated through photo simulations rather than assumed, and a site design that addresses all CUP narrative criteria. On that record, the applicant requests approval of PZ2025-371. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the board. Happy to answer any questions.

Does anyone have questions for the applicant? I just have one, is this gonna just be a regular monopole or are you looking to make this one of the ones that's like camouflaged?

It'll be a regular monopole.

Okay.

Just to clarify detail, could you give us some detail on the relationship, because I'm having a little trouble understanding, the 50 foot fall radius versus 199 foot height?

Sure. And I'm not an engineer, a technical engineer, but I can, to the best of my knowledge, So towers are designed to fall depending on how they're, I guess, constructed. In some cases, the fall radius may be the height of the tower. And I know a lot of communities have fall radius within the language. And I think the setbacks here are 100 feet from the property line, which we meet. This site has been designed to fall within the 50-foot radius, which means within the 100 by 100 compound. So the way they designed that to my knowledge is that they build what they call a break point in the tower. And so again, in the unlikely event of a catastrophic failure is designed to fall within its on itself.

It's designed to like self contain and it's falling. Correct.

Yeah. I thought you mentioned something similar to that during your presentation. I just wanted a clarification. So it's basically like, like a building imploding, it collapses on itself.

Uh, yes. Okay. Similar.

Are there any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you. Are there any questions for staff?

My only clarification is that this all becomes moot if the owner ends up signing that waiver.

um that that says that they're withdrawing their contract with verizon but other than that we just move forward as if they're still behind this correct if the staff receives a signed notarized affidavit from the property owner that they are withdrawing their application and their agent authorization then yes this would not proceed to the board of county commissioners all right are there any other questions for staff Unless you have a direct gain or loss related to this, you have to vote.

Okay, anything else for staff? If not, I would entertain a motion on the Dreamcatcher Horse Ranch and Rescue Center Conditional Use Permit.

Motion to approve.

I have a motion to approve. Is there a second? We can go into discussion if there's a second. We need a second before we can go into discussion. Okay, we have a motion and a second.

So should the, and I'm curious, and you can help me, should the motion be that we, if we vote to approve today, whatever the discussion is, that it then is subject to the language that may come from Ms. Wheatley? Does the motion get put forth that way? or just a motion to accept? No, ma'am. It would just be a motion to approve. Thank you.

Okay. So second to the property owner potentially removing their allowance for the applicant to apply on their behalf, that's really the only sort of sticky piece of this from what I can see because we've had several of these come through. And as long as they comply, there's only so much that we're reviewing based on. So what I would suggest is sir that you follow up with the property owner to make sure that all that is in place and then maybe our staff want to reach out to make sure that they know what they need to do if they're intending to withdraw their approval to allow this to move forward we will have to look at what was submitted but yes the staff could potentially confirm with the property owner if she wants to continue we would we still have to have the notarized affidavit withdrawing though Okay, is there any other discussion on this matter? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed, same sign. Motion carries unanimously. All right, that's the last item on our agenda today. Is there anything else, staff, anything else we need to be aware of?

Thank you. No, ma'am. Our next meeting is on October 7th. Thank you so much. All right. Thanks, everybody.

We're adjourned.